The future of photography?

"Steve Franklin" wrote in message
...
Hi all...

Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing
resolution
do you think there will come a time where certain fields of photography
will
not be around any more?

E.g Take sports photography. Say video cams in 5 years time has the same
resolution as todays high end digital slrs. At 25fps (PAL) why would you
pay
a photographer for his image of a say the exact moment when Juan Pablo
Montoya hits the wall at 180 miles per hour, when you could get the video
editor to go through the footage 2 seconds before and after the crash and
pick the best of 100 images?

The same goes for Tennis, Football and all the other high speed sports.


Will the fly-fishing Cartier-Bresson 'Decisive Moment' model of
photographer
be replaced by the John West driftnet fishing model.


I notice you neglected to mention curling, the most photo-friendly sport in
existence. To me, capturing that frenetic broom action is the sole reason
cameras were invented.

Steve Franklin wrote:
Hi all...

Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing resolution
do you think there will come a time where certain fields of photography will
not be around any more?

E.g Take sports photography. Say video cams in 5 years time has the same
resolution as todays high end digital slrs. At 25fps (PAL) why would you pay
a photographer for his image of a say the exact moment when Juan Pablo
Montoya hits the wall at 180 miles per hour, when you could get the video
editor to go through the footage 2 seconds before and after the crash and
pick the best of 100 images?

The same goes for Tennis, Football and all the other high speed sports.


Will the fly-fishing Cartier-Bresson 'Decisive Moment' model of photographer
be replaced by the John West driftnet fishing model.

Whereas this might happen someday I rather doubt that it will happen in
5 years,
or even 10 for that matter. With more and more DH video there will be
more stills taken off of video but it still will not compare to a good
still camera.

Still I expect the frame rate of digital cameras to continue to
increase. But someone who is really good can time the shutter very
well, so the fame rate would have to be very high before you could do
better then just pushing the shutter at the right time.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...


Steve Franklin wrote:
Hi all...

Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing
resolution
do you think there will come a time where certain fields of photography
will
not be around any more?

E.g Take sports photography. Say video cams in 5 years time has the same
resolution as todays high end digital slrs. At 25fps (PAL) why would you
pay
a photographer for his image of a say the exact moment when Juan Pablo
Montoya hits the wall at 180 miles per hour, when you could get the
video
editor to go through the footage 2 seconds before and after the crash
and
pick the best of 100 images?

The same goes for Tennis, Football and all the other high speed sports.


Will the fly-fishing Cartier-Bresson 'Decisive Moment' model of
photographer
be replaced by the John West driftnet fishing model.

Whereas this might happen someday I rather doubt that it will happen in
5 years,
or even 10 for that matter. With more and more DH video there will be
more stills taken off of video but it still will not compare to a good
still camera.

Still I expect the frame rate of digital cameras to continue to
increase. But someone who is really good can time the shutter very
well, so the fame rate would have to be very high before you could do
better then just pushing the shutter at the right time.

Scott

Walked up to the sink and took this on the first shot
http://harryphotos.com/droplogo.jpg took about another 200 and didnt get one
as good lol.

Still photography and vidography are opposite sides of the same coin.
However, the art forms are much different in that Still photography requires
much talent to get the shot in time. Where as the vidiographer just pulls
the trigger and has the pick of the liter following the event. It's two
different perspectives. The still photographer will always be necessary for
still shots. The vidiographer on the other hand will never require the same
skill or talent to capture the moment.

Robert King
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Steve Franklin wrote:
Hi all...

Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing
resolution do you think there will come a time where certain fields of
photography will not be around any more?

1) The resolution of video is nowhere close to a $200 P&S digital, never
mind an SLR at 5 Mpix and more. I'm not even sure if the dynamic range of
video is up to that of the same P&S.

2) For video, the eye is following action and movement. Not the same
experience as photogrphy at all.

3) Star Wars is rendered at something on the order of 1.4 Mpix / frame,
yet gives the audience a very, very rich visual experience (which hasn't
helped the dialog one bit).

4) Photography (still) and videography have different objectives in what
they capture.

5) You can disperse dozens of still photographers with sparse equipment
loads all over a sports event. Video is less flexible, and more BW is
needed to relay the signal to the van. (Each camera can tape too, of
course).

So, no I don't think the 'still' photographer will disappear from sporting
events.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Steve Franklin wrote:
Hi all...

Was just thinking the other day, what with video fast increasing
resolution do you think there will come a time where certain fields of
photography will not be around any more?

Snip


So, no I don't think the 'still' photographer will disappear from
sporting
events.


"rlking" wrote in message
nk.net...
Still photography and vidography are opposite sides of the same coin.
However, the art forms are much different in that Still photography
requires
much talent to get the shot in time. Where as the vidiographer just pulls
the trigger and has the pick of the liter following the event. It's two
different perspectives. The still photographer will always be necessary
for
still shots. The vidiographer on the other hand will never require the
same
skill or talent to capture the moment.


Well, I don't know if I'd consider the sports photographer a true
photographer in the classic sense of the word-- he or she is mostly a
five-frames-per-second videographer, standing on the sidelines with an
image-stablized, pre-focussed long lens, a pre-metered exposure setting and
holding a finger on the shutter button as a play unfolds, hoping that one of
the cranked-out auto exposures will catch "the moment", as they often do.
Nothing wrong with that, of course, but sports "photography" is to still
photography as MacDonalds is to good home cooking.