Who will follow?

[todd_k.]

There is idea floating around that has really gotten me thinking about the

future. It revolves around recent advances in digital video. The idea is that

technology will evolve to the point that it will be possible to pull quality

printable stills from the video. At that point most wedding photographers and

photojournalists will transition to video as a primary medium for weddings and

pj assignments. The photographer who does not offer video plus still images

will be toast. I am not saying that this is good or bad, I guess it is product

and the bottom line that counts. Personally, I am not sure that I am really

interested in video, in fact I know nothing about it. Thats not true, I can

program my VCR to record a TV program, but that is not going to cut it. So if

the industry really starts heading that direction then I will have to make a

decision, jump in, jump out, or stick to still photography, and keep building my

portrait business. I guess that smart thing to do would be start learning now

and offer video as well as still photography so that when the time comes I am

not starting from scratch. What to you all think? If the industry transitions

to all video capture who will follow?

[picturesque]

I would, but probably retain the right to shoot stills also.

[nancy s.]

The industry is transitioning and has transitioned more quickly in the last 5 years than it has in the previous 25 years. In the previous 25 years the advancements were in camera technology (Auto focus, Auto Exposure, Micro chips that allow the lens and the camera and the flash to all "talk" to each other etc.) and film technology.

 

Digital has forced rapid change utilizing the camera technology already there and building on it and adding computer technology and skills... and allowing the photographer to post process an image he might have tossed on film into something acceptable and, sometimes, even really great.

 

I do not think the rapid pace of change is about to slow at this point. I think the video/stills is probably a future change.

 

The question is, who will embrace it? Will the customer embrace it???

 

I still shoot film and I hate dealing with the computer and learning software. Meanwhile, those behind me shoot digital and embrace the computer.

 

And those of the future will be building on this and the video with stills may be taht future, if customers see and advantage and want it.

 

Personally, I doubt I will go that route. I don't relish the idea of shooting video.

 

So, it is likely that it is a good thing I have a day job! :)

[randmcnatt]

Which advances? HDTV is stuck at 1920x1080, the last I heard ILM was still playing with 1000-line triple interlace, and it still requires a small warehouse full of hard drives to store a reasonable length movie.

 

Cameras, still or video, aren't getting better, they're just getting smaller.

 

The real disruptive technology seems to be camera phones. As soon as they come out with a 12mpx phone with interchangeable lenses I'll have to think hard about switching from Nikon to Virgin Mobile.

[todd_k.]

Here is a start Rand. http://www.red.com/

[annealmasy]

If you've ever shot video, you know that the creative process is really different from shooting

stills. If I was shooting a video for video's sake, I would shoot VERY differently than if I were

shooting video for a photo's sake. I can't see the benefit of crossing the two mediums.

 

I'm open to whatever happens in the future, but still photography is its own art form. I really

have a hard time seeing the two formats become one.

[Jerry_]

I, for one, have not seen the dude or dudette who can place two or three video cameras on tripods, and manage a camera (for stills,) at the same wedding. [i have seen one bride's dad put a camera in the balcony of the church, only to find out the battery 'died' before the service started. His net result - zero - for his unattended video attempt.]

 

 

 

 

The first photographer to provide wedding proofs via cell phone will likely corner the market.

[KenPapai]

Exactly -- video stills captures are many years away from being usable except as a total gimmick. What? Like was said, their resolution is far too low. 24 frames/second constantly even at a paltry 6MP capture per frame -- where in the world will you find a monster machine like that? 3 minutes of video would produce 4320 frames -- nearly 14 GB of data (JPG) to hold this paltry 3 minute shoot.

 

Get Realistic. Think. Do the aritmetic. We are far from something like this (assuming you can get such a video camera by the year 2009 for under USA$10,000. LOL. Won't happen folks.

[el_fang]

I don't know that you can necessarily assume that the transitions happening in mainstream photojournalism will apply to weddings, where clients still expect to pay a pretty penny for specialists in separate fields of photo and video. Anne touched on the reason why - it's a totally different way of working, with a completely different and complementary product, and most clients will want the best of both for (what should be) a once-in-a-lifetime event.

<p>For newspapers and magazines, video is a way of jazzing up their web content in an attempt to regain a lot of the audience they've lost over the years to TV. However these guys are working with very tight belts, partly because of shrinking readership, and partly because in most cases the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3063386&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312" target="_blank">ad revenue coming in from the web is nowhere near what they were used to from print</a>. Making their still photographers proficient in producing multimedia packages is an effective cost-saving measure over hiring and maintaining a separate video crew. OK, I'll admit: beancounters are beancounters. I'm sure one day soon I'll hear of a bride who was too cheap to hire a proper still photographer and just asked the videographer to frame grab. But brides like that are the same ones who today are crying over the fact that they "hired" Uncle Bob with his shiny new dRebel, and have no good pictures to show for it.</p>

<p>Retired Newsday photographer Dick Kraus has a commentary on this issue in this month's edition of <a href="http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0708/assign/dk_COMMENT0708.htm" target="_blank">The Digital Journalist</a>.</p>

[gene_b]

Great post Todd! I see the move to high end video such as the Red cameras becoming the norm for wedding and event photography in the near future (5-6 years). The use of PL lenses will make the industry so much more exciting and will open huge creativity doors.

 

There will always be still photography used for portaits, print, product, advertising, etc. but for wedding photography the still photography days seem limited to me. The future looks bright and we should embrace it and look forward to it. There are those that keep saying that the digital cameras are a fad and film is still king but those are the same guys that still buy vinyl records for their better sound quality.

 

Frame grab at 4520x2540 is not really a frame grab anymore is it, El Fang? And Ken, why is it so hard to believe that storage of about 200GB per hour of video is so hard to come by? Even with today's technology that would be relatively inexpensive.

 

Gene

[fotografz]

I wouldn't be to quick to discount the future there Ken. And it won't necessarily be a

hardware future .... (we still shooters tend to be hardware oriented) ... it'll be the software.

 

There are a couple of hints at "what may be" that already exist.

 

First, the trend toward viewing things on TVs and computer screens ... even our still

images. I seriously doubt that trend will abate, but instead will become the norm as the

next generation of clients evolve into the market. It's conceivable that the printed still

image as we know it will become the oddity.

 

Second, the world wide proliferation of video, even in cell phones. How many TV programs

have you seen that tout "World's Funniest Still Photo" ? Many late breaking news stories

are now "filmed" by citizens ... to the point that news organizations actually solicit them

openly.

 

Technology that already exists: a program that seeks images shot by anyone of a given

subject (video or still) that is compiled and produces a virtual 3D image that you can move

into, around and through ... at such a "compiled" resolution that you can move from an all

inclusive wide angle shot of a scene to an individual letter on a product being held by a

person you can barely see in the distance. Not science fiction, actual science fact.

 

The fact that major motion pictures are already being edited on programs like " Final Cut

Pro" that anyone can buy and learn to use.

 

Memory capability is producing revolutions every 2 to 3 years ... with each revolution

coming at a quicker pace than the last. An 8 gig card now cost less than a 1 gig from a

short while ago. Computer stores now have 2 TB drives, which will be less than $500.

with-in a year. DVDs are becoming BluRay DVDs ... then what?

 

The proliferation of wifi is poised to absolutely revolutionize the viewing of anything in

near real time. All one need do is use their imagination.

 

I create motion images for a living. I know what's here and what's coming because my

livelihood depends on it. It is the dominate form of entertainment, commerce, and

communication and will reach all sectors of imagery with-in a generation.

 

The counter to that is the production of stunning conceptual stills and decisive slices of

life that the motion blurs by ... whether that is a function of deliberately taking stills, or

selecting them with an editing and enhancement software program remains to be seen ...

my bet is the latter not the former.

[el_fang]

<i>"There are those that keep saying that the digital cameras are a fad and film is still king but those are the same guys that still buy vinyl records for their better sound quality."</i>

<p>Wrong analogy. The digital and film you mention are two working methodologies whose specific primary reason for being is to produce the same final product - a still image. Video is shot for the specific primary purpose of a moving image with sound, with stills taken from it as an afterthought. I do both still and video for my paper, as it's a necessity these days. Video is interesting in its own ways, but I respect still and video as separate media, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Certain stories are better adapted to one over the other. We're lucky at our paper to have editors who realize this, and it's why video cameras haven't replaced still cameras at our paper - the Sony DV's have been issued to us in addition to our Canons, not in lieu of.</p>

 

<p><i>"Frame grab at 4520x2540 is not really a frame grab anymore is it, El Fang?"</i></p>

<p>A still image taken from video is a frame grab. Resolution doesn't have anything to do with that definition.</p>

[el_fang]

By the way, if it's not obvious by now, I'm not arguing video vs. film from the basis of quality. I'm from the camp that says 6MP in still photographs is more than enough for all but the most demanding uses, and in many ways video is now more than "good enough" purely from a quality standpoint. The point I'm trying to make is that still and video are two different media requiring two different mindsets. From having used both in a professional environment, I'm not yet convinced that one can so easily replace the other.

[gene_b]

El Fang, your paper only makes you carry both video and still cameras because your Canon is not good enough yet to shoot 25-30 frames per second and your Sony is not good enough to capture 12MP frames. It's just a matter of time before the line between the two will blur and they will become one. It's called the future and it will be here before you know it. The beauty of this is that you will not have to be confined to a single end product, a photograph or a video. you will be able to get both and more.

 

 

 

 

I beg to differ. I use today a camera that shoots 8 frames per second. Why do I need this? Because there are times when you want to capture a moment that comes at you in a fraction of a second and unless you have the luxury of time to go back and stage the shot capturing video at 12mp per frame at 25 or 30 fps would be wonderful. Your paper makes you cary two cameras just because the Sony is not there yet in terms of quality and the "frame grab" looks like a "frame grab". Thank you taking the time to explain what a frame grab is, you know what I was refering toand any grabbed stills would not look that good. Now imagine your Canon taking 35fps... would you still need to cary the Sony DV?

[el_fang]

<i>"El Fang, your paper only makes you carry both video and still cameras because your Canon is not good enough yet to shoot 25-30 frames per second and your Sony is not good enough to capture 12MP frames."</i>

<p>I'm a bit mystified at how you know better than I do about what our editors are thinking since, as far as I know, you don't work here. Anyway, the quality of newsprint is such that you'd have a pretty hard time distinguishing between a frame grab from a decent modern DV camcorder and a photo from a pro quality SLR camera. The same goes for web display jpgs. We don't need 12MP frames. Many of our photographers, myself included, still use the original 4MP 1D. That's not the problem.</p>

 

<p><i>"I use today a camera that shoots 8 frames per second. Why do I need this? Because there are times when you want to capture a moment that comes at you in a fraction of a second and unless you have the luxury of time to go back and stage the shot"</i></p>

<p>I'm not even sure how many frames per second my 1D can do. 8? 8.5? 10? Something like that. I don't know because I've never used it beyond single-shot setting. I am also ethically prohibited from staging my pictures. But again, that's not the problem.</p>

<p><i>"Now imagine your Canon taking 35fps... would you still need to cary the Sony DV?"</i></p>

<p>Yes, because the Canon doesn't (yet) record full-length sound. Once it does, however, I wouldn't need to carry the Sony DV... just like if the Sony DV could fire a flash or isolate subjects like my 85/1.2L, I wouldn't need the Canon. But that's not the problem. The problem is, the way I work when I'm shooting still photographs and the way I work when I'm shooting video are entirely different. That's the point I'm trying to make, and one that you keep ignoring due to your fixation on quality - an argument that's moot. An excerpt from Dick Kraus' article that I linked earlier, which you obviously either haven't read, or don't understand:</p>

<p><i>"The newspaper photographer is looking for one shot; preferable an open shot where the "perp" doesn't have his/her hands over his/her face, or even a jacket covering the head. Often the "perp" stumbles along bent over at the waist in order to duck the cameras. Most still shooters will go to great lengths to try to get an open shot. This includes holding our cameras down around our ankles as the "perp" is led past us. Or, even laying on our bellies to get a low enough angle to get the one open shot. The video people can't risk that, because if they do get an open face, they can't jump up and pan with the moving subject to get enough of the sequence to allow a voice over by the reporter.They don't mind missing the face. A long sequence shot coming out of the precinct doors and walking past a mob of media and being shoved into the back of the police van will allow the reporter's voice over enough time to explain the situation to the viewers. Even if a photographer used the latest HD video camera, which discipline would the shooter follow; still or video?"</i></p>

<p>The point is this: <b>quality</b> still photography and <b>quality</b> videography are separate disciplines. I know this from doing both on the job. Taking stills from video is a perfectly acceptable practice. Most people probably wouldn't know the difference, and most of the ones that do probably wouldn't care. However, it's a convenience and like all conveniences, compromises have to be made. It's been generally my experience that stills lifted from video are of poorer aesthetic and storytelling quality than original still photography, with the differences in approach at the root of the matter. It has nothing to do with fps or MP.</p>

[el_fang]

Just to add more fuel to the fire... is this still photography, or video? Would a "pure" approach to either have been more effective?

<p><a href="http://mediastorm.org/0011.htm" target="_blank">Iraqi Kurdistan, at MediaStorm</a></p>

[kevin cook - stratford upo]

I remeber when it was stated that the 'new cine camera' signalled the end of stills photography. I remember when the first 'VHS' camera signalled the end of stills photography, I remember when the first digital video camera signalled the end of stills photography, I remember ..............................

 

Oranges and apples, they simply are two different forms, neither one replacing the other.

 

Now who on earth would want black and white now that we have Kodakolor or Eastman color? Ermmmmmmmmmmmmmm lots actually :-)

[el_fang]

<i>"Oranges and apples, they simply are two different forms, neither one replacing the other."</i>

<p>At least from a newspaper standpoint, video is indeed replacing still photography, with stills being pulled out of video as frame grabs when needed. There are a few holdouts like my newspaper, but for the most part it's happening, and it's mostly due to economics.</p>

<p>Our photographers still carry dSLR cameras because that's what we know how to use to capture still images, and our paper values that. Once we are all comfortable with getting into "stills mode" using our new camcorders, we will probably just carry the camcorders. One less thing to carry (or multiple things, if you count interchangeable SLR lenses), and one less battery to keep charged. The quality is already good enough, right now. It's just a matter of getting comfortable using a new tool.</p>

<p>But when I use the camcorder to shoot footage with the intent of lifting stills, the resulting footage will be unusable as video - too many camera angle shifts, for one thing - anyone trying to view it as video will get an instant headache. On the other hand, when I'm shooting footage with the intent of showing it as video, I'll have lots of continuous shots to ensure I don't break dialogue, and I'll need to keep the camera angle steady throughout to prevent the headache-inducing (and unprofessional looking) camera jitters. If you lift a frame from my "to-video" footage it probably won't look as interesting and dynamic as what I could have done in "to-stills" mode. There is a gray zone, of course ...but for the way I work, the difference will be there.</p>

<p>In the end, like you said - two different forms. Hopefully the future bridal market will have room for dedicated practitioners of each.</p>

[gene_b]

El Fang, I just love the example you are showing. Beautiful work! This is EXACTLY what I was talking about! Is it video, is it photography? Who cares? The end result is a great way to tell a story. I guess that everything else is irrelevant.

[john_h.1]

"Cameras, still or video, aren't getting better, they're just getting smaller."

 

Yeah, why bother getting a Nikon D2Sx when you can get a D1 or similar instead. Cameras aren't getting any better you know.

[picturesque]

That's why I'd shoot both at the same time. A video cam in one hand, a still camera around my neck. I used to shoot medium format/35mm the same way. I understand and agree with the fact that the two (video and stills) require different approaches, and the medium format/35mm example isn't quite the same. However, technical and lighting differences aside (these may be solved with new technology), many times you CAN lift the same shot you would have taken with the still camera from a video of the same sequence. And of course, there is a difference between real life photojournalism and wedding photography. You can set things up and interrupt things at weddings more than in news reportage. Even wedding photojournalists give directions now and then and have to deal with some posed sessions. You don't care about the reporter's voice over time because there isn't a reporter to do a voice over. At a wedding, I'd say the most important things to not chop up would be the vows and toasts (mainly due to the spoken word), or maybe the dreaded guest interviews, but otherwise, one could opt not to shoot sequences in one continuous take, giving you the opportunity to shoot (either video or stills) from a different angle or in a different way. You can re-do many (obviously not all) sequences as well. It happens a lot anyway now, with the videographer asking the couple to do one sequence for his video cam, and the still photographer asking to do another for his camera. If they are going to do it twice for the videographer and still photographer, then they can do it twice for the same "mediaographer".

 

And if video and stills each require a different approach, then is there not room for a new approach and new products? I can see, for instance, one's second (but equal) shooter being the video (or stills)shooter, and the product being offered would be a true melding of video and stills, in addition to printed products such as albums. I can see shooting video and stills alone--just knowing when to shoot what for best advantage. Or just shooting video...

[surfidaho]

I think some of you might be missing a very crucial point.

 

Still photography is preferable to video for many people because they can choose to remember the event in any manner they want to. Video shoves it down peoples throats the way it was.

 

I had both still pictures and video done for our first wedding (I married the same gal twice, we're still married). In the still pictures, I look like a total stud in my tuxedo (if I do say so myself). But the video preserves the dorky speech I made that I would just as soon forget. Therefore I value the stills much more than the video.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[el_fang]

I guess my direct answer to the OP's question is this: I am and always will be a still photographer. I own a personal camcorder from 4 years ago that's practically new in box because I never use it. Because I only work at a newspaper part-time as part of my enjoyment of still photography (I have a nicely paying regular job that covers the bills plus some), I don't know how much of the video and stills-from-video shenanigans I'll be able to tolerate until it's no longer "fun." This is despite the fact that we already have it good at our paper compared to others, in that our editors are willing to let the photographers transition at our own pace instead of shoving it down our throats.

<p>If the wedding industry comes down to this, I'll just hold out for the brides who want a specialist still photographer. Otherwise, for me there'd be no point in doing it anymore.</p>

[annealmasy]

My other thought DOES have to do with quality -- not quality from a filesize standpoint, but

from a lighting standpoint. The only wedding videos I have ever seen with high-quality

lighting were produced on a multi-thousand dollar budget. They look like movies; they

involved dollies and booms; they costs tens of thousands of dollars to the client. Video

equipment is, across the board, significantly more expensive if you're wanting that epic-

movie look. Effective continuous lighting setups are obtrusive and NOT cheap. On the other

hand, dramatic lighting can be achieved with still photography with a couple of used $50

Vivitars.

[kiva]

Just read the entire thread and was waiting to comment on the lighting only to find Anne's comment.

 

Lighting has some ground to cover because I just don't see mainstream bride/grooms having large bright lights being turned on and off or left on at all times in a continuous manner; hours and hours would need to be covered. Bright and Continuous lights always seemed like an Ambiance killer to me unlike the pop of a flash that adds an element of excitement for a moment.

 

A pop of flash seems to actually "activate" people in some odd way. I do now use a small/tiny video light for creative portrait sessions but never in a crowded room.

 

I used to shoot some video too but I think people much prefer "slices" of life to a continuous stream of perspective. We love to be motivated by moments, delicious moments.