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”
Whether shorts will replace still or not I don't know. There is a pull to add more frames because many, probably most photos, don't tell enough of a story.
One of the biggest challenges we have in still photography is telling a story in a single shot; putting/showing a subject in an interesting situation.
A form that I've experimented with just a little bit is creating a contact sheet from a single roll of film that tells a larger story. It's a way to add more context points from a single "event" into a single print. Could be a Norman Rockwell kind of idea (but not form) or maybe a still version of the movie clip idea, maybe its a printed version of the slide shows we/I enjoyed way back when.
Whatever the drive, there is a pull to add more frames because IMO many, probably most photos, don't tell enough of a story by themselves.
Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
and an awful lot of mumblings and muffled noises
Originally Posted by rorye
silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
artwork often times sold for charity
PM me for details
I see what you are referring to, but, in my opinion, it is not like having an "endless contact sheet." For example, let's just focus on the aspect of shutter speed alone: a moving image is most often comprised of images taken at 1/48 (for 24fps) 1/60 (30fps) of a sec, one using video acquisition for stills will never fully understand the craft that is involved behind still (unless you're that type of photographer that limits shutter speed and only just adjusts your aperture)
Originally Posted by blockend
This is why in cinema we often say a film is a gestalt, or a sum of its smaller parts: shots make-up a sequence and sequences make-up the idea. (Following the Formalist Film Theory)
Moving and still are different beasts all together. Yes, they share a certain technological and aesthetic aspects, but that is it.
"The real work was thinking, just thinking." - Charles Chaplin