New Requirements to Photographic Skill

[kinell]

Ilkka: <i>"Maybe you should get some experience before posting a claim like that."</i><p>

You really have to differentiate between movie making and photography here. I posted the claim that you could go

and pick a frame because there have been threads saying the new DSLRs will include the capability of taking short

sequences at equal image quality as a still image.It seems that you missed that.<p>

In order to pick the frame I like, I don't need any experience in movie making. I just run the sequence in slow

motion and press "stop" when I want to.<p>

 

<i>"Editing movies is immensely computationally intensive."</i><p>

A fast and simple solution would be to compress the sequence, run a low-res version, pick the frame number, then

go and search for that frame number among the original, uncompressed frames.<p>

<i>"Then there are the practical implications of shooting video for the purposes of recording stills. "</i><p>

None of your arguments hold:<br>

- the quality of the sequence will not be similar, but equal to a still image.<br>

- you would be shooting a sequence for still-shots, therefore, you would use a tripod exactly where you would use

it anyway. And you would use hand-held, where you used hand-held before too.<br>

- If I realize I have to change the composition while shooting, I do exactly the same as before: I release the

shutter button, recompose, and press the shutter button again. Nothing is faster or slower with or without

sequence recording.<br>

- of course I will get blurred data when zooming while shooting. That is just as true when recording still

images, hence no difference<br>

- the video will be as optimal as the still image. It's really just a burst at a shutter speed of 40ms.<br>

- storage capacity: we have gone from 32MB cards to 16GB in no time. Storage capacity doubles at least every 18

months.<br>

- editing: No, it won't take a hundred people. As I said, I let my 10 second sequence run in slow motion and press

"stop". That takes me, hmm, 10 seconds?

[jussi_vakkala1]

As 'an action shooter' of wildlife I cannot see where the immense benefit of 10000's of frames would be? Even nowadays I could easily blast 2000-3000 frames per session but usually I will suffice for 200-300 pictures. After shooting a few years I (subjective thinking) know the really golden moments are not happening all day long, so why should I lean on shutter just to suffer through 1000's of c*ap pictures after each session? If I have to lean on shutter even twice in my morning session then things are going really really well..

 

I shoot also still life and landscapes in natural light, there the workflow is even more traditional and not much different from film shooting. A little underexposure maybe to keep some important highlights (like reds in flowers) for ps and some room for cropping and potential stock use. A few frames is ok, no need to bracket-shoot dozens of frames but rather think about the shot in advance. Plain old photography that is.

[kinell]

Jussi: Those are some valid points. <p>

 

<i>"why should I lean on shutter just to suffer through 1000's of c*ap pictures after each session?"</i>

<p>

I believe that could be a matter of 1 or 2 minutes. Really just play the sequence and press stop when you feel

like it.<br>

Regarding landscapes, you're probably right.

<p>

About the possible shift: Let the future decide how it's going to turn out, I'm looking forward to it!

[kinell]

Seems like at least one guy shares my vision about the future :-) :

 

"The source says that there's some speculation the industry that this Beijing Olympics will be the last covered

by single-frame photography. By the time of London 2012, the 'photographers' will be shooting HD sequences, from

which picture editors will take the best 'grabs'."

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=29139579

[photo_dark]

Does it really matter? Why can't we just get along (and shoot more pictures instead of arguing the pros and cons of the methodology). Who cares if it's a Leica M3 and a darkroom or a Phase 1 and 50 hours of photoshop. Seems to me that some of the best photographers in the world right now don't actually care what the rest of photography world thinks about their work or how they do it.... They do it because it's just what they do.

 

Isn't that what photography is really about?

 

The bottom line is that today's post processing is another tool to augment a medium used to accomplish an artistic goal. I keep saying it but I swear no one listens.... THE MEDIUM IS IRRELEVANT. Just shoot... isn't that why we're here?

[kinell]

David: <i>"Just shoot... isn't that why we're here?"</i><p>

No. I'm here to discuss, I shoot outside :-p

[jussi_vakkala1]

Andreas Kinell wrote, "I believe that could be a matter of 1 or 2 minutes. Really just play the sequence and press

stop when you feel like it."

 

You can do it yourself: just put your camera picture quality into lowest jpg -setting and then shoot a couple of

sessions by filling a few 4-8GB cards in the process. Btw, I could shoot 10.000 pictures at 10fps every morning that

way if I would like, right now. In my opinion the really good stuff in the field is happening so infrequently there is very

little hesitation when the peak moment is going on. For just o.k situations I can offer 2-3 frames when the subject is

moving in the best angle for light and so on. In other words I have no special need for continuous shooting of long

burst for anything that moves and then hoping for the best (but can see that kind of action in the field quite often)

 

Technology is the easy part, the hard part is to sort out the story, light, perspective and composition. Some

experienced old hand can shoot 2 frames or 1000 frames in a session, depending on his/her workflow. Broadcasting

company can combine video stream and still for some sporting event today. But if you have not practiced your

eyes to see and feel the picture, there is no technology in World to compensate for those lack of

fundamentals.

[kinell]

Jussi: <i>"You can do it yourself: just put your camera picture quality into lowest jpg -setting and then shoot a

couple of sessions by filling a few 4-8GB cards in the process"</i><p>

Ok, I did just that. It took my 2 minutes to select the best time frame out of a 20 second sequence.<p>

Regarding the second part of your post. I agree completely. Especially the light is the one thing you probably

never will be able to change in PP.

[jussi_vakkala1]

Andreas Kinell wrote, "Ok, I did just that. It took my 2 minutes to select the best time frame out of a 20 second

sequence."

 

Good. The next practice is to learn to read the moment so you can cut down the amount of frames you took into

fraction of what you shot now. First, was the 20 second really worth of pressing shutter all the time instead of just

tracking through most of it? Light properties, perspective, distance, subject expressions are peaking in short

but often (with practice) quite predictable moments where 20 seconds is like eternity. Even for really good moments.

To be prepared for the best pictures at given moment includes practiced ability to discharge the more common

situations immediately. I suppose this could be applied even for video shooting.

 

That will develop your field skills, save your pp work and storage capacity (or alternatively increase caption quality)

quite similarly like when you have learned to compose picture in field so that excessive and time consuming post

process work is avoided as much as possible. I go now shooting and wish you happy shooting as well!

[kinell]

Jussi: Ok. Let's leave it at the conclusion that there exists an alternative to capturing the peak in the field now. Everyone can select the method he likes best. Myself, I am very willing to improve my capability to get it right in the field. After so much discussion, I felt the need to go shooting myself too :-)

[jillsphotos]

But suicide is not the answer! There is no need to go off shooting yourself.

 

<grin>

 

Jill

[kinell]

Jill: I try to go for the double meaning I like it. :-))

[DB_Gallery]

Andreas, I will be to the point here. Most of the photography now days that one sees reflects the way you think photos are

taken today. In other words, they all look the same, are flat, and sometimes lousy.

 

And I am never more than 1/2 a stop off in my exposures, and that is when I am lazy.

[DB_Gallery]

Andreas wrote:

 

"I also believe that you still need the same photographic skills as before. I just think that the ratio how they are applied in

post-processing and in the field is going to shift in favor of post-processing."

 

A National Geographic photographer is not doing his own post-processing, it is done by the production staff and has to

meet strict ink on paper guidelines. A good photographer who wants to remain as such and actually get better spends as

little time on the computer as possible. Pictures don't happen on the computer, they happen out in the world.

[Spearhead]

<i>A good photographer who wants to remain as such and actually get better spends as little time on the computer as possible. Pictures don't happen on the computer, they happen out in the world.</i><P>So in the pre-computer days, a good photographer didn't learn to work in the darkroom? Wow, too bad it's too late to let Weston, Adams, Bravo, even Moriyama know. Those guys were wasting their time!

[axel-cordes]

I'm not a pro nor I'm on the 7/7 side here - more the 5/5, but I think it's right to do the job while shooting

and to save time, not to need editing on the computer. I'm loosing too much time on the computer for

my taste and that's why I would like to be, said in simple words, at 1/2 stop right. I'd like to be perfect

on the shot - still trying to enhance my skills.

 

Sometimes (few only), when no crop, no other balance needs to be done - I'm really happy.

 

Regards Axel

[photo_dark]

"""""A good photographer who wants to remain as such and actually get better spends as little time on the computer as possible. Pictures don't happen on the computer, they happen out in the world.

 

So in the pre-computer days, a good photographer didn't learn to work in the darkroom? Wow, too bad it's too late to let Weston, Adams, Bravo, even Moriyama know. Those guys were wasting their time!"""""

 

Arg... i think the point isn't to avoid the darkroom (or digital darkroom) but rather to get things as good as they can be in the field first. Garbage in = Garbage out. Photoshop is a great tool, but i still do my damn best to get things as close to 100% as humanly possible on site in order to avoid pissing around in photoshop fixing things that shouldn't need fixing (white balance, exposure and composition). The only time i choose to fall back on lightroom/photoshop as a fixer vs. enhancer is when getting the shot is more important than getting the technical side right due to extreme time and environmental conditions.

 

That's all.

[petemillis]

David: "Garbage in = Garbage out"... I think this isn't always the case especially since environmental concerns are such a hot topic. Lots of garage is now recycled to make some really good stuff.

[DB_Gallery]

Jeff wrote:

 

"So in the pre-computer days, a good photographer didn't learn to work in the darkroom? Wow, too bad it's too late to let

Weston, Adams, Bravo, even Moriyama know. Those guys were wasting their time!"

 

This is always a very valid point, but in this day and age, it takes far less hand crafting to emerge with technically better

images than it did then. So with this in mind, I really like to challenge my self not only to nail it 90% in camera, but to

keep out of both the office with the computer and my darkroom as much as possible. There is just too much awesome

stuff to see in this short life.

[steve_mareno]

Being a good photographer has no correlation to the gear. Good photographers are born, not made. Put a Holga in their hands and you get great photos. Putting a great camera in the hands of a photographer who has nothing to say results in someone who still has nothing to say but says it wonderfully.