Where we are

[James R Russell]

Every month I get some magazine called "digital Video Producer" or something like that.  Don't know why I get it because I never subscribed and I rarely give it more than a few minutes of my time to thumb through it.

Today it came in the mail and though the magazine is 95% advertising, I was really astounded where digital video has come in the last few years.

Remote monitors, wireless feeds, wireless microphones (that are really crystal clear), dedicated portable editing stations, from the size of a hard drive to an anvil case, hundreds of fluid heads, cranes, jib arms, steady cam type platforms, miniature dollys, tracks that fit in a suitcase, remote focus, shooting to cards/tapes/drives, 1800 pixel wide frames, 4000 pixel wide frames, universal lens mounts from PL, Nikon to Canon, matte boxes, 35mm frame adapters, led lights, floursecent, tungsten pars, strip lights, tube lights, ring lights, portable raid drives, and all for package price less and higher quality than a single standard broadcast ENG camera was just a few years ago.

To put it in comparison to still photography it seems the  digital video innovations far outnumber and innovate still photography advancement.

Don't misunderstand me, this isn't a a complaint about still camera equipment and I'm amazed how fast and how far digital still photography has come, still when I look at my original 1ds all the way to the new Nikons, Canons, and my medium format backs,  I am not working much differently today than when I first picked up my first digital camera.

Sure, the capture is better, sometimes much better, the post processing is more advanced and I now move 90% of my data around the web rather than hard copy, but all of the forward movement I've made in my business with digital capture has basically come from making up my own systems, workflow and delivery and doing it through trial and error.

Unlike Video there is no dedicated all in one editing computer that will download, process and store.  Unlike Video we are still married to the computer screen for our immediate previews or small 3" lcds that vary greatly in quality.

Compared to the 1ds days, I am still shooting either to a wire to a computer, (somewhat modified for still photography but definatley not proprietary to still photography) or to CF cards, which are faster and cheaper than the original microdrives, but nothing I use is really that much different than day one of my digital transition.

So . . . my point is, is video the new image carrier of choice, is still photogrpahy really moving forward or we close to leveling out?

Going through that video magazine made we wonder, who buys all this stuff and how big is the market for $15,000 Red camera bodies.  Is it a larger market than medium format and most importantly is video and moving imagery going to marginalize still photography, or will the web become the carrier of choice for still and moving imagery?

I don't have those answers, but I do know that of the last 9 projects I have shot, 8 of them had a digital video component of varying importance.

Today I read where General Motors is moving 1/2 of their gazllion dollar ad budget from traditional media to interactive.

Is this just PR talk, or a trial balloon, or is this the future?

Obviously as I am a still photographer first and foremost, my heart and my pocketbook resides with still imagery, but years ago I started adding video to our repretoire for just those reasons.

I really have no dog in this hunt but am  curious as to what other photographers think.

JR

[uaiomex]

James:

You are not alone. Sometimes I feeel so inadequate about all things new, nevertheless I keep struggling to keep pace.
I had a good friend that died somehow for not understanding or accepting this new world (I believe). Suddenly, everything he knew started loosing relevance. He "decided" to stay put and defended traditional photography and didn't accept digital photography till the day he died of a lung infection at the tender age of 55.

I was sad, but at the same time I thanked god for making be more prone to accept new technologies. Today I am 100% digital and love every minute of it while praising all my knowledge about chemical-analog-traditional photography. I even feel kind of sorry for these new kids that only know digital photography and cameras while at th same time I worry all the time everytime (not often) I loose a job or client to them.

This is the best of times for photography and photographers but creepy times indeed.

By the way, you are one really outstanding photographer.

Best
Eduardo

[Frank Doorhof]

It depends.

With still photography you can capture much more emotion in a single frame than with video.
I have stopped photography for a while to start filming and although I love it very much I could not get the same wow factor I can get from photography.

Yes you can make stunning videos, yes the combination music/emotion/images works wonders, but no it does not hit me like shots from for example the world famous afghan girl, or the work of David Lachapelle.

Also video is something that you have to go and watch, in other words you have to totally commited to it, you have to find a display and keep watching.
We live in a society that is media tired (or getting media tired), when I look at myself I'm in awe when I'm in the states and I see all the billboard (we don't have much of those over here), however when I see the occassional moving bill board I find that my eyes are already gone before the video is over (no sound no fix I guess).

Video is becoming more and more important, but that's normal because we live in a media society, however I for one don't think that video will replace photography.
I do believe however that with stock like iStock photography is getting a major blow, I know alot of magazines and manufactors go for iStock material because it's dead cheap, the problem with this for me personally is that I see all the same kind of pictures everywere and can almost point out the stock pictures.

The quality of the photography is going down rapidly I'm afraid so people are not investing in it anymore, I think however this is a normal cycle.
As soon as they realise that when you hire a good photographer the end result will yield more reveneu they will slowly switch again.

About the progress in video and photography, I don't agree with that (sorry).
I have been filming for a few years and although I'm now shooting in HD (consumer that is) I'm still using the same software, although it's in a new version the possibilities have grown etc. I can't say my photography hasn't grown also at the same rate.

Think about, HDR, tone mapping, the unique looks like dave hill, dragan etc.
Those are all new looks and technologies that have matured very much over the years, I recently looked back at some filters that were on the market 4 years ago and look at what they can do now it's stunning.
Look at the photoshop extended filter where you can correct with perspective or where you can stack several photo's and photoshop removes the people.
All this is in my opinion new technology.

For me video is still a big love, but somehow I believe more in the still pictures.

Hope this makes sense

[free1000]

With still photography you can capture much more emotion in a single frame than with video.

When we experience memories we experience 'snapshots' single images rather than or in addition to 'mini-movies'

The single image is somehow deeply integrated with the nature of human memory and consciousness.
 
As a result there are things about photography that integrate deeply with our brains and psychology.
 
Thought experiment.... Jane's house is on fire, she only has a second to grab either the photograph album or to grab some videos from the shelf. Which does she select?

[Frank Doorhof]

http://www.doorhof.nl/blog/index.php?topic=1590.0

I wrote a little note in my blog about stock, maybe fun to read

[BernardLanguillier]

It would be interesting to get firm facts on the relative size of both markets.

My guts feeling is that the market for video is much larger than the one for still photography nowadays. Think of the huge broadcasting organizations and of the money they handle through advertisement.

I could be wrong though.

Regards,
Bernard

[Snook]

What I have been thinking about a lot lately is where 3D is coming around the corner.
That is more of a threat to still life than video I think...:+}
Maybe a paranoia , But they are advancing fast with 3D.
Had a client just the other day who preferred to have my photoshop guy build a 3D image instead of me shooting an object that went in a picture of mine for advertising. I would normally have shot it but this time they had my guy build it in 3D.. and to tell you the truth , No body noticed the difference!! Granted it was  a small object that a girl was sitting on, But still it is creeping up.
Snook

[Morgan_Moore]

I just got a video camera an old one from a mate - I WILL be playing

On a shoot for the Guardian I ended up doing video too some of the shots are mine - the bad ones- i had never even picked up the camera - what a nightmare - sorry it forces you to watch an advert - interesting that

Anyway the Guradian is taking 'online' very serious I know

Two things I reckon..

Stills people need ot get with the program !

And I want to know "what is the G9" of the video camera world" - Im not going to go in at the high end again

SMM

[James R Russell]

I just got a video camera an old one from a mate - I WILL be playing

On a shoot for the Guardian I ended up doing video too some of the shots are mine - the bad ones- i had never even picked up the camera - what a nightmare - sorry it forces you to watch an advert - interesting that

Anyway the Guradian is taking 'online' very serious I know

Two things I reckon..

Stills people need ot get with the program !

And I want to know "what is the G9" of the video camera world" - Im not going to go in at the high end again

SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I maybe didn't make this clear.  We do video production along with our main still sessions own three high def cameras, two standard def and the last still shoot  the video crew numbered 12 people including sound and the crane operator.

Also I know that at least to me a still photograph, is more precious than most video or film, (though there are many exceptions).

My point is the amount of first, to third party equipment and software advances to video next to still photography.

HDR, Lightroom?  I have our video color timed on a Million dollar DiVinci and it does so in real time, high def, non compressed 12 bit.

Still, my point is where are the real advancements in Still photogaphy.  Yes the new Mamiya, HY6, 31, 33, 39 mpx cameras are upgrades from the 1ds and the first Phase H backs and Valeo's and yes the cameras are better than they were, but still the HY6 is basically a rewrapped 6008 and the Maimiya is the third version of the first.

Where is the real innovation in still photography.  Variable frame sizes, faster lenses, remote monitors to all types of devices.  Where is new way of stablizing a camera, smaller more poweful lights, dedicated computers per system that have internal and external portable raids?

Actually my real point is when I hear that GM has moved 1/2 of their huge ad budget to interactive, that print circulation is down in all sectors, high end to low end, that obviously leisure time spent on the web is eroding into television, when I personally watch 1/2 of my telivision or video programs on or through a computer, then is print and even traditiional broadcast becoming marginalized?

Pick up one of these magazines or go on line and look at what's available in the last few years for video production and the first thought I have is, who is buying all of this equipment?

For my studio I guess in a way I am, as I mentioned before 8 of the last nine still shoots we produced had a video component.

JR

[eronald]

I was looking at the Red One imagery, and thinking that maybe the quality there is actually superior to that of most still solutions ...

Edmund

I maybe didn't make this clear.  We do video production along with our main still sessions own three high def cameras, two standard def and the last still shoot  the video crew numbered 12 people including sound and the crane operator.

Also I know that at least to me a still photograph, is more precious than most video or film, (though there are many exceptions).

My point is the amount of first, to third party equipment and software advances to video next to still photography.

HDR, Lightroom?  I have our video color timed on a Million dollar DiVinci and it does so in real time, high def, non compressed 12 bit.

Still, my point is where are the real advancements in Still photogaphy.  Yes the new Mamiya, HY6, 31, 33, 39 mpx cameras are upgrades from the 1ds and the first Phase H backs and Valeo's and yes the cameras are better than they were, but still the HY6 is basically a rewrapped 6008 and the Maimiya is the third version of the first.

Where is the real innovation in still photography.  Variable frame sizes, faster lenses, remote monitors to all types of devices.  Where is new way of stablizing a camera, smaller more poweful lights, dedicated computers per system that have internal and external portable raids?

Actually my real point is when I hear that GM has moved 1/2 of their huge ad budget to interactive, that print circulation is down in all sectors, high end to low end, that obviously leisure time spent on the web is eroding into television, when I personally watch 1/2 of my telivision or video programs on or through a computer, then is print and even traditiional broadcast becoming marginalized?

Pick up one of these magazines or go on line and look at what's available in the last few years for video production and the first thought I have is, who is buying all of this equipment?

For my studio I guess in a way I am, as I mentioned before 8 of the last nine still shoots we produced had a video component.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Tim Lüdin]

Hi guys

I'm checking the medium format section  every day for years now. So I think I should start to contribute. Usualy James, Mark or Frank put things right on the spot so I never thougt that I should chime in just to say similar things again.
So where do we stand and where will we go?
That's probably the most exciting question at the moment because the whole game is changing fast right now. As a Photographer and Director/DP im also living in both worlds.
I just received my RED One camera a few days ago and I have to say that this thing will change a lot in the movie and even in the photography game.
It's the first time that I can take a still frame out of a movieclip and it looks like a RAW picture from our DSLRs. It's crazy. You could use it for any website or even small print stuff. It doesnt look like a video freeze frame anymore, it's that good. This is still the beginning. I dont want to think about RED two, maybe in 2 years from now.

So did the movie/video technology grow faster tech wise? Absolutely. Will it eventualy affect still photography? For the first time I think so. I think film, video and photography will merge more and more in a few years. So we photographers will become DPs and directors and still be photographers at the same time and switching between genres will become much easier. Technology will make it happen. The RED One did open my eyes.
Maybe in a few years we will just use one tool, that's actualy a moviecam/photocamera and we just pic the right stillframes from our movieclips.

At the end more and more content ends up on the web. The web gets faster and faster so all companys want/need moving images in HD etc..So photographers that do both video and photo, might have an advantage in the coming years. Technology will bring the two camps closer together.

Like James mentioned, there are more and more shootings where the client also wantsIneeds some moviefootage from. At the moment that  stuff ends up on their website or on youtube but more and more they want some high end footage from the shootings too. So there you go.

Will it be good for a photographer to do it all? I'm not sure yet. I like it now but maybe in a few years I hate it. Sometimes I just want to take pictures and then I see a nice movie commercial and I'm all hyped to go filming, specialy now with my RED. Maybe in 10 years we all are so fed up with this digital merging thing that we go back and shoot film?! Or we get to old for this business to fast. The young guns are right around the corner and they all grow up with final cut, after effects, photoshop and got their first 12MP cam with the age of 6.

I think the whole "picture" business is going to change faster than we think or like.
So just stay flexible and hungry and it will all be good  

Cheers
Tim

[EricWHiss]

I'm coming at this from a fine art perspective so my take is a bit different.  I studied sculpture and while in art school, I could never get my hands around photography.  Then I just didn't see the art component and only viewed photography as craft and mostly documentary.   Of course years later most of my shows and sales are from photography.  Still when I go to an art show, I hate the video installations.  Do I have time to sit or stand and watch even 10 minutes?  Hmmm probably 10 years from now I'll be making video art.  Hated wine, coffee and dark chocolate on the first taste too!  

I see more and more art galleries galleries include video installations and some artists have even picked up on using framed LCD displays for their video and photo work.  So now they can sell a wall hanging art display that does slide shows and video clips as a work of art.  One Italian artist - forget his name now, also uses a dedicated cell phone on the LCD frame that downloads new art images every so often - so the package sold is the frame and X number of new images downloaded automatically to the frame via the cell phone data connection and the images rotate through on the screen.

Yes video is here to stay in all forms - commercial and art.   I'm excited about all the possibilities we have today but wonder how I can afford to stay in the game with all this gear?

Eric

[samuel_js]

Hi all,
Today I was looking at the new Nikon D3, thinking about a possible investment. I looked around a few websites, test, reviews, the d300 and at last I started to realize that all this industry is just like the car industry. I drive a Volvo V70 Bifuel (or biogas), a truly green car. Volvo stopped the production of this car last year in favor of Ethanol and if I was intrested in a new Volvo I'd be forced into one of these ethanol cars. No thank's! Then I think, of course electricity is the solution if you drive a lot and if you care a little about this world but you know what? These cars cost about 40.000-80.000 € and up. And why? Well, because there's other interest more important than our opinion and needs and that is corporate decisions and money. As simple as that. So the human being has been on the moon's surface, we send satellites and other sophisticated "cars" around the universe but here down on Earth we drive cars with a 150 years old engine inside. Yes, faster and more buttons but still the same. The new things attract us even if there's nothing in them that can makes better in any way. A mercedes was as cool in the '50 as it is today.
So back to the D3, I can see the improvement between a digital back and a 35mm camera, but honestly, the improvement in quality between my H20 and my recently sold P21 is minimal or nothing. The step to a P45 is just resolution, no better anything! In the same way I can see the resolution improvement between a 350d and a mark III, but again, nothing more.
When I look at all these sites with crop pixel encyclopedias I really get depressed. Beside resolution, all look the same today and looked almost identical for 5 years ago. No image improvements of any kind. Just minimal steps. Just look at Dpreview. It's amazing to see how camera after camera, year after year the compared images look almost identical. The coclusions are almost the same and the pros and cons are always the same.
I see now thousands of photographers selling their cameras to buy the new phase one or people selling their 6008 to buy a Hy6.
There's no revolution in photography anymore, and why is it going so slow? Because we keep buying and buying from companies like phase one charge you about 8.000 € to get a better screen in your back or Hasselblad with their well known marketing strategies and customer "care".

About video, I can say you can buy a really, really nice and professional videocam for about 5.000 dollars and make great movies: AND THEY DON'T HAVE PHOTOSHOP.

Personally, I don't see these are great times for photography. Maybe for the gear enthusiast or reviewer but from the artist point of view I can't see any camera that at these prices can be justified against a Contax 645 or a Hasselblad 503CW. And P series can only be justified for mobility, for the studio shooter...
I suppose I realized a lot  this with the announcement of the new PhaseOne camera. I was specting too much... and then the greatness of non existing lenses... non existing 6x6 sensors (hy6) speeds that no DB can match... etc... All for the future... It will come. Well, you know all these companies? The future is now. It begins now.

What I'd like to see tomorrow is a Contax 465 with the specs of a D3 and the image quality of  P45 transmiting wireless to a laptop and to a remote ftp server at the same time. Then we would be talking......  

At the end I think your pictures or movies will talk for themselves, not for the gear you are using.
I don't think people ask James why isn't he using a H3D or Hy6. When they see the images.... they are moving, there's a vision and something happening. And the new technology at least in photography, is not part of it in my opinion. James, Andre are proof of this.

When I look at my old NBA magazines.. the pictures of the young Michael Jordan flying, or Kareem Abdul Jabar.. man... what a photographs...

Digital photography is a big improvement regarding speed of delivery and clean processing, but maybe it's time to look at the cameras and rest of the gear instead of the pixel count to feel real and modern improvements.


/Samuel

[jimgolden]

I agree w/ john - I'm sick of tech rat race - I wanna make images. done.

[Morgan_Moore]

.

Where is the real innovation in still photography. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I WAS an comparatively non tech person until digital

I had a Mamiya ProTL, and a Nikon F5 and a contax T2, three prime lenses for each system shot 90% of my work and I had no gear lust - just nice tools for my work

Digital has been crap compared to film for the last decade - really all my techno geeking has been trying to get back to where I was a decade ago

A quality studio/arch camera

A walkabout DSLR with decent 800ISO for PJing

A nice pocket P+S

When I get round to buying a G9 I beleive that with my D3, H1/E22 I will be finally back to where I was

So there have been no significant developments in the user experience or final output yet

Ok viewing the images onsite has made me a little more daring with obtuse flash angles that risk flare

Photoshop is a big advance compared to retouching / slide comping and has brought those oppourtunities into my hands very affordably (compared to having a colour dark room)

A college kid doing post has the same toolbox as the biggest production house $600 of software

That is an advance

But advances in cameras/'film' I cant really see any -

OK a p45 print  is probably a bit cleaner than a Cibabchrome print, a D3 a bit cleaner than a roll of fuij 800 C41

Most dissapointing is the lack of 'out of the box' thinking by any manufacturer - particularly in the MF sector, a lot in the DSLR sector and least so in the compact sector (smile recognition - dumb first generation use of a fantastic concept)

So, James I am in agreement, advances have been minimal

So what do we want ?

Live view wifi-ed where possible

Remote camera full control

User programmable exposure modes

User programable AF (think 'keep the stripey dress sharp')

12000 ISO

Affordable automated pano production

Location tracking so that our shots can be rendered to 3d ?

Bash proofing

The D3 live view* has opened the future because its sensor is 'active' ie what it sees is fed back to the camera controls at near real time

While MF uses sensors designed for satellite data collection there will be no advances

I do hold out hope for the future though - now we are back where we were the advances will come

The first  ten years of cars where probably crap and a big waste of money compared to a good pony and trap but now they are probably better

Those advances may of course come through grabbing stills from video rather than traditional still cameras

SMM

* a note on the current D3 live view - I was demoing my D3 to a D2X using mate last night and summarised the LV as 'useless' because the screen doesnt swivel so you cant use it above your head or on the floor or while sitting in the bar

[TMARK]

I agree w/ john - I'm sick of tech rat race - I wanna make images. done.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Word up.  

I'm so sick of the upgrade cycle, and I just bought a P30+ and can't even decide if I want to shoot digital for anything other than big commercial clients.  I have a 1ds2 and a 5D and feel some sort of pressure to get a ds3 and whatever will replace the 5d, but why?  No reason I can see.  Neither produce images better than a Mamiya 7.  I've been trying to shoot the P30+ for personal projects.  The images are are really nice but how much better than a well exposed 645 frame?  I did some comparo and believe that the differences, while visible on screen, are almost gone in an A4 sized print on an Epson versus an old school C-Print.

Of all of the assignments I've shot this year only three were shot on MFDB, this after buying a P30+, and only four were digital.  I find I like shooting film again, especially for editorial.  There is something so visceral about working with an RZ or my old Sinar P.  Meter, shoot a Fuji, set exposure and go.  No tech, no batteries, no lap top, no looking at a monitor to break your flow, no cables to worry about etc.  Post is a breeze as well because the lab is doing all the work. Just have plenty of backs and inserts and an assistant who can load them.

I have friends who shoot whole catalogues on Portra 400NC using a combination of RZs and an af 645 cam.  I wish I had the stones to tell my catalogue clients I will be shooting film from this point forward.

[Morgan_Moore]

I'm so sick of the upgrade cycle, [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184622\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well I think the news is good on that front - with your P30 you dont need to upgrade any more

My 22mp is just as good as 645tranny as is your P30

I will only buy new stuff that does something different - that is not upgrading - its doing something different

I will upgrade to a D3X 16-22mp but that will be it

S

[Snook]

Word up. 

I'm so sick of the upgrade cycle, and I just bought a P30+ and can't even decide if I want to shoot digital for anything other than big commercial clients.  I have a 1ds2 and a 5D and feel some sort of pressure to get a ds3 and whatever will replace the 5d, but why?  No reason I can see.  Neither produce images better than a Mamiya 7.  I've been trying to shoot the P30+ for personal projects.  The images are are really nice but how much better than a well exposed 645 frame?  I did some comparo and believe that the differences, while visible on screen, are almost gone in an A4 sized print on an Epson versus an old school C-Print.

Of all of the assignments I've shot this year only three were shot on MFDB, this after buying a P30+, and only four were digital.  I find I like shooting film again, especially for editorial.  There is something so visceral about working with an RZ or my old Sinar P.  Meter, shoot a Fuji, set exposure and go.  No tech, no batteries, no lap top, no looking at a monitor to break your flow, no cables to worry about etc.  Post is a breeze as well because the lab is doing all the work. Just have plenty of backs and inserts and an assistant who can load them.

I have friends who shoot whole catalogues on Portra 400NC using a combination of RZs and an af 645 cam.  I wish I had the stones to tell my catalogue clients I will be shooting film from this point forward.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184622\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would NEVER want to back to film. What a pain really.
I agree that there is a lot less Tech stuff with film but good luck getting your clients to go back when they can see now the final result instantly..:+}
Just my opinion but I totally disagree with you and actually love the digital age.
You won't ever see me loading film anymore!
Snook..:+}
 

[eronald]

Digital doesn't make better images, but the fast feedback is a huge learning and experimentation tool.

Edmund

[Gary Yeowell]

Without getting into the film/digital debate, even with my 1DS3 in the bag, i would still rather carry on shooting Portra 160/N/C-VC in 6x7 or 5x4 for the look alone, however most of the labs have closed even in London (a few remain) and scanning is expensive. I'm on the lookout for an Imacon Flextight, and when i find one i will get back to shooting a lot more film.

One thing for sure, i will not buy the latest Canon/whatever when next it comes out, luckily for me my total investment in digital cameras has been limited to a Phase P20/Canon 5D/1DS3 which is not that bad! Now only a 1DS3 with 4 lenses.

Gary.