"The Coming Earthquake in Photography" - Dirck Halstead

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0704/the-coming-earthquake-in-

photography.html

 

"...we can comfortably say that in 10 years photojournalists will only be

carrying video cameras."

 

Thought it was an interesting read. FYI. Click on link to read article.

Corrected <a href=http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0704/the-coming-earthquake-in-photography.html>link</a>.

My apologies - thanks, Michael. I never know where that automatic linker thingy will decide it's done for the day and leave.

Well, I guess that means in the future people won't be having the fun we have of looking at old still shots....

 

I really hate the idea of this. I can embrace change gbut don't take my newspaper and coffee away on Sunday Morning!!!

 

I still use a lot of film and I believe those photo journalists who could get great shots with their crown graphics had real skills.

 

I use digital too and it is a tool, but please don't make me a videographer....

Nice post, WJ. I think the article is correct. It's given me a new way of seeing my son's interest in shooting quickie movies on his P&S digital. I'd been discouraging it, because it goes through batteries and because you can't print a video... Perhaps I've been on the wrong track.

 

Agreed with Sandra - what will become of the stills we all grew up with? Digital videos with still capture run the same risk of becoming unreadable due to corrupted files or a change in format that all digital data runs.

I think it will take an enormous earthquake in technology to get 10 MP motion picture at a frame rate of, say 30 fps. For this would deliver an enormous amount of data, far more then HD video now does. Moreover, to get really brilliant still pictures (good enough for magazine print) without motion blur, you need to capture each frame picture with 1/125 sec exposure time or shorter. No video camera can do this right now. And no media in existance can store the data, neither by speed, nor by storage space.

 

I agree, that in the future it might well be possible to do all this, but the future is further off than the article suggests. And when this technology is availabe, I'd rather use it to get brilliant 20 MP images (enough for all thinkable purposes) at burst rates of 10 per second, with 1/500sec exposure time in low light.

<p>OK, I'll bite :)</p>

<p>this is one of those articles that predicts massive changes in the future simply because technology has improved a bit. It reminds me of those 1950s "image of the future" TV slots with Jetson -style cars and everyone flying around on personal hovercraft. I really can't see it happening like this at all - at least, not in anywhere near the 10 year timeframe quoted.

</p><p>

For instance:

</p>

<p><i>Increasingly, newspaper photographers are being asked to shoot video for Web sites.</i><br/>

Are they really? I'm still seeing a few dozen stills for every video in the newspapers I read (UK based). Generally the only video on newspaper websites that I see are either of staged events (press releases, recorded interviews etc) or are mobile-phone submissions from amateurs who happened to be in the right place at the right time. <i>The Dallas Morning News</i> is not the arbiter of world journalism, last time I checked.</p>

 

<p><i>First, most of the major camera manufacturers that are now associated with still photography will probably be out of business by 2016. Of the majors now selling cameras, I would put my money on only Canon to survive.</i><br/>

I don't know where he gets this from - presumably because Canon currently sell the most pro/am digital cameras, it follows that everyone else will go bust? What a load of rubbish.</p>

 

<p><i>Already, Sony is moving to become the number one still-camera company. Their newest top-of-the line digital still cameras are based on designs from Konica, a company they absorbed.</i><br/>

Last I heard, the Alpha line was not smashing up Canon's, Nikon's or even Pentax's or Olympus' market share. This also contradicts the previous point about only Canon surviving from the majors.</p>

 

<p><i>...an algorithm that allows those frame grabs to be boosted to 16 megapixels...</i><br/>

Either the inventors are about to become exceedingly rich, or this algorithm isn't as world-shatteringly effective as this implies. Is he really claiming that a 2Mp image from a video camera (with all that implies) will be a match for something from a current top of the line full-frame still camera!? Canon, Nikon et.al must be kicking themselves - all that money wasted on sensor R&D when all that was needed was some fancy software. I can see now why they'll all be bust in 10 years!</p>

 

<p><i>The financial imperative to newspapers is clear. Their salvation, in a time of plummeting ad revenues on their broadsheets, lies with their online versions. Online demands video. For this reason, we can comfortably say that in 10 years photojournalists will only be carrying video cameras.</i><br/>

Utter tripe. It may be true that paper-profits are falling (though I suspect this is not such a black-and-white issue), but going from there to proclaiming that all journos will carry videos is a bit of a leap. It's just not feasible or even desirable to have video alongside many, if not most, stories which a paper would run. If video was so overridingly popular, TV would have killed the paper press decades ago. It hasn't for a good reason - the two mediums are suited to different things. The article completely ignores this fact, presuming that if it's possible to view a moving image with sound, it will always be the preferred option - regardless of whether it's suited to the story, or whether people want to sit through several seconds/minutes of video which could have been summed up in one photo which takes a single second to take in. It's the weakest argument I've heard all year!</p>

 

<p><i>We predict that magazines (those that still exist) in 10 years will be bound on the top or bottom, not on the sides as they now are.</i><br/>

hmmm, yes, because people love to flick through top-bound books, don't they. it suits those of us with arms at the top/bottom of our bodies, although those freaks with arms to the left and right, who are more comfortable holding one page in each hand, will just have to make do. laughable.</p>

 

<p><i>...However, it is more likely that paper printing will be long since gone, and instead newspapers, magazines and books will be delivered on "electronic" paper, in which case the visual presentation would most likely be video in the first place.</i><br/>

people have been saying that for the last 10 years, and you know what? the more advanced 'electronic paper' becomes, the lower the sales of electronic books gets. papers may be replaced by an electronic equivalent at some point, but not until the cost (to the user) is similar, they offer the same experience (large pages which don't strain the eyes), etc etc etc. 10 years? don't make me laugh. </p>

 

<p><i>Today, if you go to The New York Times online, you will notice that right on the front page is a box displaying video, not a still photograph.</i><br/>

no, i see several stills and no videos on the front page. know why? because it's much easier for people to take in a photo alongside text. I see wounded people being carried from a building by uniformed officers, and immediately i know that there's been an attack of some sort. if that were video, i'd have to sit through a couple of seconds to work that out, even if the first frame was the same as the photo, because i'd be trying to keep up with the moving image rather than thinking of the stuff in the image. that's why photos support text so well - you can come back to them as you're reading the text. video requires your complete attention - a different thing entirely.</p>

 

<p>this whole article reminds me of a well known photography magazine here in the UK, with a weekly columnist who writes the most banal, lets-make-the-tiniest-development-world-shattering pieces of 'journalism' i've ever seen (well, i'm exaggerating there, but still). you can tell that these people have some inches to fill, and just saying "hey, you know what, video is going to get more popular" won't cut it. so they see how successful youtube is, and think "that's the future!". just like 10 years ago people were saying of 2007:</p>

<ul>

<li>we'll all be driving hydrogen fuel-cell cars</li>

<li>every home will have it's own AI computer controller</li>

<li>all voting will be done online</li>

<li>all office employees will work from home</li>

<li>blah blah blah</li>

</ul>

<p>does anyone actually seriously, honestly, buy into this stuff!?</p>

<i>no, i see several stills and no videos on the front page. know why? </i><p>

 

There's a whole section for Video, click on the link at the top. Note that there is no box for Still Photos.<p>

 

<i>It may be true that paper-profits are falling (though I suspect this is not such a black-and-white issue),</i><p>

 

"Suspect" based on what? In the last four years, US newspaper profits have dropped by 20% and there is no sign of a return to the past. Also, newspaper circulation has declined continuously, for both weekday and Sunday newspapers, since 1995 in the US. The statistics are fairly grim, but most industry observers (there are plenty of sources on the web so you don't have to "suspect") see a continuing decline on print revenue and increase on web revenue.

Note that Dirck's commentary and predictions apply (maybe) only to documentary

photography/photojournalism. I think it's a long shot extrapolating his views to the art world.

<i>Increasingly, newspaper photographers are being asked to shoot video for Web sites.

Are they really?</i>

<p>

Yes, they are really.

<p>

<i>Of the majors now selling cameras, I would put my money on only Canon to survive.

I don't know where he gets this from - presumably because Canon currently sell the most pro/am digital cameras, it follows that everyone else will go bust? </i>

<p>

Sometimes it helps if you actually read the article you're commenting on. In particular, <em>in the very next sentence</em> after the one you quoted, he explained that the statement was based on his opinion of Canon's video division.

<p>

<i> ...an algorithm that allows those frame grabs to be boosted to 16 megapixels...Is he really claiming that a 2Mp image from a video camera (with all that implies) will be a match for something from a current top of the line full-frame still camera!? </i>

<p>

I'm really starting to question either your reading comprehension, or general critical reasoning skills. By no means does a video camera need to have the performance of a full-frame 35mm still camera to obsolete such cameras for newspaper use.

<p>

<i>It's just not feasible or even desirable to have video alongside many, if not most, stories which a paper would run.

</i>

<p>

Now it's getting tiresome. I don't know if these are deliberate straw men you're putting up, but it's certainly very lame reasoning. I'll type slowly: you can get a still capture from video any time you want.

<p><i>

...the two mediums are suited to different things. The article completely ignores this fact, presuming that if it's possible to view a moving image with sound, it will always be the preferred option

</i><p>

It does no such thing. For reasons already explained.

<p>

<i>It's the weakest argument I've heard all year!</i>

<p>

Obviously you're not spending a lot of time listening to yourself.

<p>

Interesting? Hardly. Look, Wigwam, why not moderate your own "Amazing Predictions/Tendentious Arguments" forum? Should do well, given PN's worsening S/N quotient.

It will be intersting to see how it all really pans out. There is in fact more video being used by news groups on line, and in fact almost all mass media are movining more and more to web delivered and device acess content. (computers, ipods, etc etc.) But in terms of photography, why not cut to the chase and think a few steps ahead about what photography becomes if science gets to the point where we have some sort of technology that feeds right off the nervous system or cortical system and creates images, with full sensory detail including video, linear or non-linear imagery or even stills if you want, any way you can imagine it.

 

Maybe visual medium per se, will one day be passe, or relegated to advertising on big video screens for perusal while you move around, while for personal "reading" and "viewing" we share direct sensory information recorded and edited by other content creators. How will that effect the making of images? Does that level the playing field in terms of "talent", vision, insight?

 

That might be an interesting future scape discussion.

 

I wonder if we'll still be able to get that Leica glow with special contact lenses...(sorry).

It's been widely know the future of Photojournalism is in extracted stills from Hi-Res HD video.

 

For PJ use in papers the resolution is plenty. And the positive is two birds with one stone.

 

If you look at the push for higher and higher frame rates this only makes sense. Canon boast a 10fps with the 1D Mark 3. Thats approaching low frame rate video.

 

I think it's funny to think that journalist didn't see all this coming. It's certainly going to shake up the industry. Unfortunately for me, video is fun to edit, but I prefer capturing a moment using a still camera.

"From today, painting is dead" - Paul Delaroche, 1851.

 

People are still painting.

just thought i'd chime in with some first-hand knowledge of the newspaper industry. My dad is a programmer for the Orange County Register (second largest paper in Southern California), and has seen cutbacks, layoffs, and general decline in business and circulation in the past 5 years. He says he'll leave the company before it goes totally electronic in a few years, but the company is not going under. It is evolving, which means simplifying and streamlining its process for a new media and audience. The simple trend is that more and more people get their news online or from other non-print sources like TV and radio now. The online news industry is no where near as profitable for the companies, and requires a fraction of the production staff and time. Thus small news paper companies may be going under at an increasing rate in the next ten years. Will this affect pj's? sure. but not in the ways written about in the OP's link. that seemed like a pretty shallow and thrown-together article, that failed to consider the death-of-print perspective. I dont know which camp i'm in, if any. I'm taking an offset printing class right now, and my professor is convinced that print will be around forever. I seriously doubt it. anyway, video is a very effective media, and I enjoy using my mini dV cam to make home movies and record significant events. but i find still images more fun to make and to view for non-cinematic, non-fictional subjects.

 

my 0.02.

 

Jim

It's ridiculous to think, that all still photojournalists would learn a completeley new profession of videography. Still photography and cinematography are two different - however related - art forms.

 

Since it's not been mentioned here: moving image and still image have very different visuals and it is not trivial to shoot video footage that results into sensible still photography. There is a reason why, for example, movie productions also utilize still photographers for publicity shots.

Mr. Haqlstead's opinion is a result of what takes place when you live in an academic/isolated environment. Yes video is and will play a major roll in "photojournalism" and the presentation of information to the public. But to state that it will completely replace still photo is a stretch. We work with a number of the very top journalist and there is completely no discussion on "going video". Truth in fact is that they all still prefer to shoot film rather than digital. And will only shoot Digital when absolutely necessary. Perhaps his opinion has something to do with the fact that he edits a digital web site.

"It's ridiculous to think, that all still photojournalists would learn a completeley new

profession of videography. Still photography and cinematography are two different - however

related - art forms."

 

You are mistaking photojournalism for an artform. Art may result from it, and some

photojournalists may be artists, but photojournalism is primarily a commercial venture.

<i>We work with a number of the very top journalist and there is completely no discussion on "going video". Truth in fact is that they all still prefer to shoot film rather than digital. And will only shoot Digital when absolutely necessary.</i><P>

 

Have any names?

Also interesting to note that there is confusion between video/still and digital/film. This is a complete disconnect.

"Mr. Haqlstead's opinion is a result of what takes place when you live in an academic/

isolated environment"

 

Halstead isn't coming from an academic or isolated position. He comes from a totally

mainstream editorial background with years as a Time contract photographer.

 

"We work with a number of the very top journalist and there is completely no discussion

on "going video""

 

Like Jeff, I'm interested to know who these photographers are. Ten years ago when a

group of photographers sat around a table they'd be moaning about their agencies and

the fact that they didn't get paid enough, today they're generally discussing the relative

merits of Canon versus Sony versus Panasonic video cameras and the baffling complexities

of Final Cut Pro. I've no idea if video is going to sweep stills away, but there are very few

photographers who aren't paying a lot of attention to the idea that it might. There's no

shortage of credible stills photographers who've already made the transition to video -

Lauren Greenfield and Gene Richards at VII are notable examples, and they have their

counterparts at Magnum. At a lower level a lot of newspaper groups are investing heavily

in video, as are stock agencies that formerly dealt only in stills.

 

"Truth in fact is that they all still prefer to shoot film rather than digital. And will only

shoot Digital when absolutely necessary"

 

There is no such universal "truth" at "the very top" of photography. Photographers are

hired for their vision not for the recording medium they choose.

As soon as PJs accept this it's the end for them. If a photo (i.e. a CHOSEN moment in time) can be replaced by a slice of time cut 25 (PAL system) or 30 (NTSC) times a second, then logically ANYONE with the family vid-cam can become the equal of Nachtwey or Gilles Peress.

 

The 1st alarm-signal of this de-skills-isation of the PJ job came a few years ago at the Perpignan PJ-festival : the curators of the exhibitions wanted to include pix taken of major news events by anonymous bystanders with cell phones.

 

No wonder everyone says "PJ is dead". NO it's being killed...

I have an inside perspective on this. I am a shooter for a newspaper. I've been serious

about photography since I was 10 years old, and that was 46 years ago. I love film, I love

B&W, I love shooting still photographs. But let me tell you the bottom line, and this is

where Dirck is coming from. Newspaper staffs and PJ jobs are going away at a rapid pace.

We need to shoot stills for the dead tree edition, and video and stills for the website. The

newspaper isn't going to hire two people to do it and there often isn't time on hard news

to shoot both. So I'm learning video and video editing. Just because I love still

photography isn't going to cause me to hang up my cameras when it is all video. The

bottom line is the bottom line.

<p>I've shot news stories with 2mp cameras that looked great printed in a newspaper

with an 85 lpi dot screen. With a good photographer behind the camera, it doesn't matter

if the photo was shot with a Canon 5D or a video grab from decent DV camera, by the time

it's screened and printed on newsprint, you can't really tell the difference.

<p>If it takes shooting video to keep doing what I love to do (and it will), I'm going to

shoot video. Dirck, as usual, is right on point.

This fellow is also predicting the demise of "all still camera manufacturers but Canon." Bye-bye Nikon dinosaur, your days are numbered. HA! He also predicts wide-screen still photograph format to follow the trend away from 4:3 screens? Mmm-hmm. Stills in printed materials all being one format? No regard to composition?

 

I'm sure this fellow has as much journalistic knowledge in his thumb as I have accumulated in my entire life, but that is laughable.

 

Of course, he is chuckling in his portrait. It might be a bit of satire.

outdated link, I know. But I'll respond anyway.

 

Halstead can run his mouth off if he wants to, as is his right, but he's not altogether right or wrong. Technology improvements to video, storage, bandwidth (delivery) and the like *will* make video more popular with news editors in that it's more effective at conveying certain types of information.

 

But video isn't a be-all to everyone. It's rich in providing info...and so some extent, context. But it lacks the emotional punch of still imagery. Yes, that's right, the medium itself cannot match still imagery for packing emotion into a moment. If you disagree, reflect on this and see if it ins't so.

 

And most of all, there are *huge* limitations to video in that perceiving it requires full attention and gobbs of time. Far more so than a still image or painting or any fixed-in-time medium. Did TV kill radio? No? Because we will always have need in our lives to be able to do several things at once rather than watch a flickering light.

 

And besides, how many of us are willing to install screens in front of our commodes where the magazine rack used to be?

 

Halstead can say what he wants. But I think he overstated his point. He didn't have to, you know.