THANK YOU !
Originally Posted by Maris
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"...
What Bill said. Different media with different skills for different purposes.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
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.
Originally Posted by cliveh
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 08:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"The real work was thinking, just thinking." - Charles Chaplin
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
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
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.