Cacophony

[Rhossydd]

Luminous Landscape is widely regarded as a excellent resource of fine photography and authoritative content.
So why put the Cacophony video on the site ? Maybe your friends in Toronto will value it, but I think it devalues the ‘brand’ of Luminous Landscape. We don’t see second rate still images displayed in the editorial content just because they come from a new type of camera unless they were specifically demonstrating faults with the technology. We don’t read apologies like “It isn't polished…..There are numerous technical flaws” for any other still images.

I know many people are getting unduly excited at the idea of “convergence” but can I make a plea to keep this site showing exemplary work in it’s editorial pages and not succumb to the “gee whiz it’s awesome” hyperbole so depressingly common on other, less worthy, sites.
If you’re going to show video make sure it’s of the absolute highest professional standards, where no apologies are needed.

Paul

[michael]

The point of the video was not to demonstrate any particular skill of mine at shooting video, nor to demonstrate any aspect of camera technology. I tried to be very clear about that. I'm sorry you missed the point.

What I was trying to illustrate was a point about story telling, something that I receive a lot of questions about. I thought that I made that clear.

I'd also add that my attitude toward art, photography and technology is that it be fun. Sometimes fun trumps art. That video was fun for me, and I've heard from more than a few folks that enjoyed it.

Sorry that you weren't one of them.

Michael

[DickKirkley]

I believe I saw that same dance group in that plaza two years ago. I was impressed with their energy and wished I had video capability on my Pentax K100. However I did get some reasonable stills. Your video gave me much pleasure and the sound definitely matched your title.
Enjoy  your stay in San Miguel. I certainly enjoyed mine; both there and in all the other silver cities.
Regards
Dick K.

[Rhossydd]

What I was trying to illustrate was a point about story telling, something that I receive a lot of questions about. I thought that I made that clear.

Not here. I read the article as "go out and shoot anything that interests you", about story telling ? missed that.

As a piece of story telling I'm afraid it really doesn't make the mark. Even some small tweaks would have dramaticly improved the impact of the piece. Cut the really badly colour balanced clips and add some applause (just download some PD stuff from the net)  to lay over the audience applauding that in the clip that you can't hear people applauding even when they feature in frame. The problem with video is that it really has a different language to stills, but that video isn't really speaking it to me. Time base media needs a start, some middle and a finish. Too many trial shorts lack even that basic language.

 Fun ? fun amongst friends is one thing, but when just 'knocked out quick' maybe best kept to Facebook for distribution rather than as your main business web site's front article.

Paul

[michael]

You didn't read the part about "telling a story"? Really?

Humm. OK. Guess you just didn't like it. No more needs to be said.

Michael

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I found the video both fun and totally appropriate.

I am one of those Luddites who has grumbled quietly about the new move to put video into still cameras. I have been quite happy that my Canon 5D (Mark I) does not have video. But Michael's fun piece is about the first one I've seen that makes me begin to think maybe video does have its place.

Eric

[Derryck]

I'm now just in the process of editing two 4min videos for the Fairmont Resort and one of the hardest things I find moving from still to moving images is the ability to develop the narrative and capturing shots that help tell the story while you're actually shooting. Now of course if you are given the time you storyboard the whole sequence and know each shot that you have to capture. But quite often things have to be done on the fly. The good thing about editing your own work is that you get to see where all those holes are so next time you'll remember what shots you have to capture to tell the story. It's certainly been a learning process but one that I'm really enjoying and fortunately making money from as well.

[LesPalenik]

If you’re going to show video make sure it’s of the absolute highest professional standards, where no apologies are needed.

And how did you like the music?

If you take it as it was intended, I think, it's a timely presentation of the GH2 capabilities, and what a capable person can accomplish with it in one evening.

[dreed]

The point of the video was not to demonstrate any particular skill of mine at shooting video, nor to demonstrate any aspect of camera technology. I tried to be very clear about that. I'm sorry you missed the point.

What I was trying to illustrate was a point about story telling, something that I receive a lot of questions about. I thought that I made that clear.

What I'm learning from videos like yours and others is that story telling with video is much the same as with photos: a collection of related but separate pieces. Although I've been watching TV for years and years (not to mention movies), I've never really paid attention to how it was being put together - until recently.

However the next part that I'm finding challenging is how do you construct the sound track? In this case, the music from the bands far outweighed any noise you or the camera made. In the video for the blizzard, the author has put it to a sound track. As with the "first professional" video done with the 5D2, So now the questions of what music is appropriate and/or how do I go about adding it? (I'm thinking along the lines of how do you contact a band/artist in order to use their music as the sound track for your video that you upload to youtube, etc.)

[Rhossydd]

You didn't read the part about "telling a story"? Really?

Yes, I read it several times, but sadly the video posted doesn't tell much of a story or positively illustrate anything from the article.
It's going to be difficult for photographers to understand that story telling through sound and vision is a very different discipline compared to telling stories through mute still images. It's the skills of the producer/director/editor not necessarily the camera operator that are needed. Not everyone will be able to make that jump.

Humm. OK. Guess you just didn't like it. No more needs to be said.

It's not a question of "liking" the video, it just isn't of the standard I associate with this site. I've been regularly reading this site for over a decade now and it's standards are usually exemplary and never frivolous.
I rather hope that "convergence" doesn't end up trying to converge home videos with fine art photography, it's not what we visit here for.

Paul

[michael]

Paul,

Your points are well made, but you still are missing the point.

I wanted to show newcomers to video with DSLRs that doing something fun isn't hard, and can be done and shared in a short period of time.

I pointed out that I shot the piece in just 30 minutes with one camera, one lens, and the built-in audio. I then edited and had it online a couple of hours later. Fast, easy, fun.

Of course I could have done a more professional production. The edits I did were simple assembly; something that could have been done in iMovie or any $99 NLE. Nothing fancy, just what a beginner could do. Same with the sound. No fancy track overlays, etc. No grading, just simple white balance. No titles, no Smoothcam, no After Effects, nada.

That was the point!

As an educator I learned a long time ago that teaching using ones professional work as examples simply intimidates and discourages. The bar is set too high for the beginner. Set the bar lower, and show that getting started isn't that hard. That's what I was trying to do, and some of the messages here and in privates emails indicate that I largely succeeded.

I think we're now done.

Michael

[LesPalenik]

It's not a question of "liking" the video, it just isn't of the standard I associate with this site.

Exactly! Next time somebody posts a dancing video, I want to see some footage from Copacabana, that was captured on a bright day.

[billh]

I wanted to show newcomers to video with DSLRs that doing something fun isn't hard, and can be done and shared in a short period of time...

I pointed out that I shot the piece in just 30 minutes with one camera, one lens, and the built-in audio. I then edited and had it online a couple of hours later. Fast, easy, fun...

As an educator I learned a long time ago that teaching using ones professional work as examples simply intimidates and discourages. The bar is set too high for the beginner. Set the bar lower, and show that getting started isn't that hard. That's what I was trying to do, and some of the messages here and in privates emails indicate that I largely succeeded.

Michael

That was exactly how I saw this video, and to me it was welcome. I am a life long photographer who became increasingly fascinated about a year and a half ago with video and the avenues it offers to tell stories. There is an incredible amount to learn, and I am still very low on the curve, but that opens a window to “erika” moments when I spot and learn about something that to me is very clever, like this which was shot in reverse. That is something probably obvious to people like Rhossydd and Fredjeang, but which never would have occurred to me. I saw this video as an attempt by Michael to give a glimpse to photographers who are wondering what all the video chatter is all about. I welcomed it, and hope the criticism doesn’t stifle future attempts. I now find myself doing photography for others, but video for myself. I hope L-L will broaden into a site where we can learn more about the “new” video field available from cameras like the GH2.

Bill

[D_Clear]

Paul,

Your points are well made, but you still are missing the point.

I wanted to show newcomers to video with DSLRs that doing something fun isn't hard, and can be done and shared in a short period of time.

I pointed out that I shot the piece in just 30 minutes with one camera, one lens, and the built-in audio. I then edited and had it online a couple of hours later. Fast, easy, fun.

Of course I could have done a more professional production. The edits I did were simple assembly; something that could have been done in iMovie or any $99 NLE. Nothing fancy, just what a beginner could do. Same with the sound. No fancy track overlays, etc. No grading, just simple white balance. No titles, no Smoothcam, no After Effects, nada.

That was the point!

As an educator I learned a long time ago that teaching using ones professional work as examples simply intimidates and discourages. The bar is set too high for the beginner. Set the bar lower, and show that getting started isn't that hard. That's what I was trying to do, and some of the messages here and in privates emails indicate that I largely succeeded.

I think we're now done.

Michael

I feel it's important for all of us to be mindful that this website exists largely on the initiative and ongoing commitment of MR, and that his intention with the video was to encourage and educate, to demonstrate how do-able it is for stills photographers to give it try. I think that's great and should be commended.

I also think it's also fair to expect a bit of an adjustment for members of the forum as they see a shift in the type of articles being written lately, perhaps it just seems that way but my impression is the articles seem a bit more pedestrian, maybe it's just that they closely mirror the maturity of digital photography in general - there is perhaps less to write about, or it's already been written since many of the biggest shifts in technology have already taken place during the life of this website. The notable exception being the video/slr evolution.

I think Michael, that many people associate you with highest standards and excellence, they look up to you so it may take a while for them to recalibrate to what seems like shift on your part with respect to the past vigor you've written with.

It's interesting to read your first or your last post and if one imagines it's being written about stills, in that context you may be able to understand why some members have expressed surprise.

Though I'm not a landscape photographer per se, I have found LL to be a remarkable coming together of photography discourse, I want to thank you for that.

DC
www.dermotcleary.com

[daws]

Time base media needs a start, some middle and a finish. Too many trial shorts lack even that basic language.

It's the skills of the producer/director/editor not necessarily the camera operator that are needed.

Meaning no disrespect to Michael, I do have to agree with Paul's posts on this issue.

[Bryan Conner]

Since the original poster was so disappointed, and well, seemingly disgusted with the content of this forum, that he felt the need to file a complaint, I think that maybe he should be given a complete refund on his membership fees. 

[daws]

Since the original poster was so disappointed, and well, seemingly disgusted with the content of this forum, that he felt the need to file a complaint, I think that maybe he should be given a complete refund on his membership fees. 

Your typification of the OP is, of course, completely inaccurate; mocking him serves neither yourself nor the forum.

[Rhossydd]

Since the original poster was so disappointed, and well, seemingly disgusted with the content of this forum, that he felt the need to file a complaint, I think that maybe he should be given a complete refund on his membership fees. 

Interesting post. It's a shame you haven't bothered to read my posts or maybe you fail to understand the difference between the content of the forum from the editorial pages of the site.

It's putting beginners level content on the editorial pages that will not help maintain the generally outstanding quality of content on the forum. We're mercifully free from the attitude of "If you can't say anything nice don't say anything" brigade here or other similarly crass comments, but there's more of an attitude of "If you don't add to the debate, don't post". There's an important and subtle difference there, I hope you understand.

With respect to "membership fees", yes access here is free, but many of us DO contribute to the finances of the sites by buying the tutorials, video content and buying through the sponsored links, have you ?

This is an aspect that MR should consider when putting video content on to the site he has to apologise for. We know a videoDSLR video tutorial is in production. For that to be a success it's important to establish that he can deliver professional quality results and can demonstrate a high degree of competence in the medium. We know he's a master of stills, but, and I'm really sorry to have to point this out,  so far we haven't seen matching skills in video production.

Paul

[Bill Koenig]

Thanks for the link to "Idiot with a tripod" that was really cool and IMO it was well done. It really got me thinking about the creative possibility's of video with a DLSR, something that I never thought about when video first started to appear as a new feature, which I dismissed as something that I would never have a use for. I'm not thinking that way any more.

[barryfitzgerald]

Whilst I'm not into video much (yes I have a DSLR that can shoot it) I am a bit of a movie buff as they say and yes I do pay attention to the cinema photography.

Yes an interesting thread and fair game for putting something up I'm sure it's far better than anything I could ever attempt. Experimentation is the name of the game. If I were to make one comment and this is just a general one ala video and end results it's that looking around I'm not seeing a lot of variety to this. Granted it's early days and ok big budget movies have hundreds working on them a cast, scripts lighting effects folks, sound engineers all play a big role in the end result.

But if you look at most of what is out there it's fairly predictable and that's something I apply to my own stills shooting I've far to often "played it safe" and got decent but well not as good as I wanted results. Sometimes you have to "throw the hammer down" and just go for it works or not. I'm seeing quite a lot of very narrow DOF shooting from DSLR shooters with video and static shots (ala tripod mounted) This has a place of course in film making but if you look at someone like Dante Spinotti a bit of a legend in his field what you see on various films he has done the photography for is a lot of variety in his shots. Granted some of this might be tricky on a technical level.

Watch a Dante film and you'll see he yes uses shallow DOF, moderate DOF and lots of DOF at times, he's very effective at mounted shots, he can move in to a subject well, does some dramatic WA to UWA shooting, close ups and far away shots, sometimes hand held (but not the annoying Paul Greengrass super shaky hand held which I find horrible) In short he covers a lot of areas thus many of the shooters I have seen recently don't it's fairly limited. If there are any videos out there that have a lot of variety then I'd love to see them.

Ok so I don't have a lot of interest myself but I would like to see folks move away from just replaying the same kind of shot over and over there is an awful lot of choice in this field as as purely a viewer there is a big difference between having a bit of fun and a talented cinema photographer.