I gave the Nick Knight video a quick look, but realized it was 5 years old and in the last 5 to 7 years things have changed drastically.
I started to write a reply but realized it would take 4 pages that nobody wants to read.
Basically it drills down to this. Client’s want everything for every type of use.
A few weeks ago a client asked us to shoot e-commerce, but for the numbers and time frame we couldn’t get it in our schedule so I reviewed 4 e-commerce studios and selected one, brokered the estimate and learned a lot. They work in a way we don’t but it’s a long story to explain why and some of these studios are in-house, some use standard lighting and simple backgrounds, some specialize with those machines that look like a stand up MRI that the model goes into a booth, the camera is on a vertical rail the exposure is preset, the talent steps into the booth and boom you press a button and the machine shoots it.
Some shoot the clothes on a green mannequin pre posed, the image goes into the computer, you select from a package of models and the computer puts it together. The result isn’t bad, but it’s kind of funky looking not real, not unreal.
But things have really changed. Now many if not most large rental studios/stages in major markets are now defacto ad agency/production houses, that offer in house still, video photographers, marketers, web and print designers, producers, stylists, h/m, retouchers, editors, etc.
In other words rental studios that 10 years ago just rented space, now compete with their previous clients: photographers, ad agencies, marketing departments.
Today much if not most retail fashion photography today is shot in full service e-commerce studios which come in all flavors and prices and you’d be amazed at the even the higher end retail level, how the production values have changed.
In fact Zara, which does a good job though is in reality a lower priced retailer is photographed by one of the world’s best known fashion photographers.
https://www.zara.com/us/en/-pL1808001.html?v1=6251171&v2=939016I’m not sure if he shoots all or just the features.
In regards to one camera that shoots it all, uh maybe, but in my use to take a 4.5, 6 or 8 k RED and turn it into a still camera requires a change in the settings and workflow. We do a lot of combination projects in still and motion and usually use separate cameras, because it’s more time effective to slide another camera in place or if the set allows run two cameras at once. The only difference is for the time you usually use continuous light if you're shooting motion and stills. What you will notice in even a 14mpx still camera is the detail of the still frame. For stills the newest REDs are good, but your at $50 grand just to get started in 8k and you better have a lot of computing power on set and in studio.
This project illustrates what we sometimes do today. Stills, motion, stills that move, motion that is still. You work at a furious pace, and every image here was shot in about 15 minutes, maybe 20 including some form of motion or multimedia and though the brief is for social media, web, mobile and it also will see use in print, outdoor, in store, etc.
So my bottom line is if you want to work you offer as much as possible and even if not asked, still do it. On two separate motion projects, (I hate the word video) One in southeast Asia, one in France/London and LA the client said they definitely do not want stills. Anyway, on both projects when I had a brief moment, I’d fire off a round of stills, to match the motion. Result: the client selected over 100 stills to be lightly retouched.
Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not complaining, it’s just the landscape has changed and on some projects if you work commercially, you have to change with it.
Are stills dead? No. Will it all become video . . . don't think so. But when someone asks me what do I do, It's not a one word answer.
IMO
BC