What is to become of photography?

I suppose many of you have heard of the Red One camera. It is capable of

taking 12 megapixel photos at a rate of 60 fps. Though it is meant as a high-

definition movie camera, it has disconcerting implications for still

photographers.

 

What will happen to photography when a photographer can take high-quality

stills at this speed? This is far worse than those with current dslrs that

shoot 10-15 fps. The whole idea of "capturing the moment" will be completely

wiped out, as the people with the best shots will be the people with the best

equipment.

 

Images such as this one will no longer be considered exceptional

http://www.photo.net/photo/2971040

 

Imagine, just going back home and sifting through thousands of high quality

images - you would most likely get the proper exposure every single time. I'm

sure that you could even modify it to shoot a photo at every single exposure

level every second or so.

 

So, what do you think? How will this camera, and others coming, change

photography?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to the Red One Camera:

 

http://www.red.com/cameras

Photography has already been changed forever...many times, in fact. If you are looking at

commercial professional photography, these high speed ultra high resolution cameras will

eventually change everything. Anyone with a few thousand dollars will be able to become one

of thousands of Walter Iooss'. The value of commercial professional photography will be

further eroded as anybody with the money to buy one will be able to get, at this point in the

future, the perfect action perfectly focused and perfectly exposed.

<p>But if you are not a professional and like shooting stills, you can just keep right on

shooting with your Leica M3. It won't impact you at all...unless, of course, it finally kills film.

"Imagine, just going back home and sifting through thousands of high quality images..."

 

Yes, just imagine doing just that.

 

You will still need to know how to use or make light , you'll still need a sense of the most dramatic instant, you'll still need to know framing and composition, you'll still need to understand the visual aesthetics of color, you'll still need to know how a photo works to make it more than jsut another run of the mill image.

 

The tools of photography change all of the times and while these changes effect what we can do in making a photograph and new photographic visions can arise from these technological changes, Photography isn't about tools: it's about connecting with other people through your unique vision of the world.

$17,000 for the body only! And its only 12Megapixels.

 

Think I will stick with my 20D for now.

Agree with Ellis. Much easier to take one photo and go home! But seriously, I see your point....which is why I try to use "large format" approach even when I am using 35mm -- in other words, thinking carefully about the image in the viewfinder, spending time composing, thinking about tonal relations and exposure, and then taking the photo. It takes time. But I think it is a lot more fun.

Photography has never been something that was about to change; it has always been changing. It seems too that every change was seen as something sinister by those who had managed to learn the old stuff just in time to see the need to learn new stuff.

 

I don't worry about it as much as I look forward to it. One thing that I constantly wonder at is my inability to predict the consequences of new photographic technology. Look at all the social consequences of cell phone cameras. I really didn't see that coming, so I suspect I have no idea what a camera like Red One will do to the culture surrounding photographic images.

Changes are inevitable, and have been since the beginning of time

I don't put a negative spin on such things. I can appreciate high tech help as part of the populist appeal of documenting daily life. Less worries about catching fast moving kids chasing the poor cat,or yes, hummingbirds feeding. When I took my videocam course with public television, I got tired of the part with cutting and editing tape. I imagine somebody has improved that in the last 10 years, but it was BO-RING...

 

But going through the tunnel 2 years ago on the Cascade Amtrak skycar,with a still camera, shooting the scenery, I wish I had studied up the little C5050's 'movie' mode and applied it.

On this interesting Q,It's pluses and minuses I speculate,AJS. Those magic moment shots will still be stunning; viewers will still say " Wow, what kind of camera do you use?"

It means more pimply faced guys with little else to do will spend money buying these things and then go to netsites to have endless conversations about which hopelessly long lens to stick on the end. Frankly when I look at an image, its sharpness, or lack thereof is way down, virtually non-existent as a factor of liking or not liking. The obsession with megapixel-ness, long lens-ness and the absence of decent pictures from this tide of mechanical "stuff" shows that camera companies have a great thing going.

Wow, imagine the time it will take to edit proofs for a 6-hour wedding with that monster!

"Wow, imagine the time it will take to edit proofs for a 6-hour wedding with that monster!"

 

And that is only after you recover from humping a 9lb camera around for 4 hours. The thing is a pig which will be relegated to pro-sports events.

 

My first thought was how many poor-to-mediocre images WE will have to weed through as these things lower in price into the clutches of consumer hobbiest! I don't even want to think of it.

Heard about the Wheel? Damn ...everything is going to change now!

Future is safe: $17,500.00 body only.

<i>

What will happen to photography when a photographer can take high-quality stills at this speed? This is far worse than those with current dslrs that shoot 10-15 fps. The whole idea of "capturing the moment" will be completely wiped out, as the people with the best shots will be the people with the best equipment.

<p>

Images such as this one will no longer be considered exceptional http://www.photo.net/photo/2971040 </i><p>

Far worse? My D200 is 5fps, I gladly welcome 15fps, 60fps and more. I'm not a luddite, I embrace new technology. 150 years ago any photo was impressive. Every portrait was someone sitting in a chair because they had to be still for 5 minutes. Improvements have allowed us to capture sports, the bird/insect you linked to, shoot in lower light, etc. HD video cameras will allow us to create images that you haven't even thought of yet but in the end it is still about the photographer, composition, color, and other artistic attributes.

Not worried in the slightest...<P>

 

<a href= "http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/

f934.cfm">This is the cam</a> I use for street photography. Superwide at 6x17, 160

megapixels, and 950 MB tiff files. I just point it randomly down the street and take a snap.

Back at home and looking at the digital image files, 90% of the time I

can find and crop something interesting that yields superb prints to 16x20 in size.<P>

 

Hanging on a custom top grain leather Luigi strap around my neck, it's also a swell ice

breaker and

conversation

piece for

engaging people on the street.

"...it has disconcerting implications for still photographers."

 

You'll have to explain this to me further. It's been possible to take high frame rate images with 35mm and 70mm film cameras for years. Do you find that capability equally as disconcerting? I don't get it. I find absolutely nothing disconcerting about another piece of equipment.

Just be phenomenal at what you do and pave your own way. If you are worried about

technology, then you have much more to worry about than just technology if you know what I

mean.

 

While I will most likely be hiring a video specialist when I launch a full service ad and stock

agency early next year, there is no way in heck I am going to stop shooting stills, ever.

This fits well with the "Spray and Pray" mentality we see so often now that digital has taken such a deep root.

 

I actually wondered how long it would be until someone simply shoots video and then pick and choose stills from that? Perchance I spoke too soon? How good someones work happens to be will be directed by how lucky he happens to be at that given point in time.

 

It seems most is headed in the wrong direction, but no one is strong enough to hold back the tide.

 

Dinner has been replaced, or matched by McDonalds or some other fast food. Just as we've found it acceptable to suck the flavor from our food, why not suck the art from our photography?

 

Art will always be art, however. I'm sure Monet or any of the other great artists could have used crayons and still created works of beauty. It is, in the end, in the eye and mind of the beholder.

 

Ah, I feel better!

<i>This fits well with the "Spray and Pray" mentality we see so often now that digital has taken such a deep root.</i><p>"Spray and Pray" started with the introduction of 35mm. If it's such an issue, we should all revert to glass plates, that would make it so much better.

I think I'm going to need a larger hard drive.

I think we'll be seeing devices like RED morphing into still cameras at user's option....certainly in advertising photography.

 

$17,500 is cheap by comparison to medium format digital. If a photographer can justify a digital Sinar he can certainly justify RED.

 

If an advertisement is to be on the most important medium (TV) then still becomes even less valuable than its become recently ( photography rates have not kept up with inflation for several decades).

 

We'll see new imagery: For example, multiple video "frames" can merge digitally to make one "still" image with interesting implications for depth of field and visual subtleties we don't often see, such as localized zooming and localized focus or localized motion within "still".

 

A RED "frame" may be "only" 12MP but stack sixteen of them up (1 second?) and you have far more information than MF digital or 8X10 sheet film.

 

A park in the local university is used regularly for weddings that involve TWO videocams, TWO or THREE still photographers, and an art director. Photographers who can barely afford 5D won't survive long on their own unless they target the lowest end of that market, not to mention serious commercial projects.

<i>It seems most is headed in the wrong direction, but no one is strong enough to hold back the tide.

<p>

Dinner has been replaced, or matched by McDonalds or some other fast food. Just as we've found it acceptable to suck the flavor from our food, why not suck the art from our photography?

<p>

Art will always be art, however. I'm sure Monet or any of the other great artists could have used crayons and still created works of beauty. It is, in the end, in the eye and mind of the beholder.

</i><p>

I agree with your last statement. It's in the eye and mind of the beholder. I don't know why some of you are getting bent out of shape over 60fps. I saw hooray, bring it on. I'm for freedom of choice, if you like it use it, if you don't like it then don't use it.<p>

I hate McDonald's too. Guess what? I've eaten there 3 times in the last decade. I hate stories about Paris Hilton too. I change the channel. If you hate the advancement of technology then turn off your computer.

"How good someones work happens to be will be directed by how lucky he happens to be at that given point in time."

 

Not hardly. You have an awful lot to learn about making images if you really think that's how it works. Luck has little to do with the ability to "see" the image in the first place. That's what it's really all about.

 

All of the continuous image capability in the world wouldn't have helped Weston make his still life images - since many of the exposures were hours in length. The only "luck" involved had to do with people not causing the subject or camera to move during the exposure.

 

There are way too many photographers that think luck is what makes an image...those are probably the same people that think cameras take pictures. You know,..."That camera sure takes good pictures..."

 

If you believe the last statement, then for sure the RED is for YOU.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Beate-Gutschow-LS-Natasha-Egan/dp/1597110469?

ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191966210&sr=1-1">Here is an excellent example</a> of what

digital photography can do that was previously impossible (<a href="http://

www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/2007/10/review_lss_by_beate_gtschow_1.html#more">also

read this review by JMC</a>).

It's been said several times, but it's worth saying again: the tools may change, but the art itself will still be around. A single image can be so much more powerful than even the best video. And again, even if you're shooting with a camera that can take 60 fps, you still have to think like a photographer.

 

Fundamentally, I see no difference between the Red One and my $400 Pentax DSLR. Sure, you can do a hell of a lot more with the Red, but if great photos are your goal, you can get there with either tool. Photography is photography, no matter how you capture the image.