What is to become of photography?

[eugene_scherba]

<p>Yet another point is: in the Internet age, the attention span of people is very short. I

look at

even the most spectacular astronomical images for a few seconds only, then look at others

of

<i>my choice</i>. The only way this is could be approximated with video is through a

slideshow, but then <i>I don't get to choose</i> what to watch and for how long to look

at

it (short of switching channels), and I don't like that.</p>

 

<p>You could say: but you can browse forward and backward. Yes, so what? That's in one

dimension only, while looking at stills, I get a two-dimensional layout where I can pick

what I want to see much more quickly. Maybe the day two-dimensional layouts arrive to

video...</p>

[waltflanagan]

<i>The reason I brought up the Jupiter + moon example was that everybody gets the idea that a moon rotates around Jupiter -- there are no cinematic surprises to be uncovered -- no plot. Nobody expects the moon to plunge all of a sudden into Jupiter -- and it won't. So all in all such a video (even in a fast motion) would still be quite boring.</i><p>

No the moon won't plunge into Jupiter but Io is the most active volcanic body in the solar system. I have always found video footage of volcanos erupting to be more interesting than stills. I'd love to see a video of Io like that.

<p>

A talented photographer can make some apples on a table into a work of art by applying lighting in an artistic way. A talented director and cinematographer can make mundane subjects become fascinating. Documentary film maker Errol Morris does a great job of this.

[waltflanagan]

<i>I find some things more enjoyable as a video

<p>

That's exactly right. Some things are more enjoyable as a video, some things are more enjoyable as stills. The prognoses of the death of still photography are very premature.</i><p>

I never said still photography is going away. I have personally tried editing video and hated it. The debate started as to whether you could use a video camera and shoot everything as a video at 60fps then extract a high quality still frame. For some reason some are scared of this prospect. I love technology. Give me 60fps, give me 1000fps. Someone will find an interesting application and make new art that we couldn't even imagine before. There seems to be an attitude among some that "video" is not "art" but I think it is just a different kind of art. I know many painters who don't consider photography to be art.

[waltflanagan]

<i>

Yet another point is: in the Internet age, the attention span of people is very short. I look at even the most spectacular astronomical images for a few seconds only, then look at others of my choice. The only way this is could be approximated with video is through a slideshow, but then I don't get to choose what to watch and for how long to look at it (short of switching channels), and I don't like that.</i><p>

Astronomy is one of my favorite things. I can stare at astro images forever and not get bored of them. It's all personal taste.

 

<p><i>

You could say: but you can browse forward and backward. Yes, so what? That's in one dimension only, while looking at stills, I get a two-dimensional layout where I can pick what I want to see much more quickly. Maybe the day two-dimensional layouts arrive to video...

</i>

<p>

The 4 known dimensions are the three spacial dimensions (X, Y, Z) and time. Photos and videos have no depth, it's on a flat piece of paper, screen, etc so ignore the Z dimension. Photos are about capturing a single instant of that time dimension. Video is about showing the flow of time.<p>

Imagine a photo of a man and woman dancing. In the photo you imagine what will happen next, are they a couple? First date? Will they live happily ever after? With video you can tell that story. Sometimes I enjoy the more open ended perspective of the photo and other times I want to see the story play out over time.<p>

I'm not saying you have to appreciate the artistic value of video, just that I do.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>I'm not saying you have to appreciate the artistic value of video, just that I do.

</i></p>

 

<p>Haha, I worked as crew and operator on several short films... unpaid. If I thought there

was no artistic value to film, do you think I would be doing that?</p>

[asher]

<p><i>"What will happen to photography when a photographer can take high-quality stills

at this speed? "</i><p>

 

Exactly what has happened since digital imaging saturated the masses: exponential

proliferation of mediocre images.

[GerrySiegel]

A half formed thought in my mind related to the turn this conversation has taken:

 

Anyone watch Ken Burns' documentary "The War?"

 

Did you notice how Burns skillfully combined stills,(with camera movement),w/ movie footage,both color and black and white?. Did the stills often have more power for you in the narrative? Is this,for the "documentary," (weddings, family gatherings,and family portraits fall into that big pile, sort of), going to be the destination of photo imaging,with both being a part of some quote Big Picture multi media combo sooner rather than later?

Does it take a different kind of art concept, or is it going to be more limited,such as museum exhibition halls with audio headsets? Does this kind of combination diminish what we all have learned to be passionate about, the magic moment and the golden light?

 

Well,as to film and video part,I am super-saturated with the blink blink fast cuts. A cut used to be at least 4 seconds,exception was noteworthy and for effect (eg. Hitchcock). Now it is a half second or so.It is so relaxing to savor,enjoy a great still image and let it stir the motion internally. I am not a boomer nor Gen X clearly.

[jtk]

All this "in my day" stuff is hilarious. Most of it's wrong.

 

It's not true, for example, that attention spans themselves are demonstrably shorter today: The subject of attention is increasingly less worthwhile. For example, "postmodern" images. I rest that case.

 

As for fast cuts and the "I walked barefoot thru the snow when I was a boy" thesis, that's also entirely wrong.

 

Get gently stoned with stopwatch in hand, as I once did for a few very focused motel hours twenty years ago, taking notes of course, and you'll find this: old Hollywood (John Wayne, Marilyn Monroe et al) was comprised almost entirely of cuts, whereas modern Hollywood (or TV) feeds on computer driven zooms and camera movements, and gyro stabilization.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>All this "in my day" stuff is hilarious. Most of it's wrong.</i></p>

 

<p>Ken Burns is renowned contemporary master of translating photography into motion.

What day are you talking about?</p>

 

<p><i>It's not true, for example, that attention spans themselves are demonstrably shorter

today</i></p>

 

<p>Hmm, I stopped reading your comment at your third sentence.</p>

[jtk]

Eugene, I didn't say anything at all about Ken Burns.

 

Calm down, focus, read.

 

We were all moved by The War.

 

Most of us lost family in WWII, right?

 

HOWEVER, as a former Forox animation camera operator, here's my take on Burns' visuals: His zooming and movement methodology is workmanlike, graceful thanks entirely to competently planned computer driven movements and zooms. It was done many times with more technical difficulty in earlier eras:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RvmJan17q8

 

I admire the proficiency of Burns' team and the magnitude of their accomplishment. I understand the utility of their formulaic method. Many of us have seen similar work in trade shows and announcements of corporate initiatives, so it was good to see those methods applied to something as profoundly important and nearly forgotten as WWII.

 

Jazz critics and Hispanic activists concerned about Burns' blind spots in Jazz and The War did not exaggerate. Upon being pressed, he did a poor, stingy, workaround in The War.

 

Having been moved by most of The War, I was ultimately disappointed that it didn't shine a moment's light on monumental postwar outcomes.

 

Just one example: not a word about the deep philosophical opposition

between Roosevelt and Churchill. Roosevelt strongly opposed continuation of colonies: Churchill facilitated restoration of Vichy French and Japanese (!) military to power in Vietnam after FDR's death, leading directly to the Vietnam War...which was probably significant to many of us.

 

I wish Burns had traded one island invasion for a concise overview of the postwar future. Failure to connect The War with historic context was shocking.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>Failure to connect The War with historic context was

shocking.</i></p>

 

<p>So are we discussing "The War" now?</p>

[jtk]

Eugene, do you ever contribute?

[jtk]

For tiny minds, my point is that Burns is a brand and a production company, he's a genius perhaps at promotion and all of his pieces have been impressive. However, he's not outstanding visually. Eugene Sherba thinks Burns is a Master, but I think he's just a great producer.

[tonybeach]

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

 

I don't think technology will really change photography at all.

 

For instance, in the image below I used an old manually focused lens with a D70 which required me to set everything manually (including the flash). I sat there in the noonday sun for an hour or so chasing bees up close and shooting away and found this one standing out among all the shots I took. Does any of that make it any less of shot? Does any of that make it any more of a shot?

 

I tell my son when he shoots that the more he puts into the shot the more people will see that and appreciate it (even if just at some subconscious level). Perhaps people will demand more of our images when they realize they are more easily accomplished, and presume that they are accomplished with minimal effort. Indeed, with Photoshop becoming a verb, many people already assume that about every image. In the end a great image will stand or fall on its merits as an image, and how it is attained will and should be of no consequence.<div></div>

[Spearhead]

That photo has nothing to do with the question or the issue of video. Try reading what has been said above. FWIW, nature shows on TV are far more popular these days than photos of nature.

[waltflanagan]

<i>For tiny minds, my point is that Burns is a brand and a production company, he's a genius perhaps at promotion and all of his pieces have been impressive. However, he's not outstanding visually. Eugene Sherba thinks Burns is a Master, but I think he's just a great producer.

</i><p>

Some movies are action, visual effects, no plot. Others have great stories and acting but poor cinematography. A truly great director/cinematography can combine everything. Burns may find his story so compelling that he doesn't see the need or care to make it more visually impressive.

[waltflanagan]

<i>Perhaps people will demand more of our images when they realize they are more easily accomplished, and presume that they are accomplished with minimal effort. Indeed, with Photoshop becoming a verb, many people already assume that about every image. In the end a great image will stand or fall on its merits as an image, and how it is attained will and should be of no consequence.</i><p>

I agree with you but some people see it as a problem. I show pics to friends and they say "Cool, did you do that in Photoshop?" I respond with "No, I got up at 5am for the sunrise, it really does look like that at sunrise." They are placing less value on the image because they think it was faked. In the end I don't care, I make images for myself and those who can appreciate them.

[eugene_scherba]

<p>John K. said:<i>Eugene Sherba thinks Burns is a Master</i></p>

 

<p>First, you misspelled my name. Second, I didn't say Burns was a

Master, I said he was a master of a,b,c.</p>

[tonybeach]

Jeff wrote:

 

"That photo has nothing to do with the question or the issue of video. Try reading what has been said above. FWIW, nature shows on TV are far more popular these days than photos of nature."

 

My reply:

 

It seems this discussion has veered off of what the OP originally asked, which is precisely why I quoted from it in my reply. Let me quote again from the OP:

 

"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?"

 

BTW Jeff, I read every single post in this thread before offering my own reply. However, I didn't let it distract me from what was supposed to be the topic of this thread. My reply was a deliberate attempt to focus this thread back to the OP.

 

FWIW, television and movies have always been more popular than still photography, regardless of the topic. I think most of us are here because we have an appreciation for the photographic medium and would rather discuss it than watch a movie or television show (please don't come back with the lame "Just go shoot a picture" reply, the light is awful here right now).

[tonybeach]

For Walt:

 

"I agree with you but some people see it as a problem...They are placing less value on the image because they think it was faked."

 

Another common response is "That's a great shot, you must have a really good camera." Cameras like the one we were supposed to be discussing in this thread will become more widespread and I expect that for those with the money to spend on them, they will indeed be able to present more compelling shots. However, those shots judged by their technical merits will be considered less compelling and viewers will demand more aesthetic qualities from images to differentiate them from what everyone else can do if they have comparable gear.

[lee_crump]

I read AJ's original question and had intended to post my rapidly forming reply with our reading any other response.

 

I was stunned to see the volume of replies on my way to the submit a response button.

 

AJ the response at large would seem to be; The future of photography is safe and well in the hands of many enthusiasts. No technology will change this.

 

My personal response is; 1.) I began photography (non digital)to get time away from computers. I don't think I'll be tossing my F4 out the window as I rush out to buy the latest digital camera. 2.)OK maybe I'm cheap but if I spend $22,500 (cost of body and one lens) on anything I expect to be arraigning for liability insurance. 3.) If I were to pull this thing out of a back pack at an airport I fear I'd be tackled by a well meaning and worried TSA agent.

 

Historically; Consider the impact photography had on artistic painting. With the advent of practical photography, portrait and landscape painters were largely supplanted by photographers. The creative energy of these displaced painters gave rise to a series of artistic revolutions in painting that we are still enjoying today. Technology may, one day, force the evolution of my craft due to lack of materials. I don?t view this as a catastrophe only evolution.

[hjoseph7]

I dont see what is the advantage of carrying a 9lbs camera without the lens, so you can shoot continously especially with today's cameras that can shoot in bursts.

 

Either you are going to shoot still-life, or you are going to make a movie.

 

In any case, when Digital first came out, everybody predicted the demise of the Photo Lab. The price for mini-lab Processsors equipment fell through the floor and many people started off-loading their equipment on eBay.

 

As far as I know, these items are selling there so somebody must be buying them. I was shocked when a couple of years ago, I saw the corner drugstore installing a new fancy photo processor that does digital and film. I scratched my head and said "nobody needs photo labs any more everybody is downloading and printing at home, these people must be crazy".

 

A few years later and that the photo business is booming at the corner drugstore ust as it allways has.

 

I see allot of people walking around with camcorders these days. You can even make small movies with a less than $500 point-and-shoot. Are the people who manufacture high-end Movie Cameras and camcorders worried ? Heck No !

[Allen Herbert]

What is to become of photography?

 

Nothing. It's always about the photographer, not the tools.

[chris_autio]

I agree with Ellis. I make documentary films as well, and anyone who also reviews and edits

their own material must wade through it again, extracting that which is primo. It is

exhausting and time demanding. I have seen a couple photographers offering 2K to 5K

number of shots at a wedding! Give me a break! Plan and produce. It saves one a lot of post

production work. Brad...I'm excited for what you can pull off in post. And I find it very

interesting the way you can make photos.

[antoniobassiphotography]

60fps? Vera Lutter shoots with a container sized Camera Obscura and makes a lot more money than all the so called "pros" I know of. What does "pro" mean anyway, that you know how to use camera and software better and faster than "non pros" and you make a certain amount of sells every year? Then V. Lutter is definitely not a "pro" but sells for 6 digits.

 

 

http://www.gagosian.com/artists/vera-lutter/

 

http://www.artnet.com/Artists/ArtistHomePage.aspx?artist_id=705238&page_tab=Bio_and_links