Is still photography death ?
D3Sshooter
Registered Users Posts: 1,188 Major grins
A question that can only be answered by time. However I had the opportunity to shoot with a RED Epic Video Camera with 4K at 120 Frames/ second and a dynamic range of 18 stops. What an experience, the footage was made in my studio for a fashion folder (yes a printed version). I just had the models to move around while they were filmed… Afterwards I could extract the right shots from the frames as a picture with 3840 x 2160 pix (ratio 16:9). More then good enough for a folder…..And soon the 8K will be on the market.
My view on this; for fashion and portrait it's great and delivers much better & easier images (models-expression-compo) as the model can move around far more freely. The photographer no longer needs to get the right moment captured, they are all captured. So we can focus on other things.
I think that this will kill the still photography (certainly fashion, portrait), it is the next step in the photography evolution (revolution ?). And I am open for it.
Sure there are some issues like the storage for post processing, the massive amount of frames to look at and select…. but then again with a proper server that is no longer an issue… Cost is currently the main issue.
Soon a sample shot (when I may release them)
What do you think ?
My view on this; for fashion and portrait it's great and delivers much better & easier images (models-expression-compo) as the model can move around far more freely. The photographer no longer needs to get the right moment captured, they are all captured. So we can focus on other things.
I think that this will kill the still photography (certainly fashion, portrait), it is the next step in the photography evolution (revolution ?). And I am open for it.
Sure there are some issues like the storage for post processing, the massive amount of frames to look at and select…. but then again with a proper server that is no longer an issue… Cost is currently the main issue.
Soon a sample shot (when I may release them)
What do you think ?
A photographer without a style, is like a pub without beer
0
Comments
www.cameraone.biz
Then again, I don't get out much.
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
Indeed time is money, I did find that it gives better pictures and the time is about the same. The shoot is faster and far more smooth. The selection is rather simple, watch the clip and stop when you see an interesting pause. Then just step the frame left and right It works rather fast. Or at least that is what i think. Once the shot is selected , you can process it like any other RAW picture since the video capture is in RAW…… The main driver is indeed the camera cost 40K dollar….. but that is as you stated a matter of time.
Or 120 frames per second..of course no one will look at all the frames. First I looked at teh movie/clip, once I saw an interesting shot, I just toggeld the frames back and forward…untill it was what I wanted. I found it even faster dan normal pictures ..
Especially if one works with clips and reels.
I have been in IT since the mid 80's ((tempus fugit (time flees)) and given the rate of change in that arena and that digital photography is heavily based on IT, I would expect that something like this would be used by high end commercial still photographers and trickle down.
I wonder how this would affect DSLR photo manufacturers and when?
Upgradeable technology - “Obsolescence Obsolete” is their tagline. I wonder how far that can go before an entirely new model is out, but it is intriguing.
I wonder if very high end wedding photographers would add this to their arsenal.
Phil
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
http://fiddlefoto.smugmug.com
Cheers!
Stix
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
http://www.red.com/products/epic
Link to my Smugmug site
Just to come back to he High Dynamic range of the RED, it is not abnormal i would say . Off course there is a trick but then again my Phase One has 14 stops of dynamic range.
16 Bits Raw:
That is what makes the difference in details and granularity in the shadows and black.
More light needed/continiue:
Well I think that it needs less light , especially with a 16 bit Raw recording where todays DSLR's are at 12 or 14, besides the high dynamic range 14 and 18 in HDx. Energy savings can apply with continues light, especially with CRI 91 LED panels and very soon O-LED's.
Would I move ?:
For the work I do, given that I could afford it absolutely…. The success is just a matter of price.
Wedding photography :
I think that it is most likely the best tool for it, you got the video and the possibility get great captures, especially for those fast moments . How many times did I miss a perfect scene, just because I needed to point and shoot.
I guess I must be biased, since I had the oppertunity to work with one as a demo…., the best is to go and rent one for a day and try it yourself…. I think they run at 250-300 Euro/Dollar a day .
Same rental as a Mid format camera.
http://fiddlefoto.smugmug.com
Cheers!
Stix
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/hdrx-high-dynamic-range-video
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
I just received a GoPro and learned it can shoot something like 120fps. I started to ponder the fact that if it's shooting at that rate for movies and I can parse out single images, why not use it for stills? Well, other than the fact that I'd have a bazillion frames to review, inherent quality, lack of control etc.
Yet for high-end stuff, I can definitely see that as a possible use of the technology
You could shoot for great still frames (higher shutter speeds), but you're still limiting your range of shutter speed options because they have to be compatible with the fps you're shooting at and the intensity of your continuous light source.
In other words, there probably is a range of conditions where you can pull out acceptable frames from a video, but you're limited in that range.
- No really slow shutter speeds.
- No really high shutters speeds.
- Shutters speed limitations affecting your aperture range choices.
- You're no longer able to use the strobe's brief flash of light for its motion stopping power, but instead relying on shutter speed alone with the relatively low intensity of light from continuous sources.
Just some ideas...This kind of digital still capture changes your lighting requirements from ambient/flash/studio strobe to constant lighting and will require additional equipment and a different mindset for most photographers. I don't see it being for everyone, but I can see where videoing a photo session may yield additional images that we might not have pressed the shutter for.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Yes indeed jmphotocraft that is how you state it. Capturing the right moment, is in still photography an art. This is a bit easier with video since you have more opportunities. If is "photography for dummies" , that I do not agree. Lets face it, light, DOF, composition, style, color pallet, WB, diafragma, shutter speed , frame rate, rolling shutter , effect of lenses, light modifiers, post processing ….. it still needs to be done , very similar too still photography. So in essence the only "dummy" aspect I see is the moment of the capture. That has know become easy, although if the moment is not captured on the reel then there is nothing to grap. So coaching the model is still and if not even more difficult, it's like being a film director. You need a script for the model…..Note that I do refer to studio, sports and model work.
I would call it "Photography for not so dummies"
How would it be photography for dummies? You have to set up light, setup composition, exposure, concept etc. The only difference I see with this is the use of continuous light when in studio or on location for portrait work. For sports you have more frames to choose for peak action. The camera does not make any decisions.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
My "sports shooter" friend is always bragging about the 11 frames per second he can get with his D4s. When you consider that a video frame rate that somewhat mimics film is 24 frames per second, my friend is halfway shooting video except it's in spurts rather than continuous.
Yeah I saw this response coming. I contend that anyone who relies heavily on FPS to get the shot has gotten lazy. Perhaps so much that they couldn't take a well timed single shot if they needed to. However, short bursts of 2-5 shots still require timing skill, and are a more efficient use of continuous drive. Of course if you're putting food on your table with sports shots, you have to make use of it. Although I have seen a particular full time sports shooter spraying and praying during moments my finger would be off the button. I just cringe at all the culling he has to do and all the unnecessary wear on his shutter.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Leapfrog Technology
In my experience with computer technology, one or more components of a technology often springs forward (leapfrogs others) and the other related parts have to catch up to really make use of the new or enhanced components, especially for the larger market.
To me this is nothing unusual. We see it in photography and tools we use to process digital images. For example, larger images created by newer cameras that use faster cards and readers , requiring upgrades to computers and software, etc.
Only this might be considered a major upgrade and leading edge technology.
Those who can afford it and are early adopters will work out the kinks and I expect have an advantage. Then it will reduce in cost and more of the masses will use it. The cycle continues.
I hope to be around to experience it.
Couple things to consider: 1. When did you first use a digital camera and what was it like compared to today? 2. "Moore's law is the observation that, ...., the number of transistors ....doubles approximately every two years." (Wikipedia) Some say this is slowing and maybe it is but I have heard that before.
The rate of change continues and I wonder if it will be faster for digital photography over the next x number of years.
Phil
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
@ JMPhotocarft , all photography is about "le moment décisif" as Cartier-Bresson demonstrated many decades ago. And yes one area of photography is more difficult then the other…just because things occur at a much faster rate. So is Sports one of the most difficult one to capture, think about a baseball hitting the bat, the power expression on the face at that moment . I invite you to capture that moment with a DSLR. That will be extremely difficult and one will need many attemps to get it right.
In game , it can not be replayed . So you have only that once change. With a 100 Frames/second @ 4K video camera, I will have the scene without any doubt. Sure I still need adjust the camera Frame and shutter speed, aperture etc... but that is the easy part. Simular to the DSLR. The only difference will be that the video camera will have the shot one wanted and the change of success for the DSLR is very very low. So who gets his picture in the sports magazine ?
I am a IT engineer, and I do embrace technology. If I can put it to use then I will.
I agree it's extremely difficult. In a whole season of shooting a league of about 450 kids, in over 5000 keepers, I will get only 2 or 3 shots with the ball touching the bat. Not even the 8fps of my old 1D2N could catch it. Once I stopped relying on fps, I got a lot more shots of batters with the ball in the frame. I've heard that the 1DX makes it a lot easier to get the ball on the bat. So I guess if you can pay for fps, then sure, use it carefully. The rest of us will hone our skills.
But I'm not sure how much it really matters to catch the ball on the bat. There are plenty of other moments during the swing that I find more flattering to the batter, like the follow-through.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Nice captures , and nice pictures. Catching the ball on the bat was just an example, I am sure that you know much more about the sport.
Anyhow, it is an interesting discussion, and we should actually try this once in reality.
One shooter with a DSLR (high end) and one with a RED….trying to capture a difficult shot….. the problem is that we live far apart…..So maybe someone in the discussion can try the challenge.
Regards, steve
I would like to rent a 1DX someday and see how many more ball-on-bat shots I can get.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/27/erin-pkg-moos-stun-gun-photo-shoot.cnn.html
.