Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,881   Posts: 1,629,593   Online: 951
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11
    Dr Croubie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rAdelaide
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    ... video with slow pans of the B&W still images...
    Maybe it worked in that instance for the subject at hand, and I don't want to take that away from you.

    But honestly, every time I see a still photographer's website and portfolio, and they've uploaded all their photos into some flash animation that just randomly pans and zooms in and out of their images, I instantly close it before my fist goes through my monitor. No. Bad. Ugly. Stop it. If you're a still photographer, show them still. I can't appreciate the detail and the beauty of the photo if it's moving all the time. If I wanted to see movies, I'd go look at a videographer's website. I'll be glad when this fad is over.
    An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.

    f/64 and be there.

  2. #12
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    I think youtube is a exceedingly awesome use for the Internet. To me, it beats Cable/Satellite TV for creativity, innovation, entertainment. I only use my TV for youtube and netflix, and youtube is 10x the creative realm that netflix is.

    Recording video well is tougher than stills. Things like sound, holding the camera steady are the basics and harder than most people can handle and still pretty impractical with DSLRs and cell phones. It's easier to use a shoulder mounted VHS camcorder if it weren't for the quality digital video can do.

    Like Croubie, I don't watch news videos much either. Annoying ads preceding the videos, disruptive in the workplace, etc.. I can pull up a photo and appreciate that though. Still photos will go away like text or paint or pencil as a medium. Not.

  3. #13
    Ricardo Miranda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    What is a "moving image?" They are all stills. What is your cutoff between seeing a 'still' or 'moving' image? 30 fps, 24 fps, 18 fps, 6 fps, 2 fps, 0.5 fps? The average museum viewer sees a new picture each 30 seconds, that is 0.03 picture frames per second.

    This discussion of movie vs still is not new with respect to "still" cameras. You all have seen this, right? I guess next we will be discussing if color pictures are really better than B&W now that they can be produced so easily by a cellphone... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwv82GIrHOg
    I love this movie!
    Fed 2, 4, 5
    Zenit 11, 12XP
    Olympus OM-1 MD, OM-1N, OM-2N, OM-2SP, OM10
    A bunch of Nikons
    Ferrania backer

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Croubie View Post
    every time I see a still photographer's website and portfolio, and they've uploaded all their photos into some flash animation that just randomly pans and zooms in and out of their images, I instantly close it before my fist goes through my monitor.
    Done correctly, there are no random pans and zooms; it requires a great deal of planning to have the desired emotional impact. Note too that appropriate music is an important part of the emotional impact.

  5. #15
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,960
    Images
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    Done correctly, there are no random pans and zooms; it requires a great deal of planning to have the desired emotional impact. Note too that appropriate music is an important part of the emotional impact.
    How true, once you introduce movement/sound the computations of getting what you want are a zillion +.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Movies and photographs have their own niches. Photographs can be mounted on the walls. It is hard to mount a movie on the walls.
    Unless it is a long wall!

    Jeff

  7. #17
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    768
    Stills versus movies? Different means to different ends!

    Until stop-action still photography was invented no one knew what moving things really looked like. Even the great old painters got breaking waves and galloping horses wrong.
    Until long exposure still photography was invented no one knew what a moving image integrated over time looked like. The great landscape painters never painted a waterfall like a flow of cream.
    Think of still photographs as physical facts.

    Movies are narratives and narratives, at least sometimes, consist of a stream of successive facts.
    Last edited by Maris; 06-24-2014 at 07:07 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: clarification
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,418
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    Stills versus movies? Different means to different ends!

    Until stop-action still photography was invented no one knew what moving things really looked like. Even the great old painters got breaking waves and galloping horses wrong.
    Until long exposure still photography was invented no one knew what a moving image integrated over time looked like. The great landscape painters never painted a waterfall like a flow of cream.
    Think of still photographs as physical facts.

    Movies are narratives and narratives, at least sometimes, consist of a stream of successive facts.
    THANK YOU !

  9. #19
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,810
    Images
    47
    These are two completely different media to me, movies compared to still photography.

    I'm working with a filmmaker, who I'll hopefully be providing some stills for...

    Part of a discussion we had... I told him I was never able to make movies and he felt he was unable to take stills...

    He added... "not to compare myself talentwise at all, but approach wise, I am more of a Tarantino and less of a Kubrick"

    So in that spirit I told him... "by the same token I am more an Adams than a Mortensen"...

  10. #20
    yurisrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New York Metro Area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    With the moving image becoming more common in digital photography, do you think the still image is now or soon resigned to history?
    Not at all. Both still photography and motion pictures are different crafts in many respects. One cannot compare one to the other; they are both unique forms of expression.
    For example, consider how in still a single 'fine-art' image can draw many different ideas by the audience/viewers, and how in the motion-picture it is the director's* idea(s) being conveyed directly to the audience.

    Now-a-days, all that is different is the ease of use for acquiring digital video upwards of 2K on the consumer/pro-sumer level. In short both will live on even on that day that we have Star Trek-type holodecks.
    Last edited by yurisrey; 06-24-2014 at 07:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    "The real work was thinking, just thinking." - Charles Chaplin

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin