There will be differences in the future, because although moving and still photography involve their own skill sets, the wider availability of video tools and their relative ease of use (compared to the past) and the amazing accessability of youtube and other resources will most likely mean that many creative people will choose in the future to use video to express that creativity when in the past they may have chosen still photography.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Originally Posted by cliveh
for 10years or more commercial photographers often times shoot DV (digital video )
burn a cd at the end of a shoot, and someone snatches stills from the stream of images.
if that is what you mean ... commercial photography will NEVER be the same again /
unless the client wants something "different" meaning the way it used to be ...
or something heavily "retouched" which used to happen with silver prints as well ...
Originally Posted by ic-racer
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
One of the most consistently overlooked aspects of still photography, in fact the fine art image, often oversimplified as 'composition', is the ability to tell a story in a single moment, frame, image – however you would like to define it. That is a moving image (double entendre intended). I always strive for it, and encourage others to tell their own story in their images, no matter the format.
Well, that's what they're doing with the latest iteration of dslrs, even proffered as a selling point by Canon.
Originally Posted by jnanian
So not only can you now get 18MP at 14 frames per second with the traditional "still" mode, you can get 4k video (8.8MP) at 25fps and frame-grab from that (and then airbrush the hell out of it anyway). The only thing you can't do with that is 'normal' flash/strobe lighting, has to be continuously lit (or natural/ambient).
Personally, I use high-speed on my 7D and EOS 3 very very rarely when shooting birds and sports. For anything else I'd much rather spend 2 hours building a lighting rig to take 1 photo I know is right than to spray off a few hundred and spend 2 hours sifting to find the good one. Unfortunately from the digital forums I used to frequent (not any more, I only come here now), I know I'm definitely in the minority: most photogs I know (even the ones who shoot weddings) actually prefer the latter.
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
f/64 and be there.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
As already mentioned,the ease of moving pictures display, and interactive capabilities increase, the demand in some areas for stills will decrease.
I'd rather see interactive movies of how to instructions, than a few stills.
At the same time, there are stills that I could explore every day for the rest of my life, and if they were movies they would not have near the attraction or impact.
One cannot, and never will, replace the other.
This thread reminds me of a fabulous movie, "La Jetee", made up almost entirely of stills with one 3 second moving clip in it.
Those 3 seconds were powerful.
It's hard enough taking good photo, taking good video? It's beyond me, I have a dslr and I only ever used it once in 4 years of ownership.
But my guess is that different brains work differently.
The upcoming generation of 4k digital cameras could be a game changer. The quality will enable photographers to shoot movies and pick the best still photograph and the quality will hold up. That's like having an endless contact sheet from which to pick the choicest images. It demands impeccable editing skills of course*.
Younger visual artists worry less about movie vs still, film vs video, absolute resolution, etc, than us older photographers and get on with the business of making art with whatever's at hand. I think they have it right. A good movie sequence is a rare as a good photograph.
edit: *Dr Croubie made a similar point.
Last edited by blockend; 06-25-2014 at 04:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Please note I'm not talking about movies here or long films. I mean the still image being partially displaced by a moving image/multiple image capture, that also maybe compressed or elongated over its timespan. Perhaps just 3 or 4 seconds.
“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”