If video replaces still cameras

Rich wrote:
If video does replace still cameras for still photography, I wonder which
branch of still photography will be the last to succomb?

None. High resolution video changes nothing. Photography isn't about
shovelling terabytes of image data onto a disk. It's about finding the
image within the terabytes of data.

Whether the data is in the real world or in a computer makes no
difference to the art of photography.

And that's something that a photographer should have known.

--
Ray Fischer

The OP and at least some of the respondents appear to be folk who spend a
lot of money on a DSLR, but fail to use any of the controls which contribute
to great photographs. To so many people, hanging a DSLR about their neck is
nothing more than "bling". Most of their snapshots could well be achieved to
the same standard with a cheap point-and-shoot digital camera (or these
days, a mobile phone (cell in transatlantic-speak)). Reading through this
newsgroup makes me wonder how many posters and responents here ever move
their digital camera off the "Auto" position. How many people will buy a
DSLR rather than a bridge camera that offers the same controls and
facillites, but never, ever buy another lens for their DSLR? At the other
end of the spectrum, how many DSLR owvers shoot in RAW and bracket their
exposures to get an HDR image? How many employ aperture-priority so as to
better their photographs through selective focus? In my local camera club
we go out on outings, and though all are "enthusiasts", I'd say that about
70% never move their DSLR's dial off the Auto position. There are a couple
of people there who MUST have the latest all-singing/all dancing DSLR but
never ever use other that Auto. Anyone who asks the question "will the video
camera replace the DSLR" appear to be in the "point and shoot" brigade, and
should perhaps bettter be asking themselves "what the hell was I doing in
spending lotsa money on a DSLR camera?"

I wonder why Ansel Adams always used a large format camera?

And, if alive today, would he use (say) a 5Mpx digital camera or choose a
15Mpx digital camera?

wrote:
The OP and at least some of the respondents appear to be folk who spend a
lot of money on a DSLR, but fail to use any of the controls which contribute
to great photographs.

So, you're omniscient, too?

--
lsmft

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:25:16 -0400, John A. wrote:
: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:34:40 -0700, John McWilliams
: wrote:
:
: wrote:
: The OP and at least some of the respondents appear to be folk who spend a
: lot of money on a DSLR, but fail to use any of the controls which contribute
: to great photographs.
:
: So, you're omniscient, too?
:
: He said "appear to be", not "are". Though mere mortals, members of a
: social tool-using species are generally capable of forming an
: impression of how others use tools.

I've been reading these newsgroups a lot longer than "Xendor" has, and I
haven't formed the same impression at all. We know from another thread that
Xendor recently chose to buy a P&S after an apparently long and complex
decision process. My take is that he's now trying to justify that decision
(which may very well have been the correct one for him) by projecting
attitudes and behavior for which he has little or no evidence onto those in
the group who use DSLRs. He's free to do that, and we're free to ignore him
when he does. I suggest that we exercise that right, starting now.

Bob

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:18:05 GMT, wrote:
: I wonder why Ansel Adams always used a large format camera?

Because he was a sharpness nut. I suspect that that came partly from looking
back at the crappy photos he took as a teenager with his Brownie, many of
which were conspicuously unsharp.

: And, if alive today, would he use (say) a 5Mpx digital camera or choose a
: 15Mpx digital camera?

I'd guess a Hasselblad or other MF digital. He'd still be a sharpness nut, but
he was not one to reject new technology. At least once he expressed confidence
that photography was in its infancy and that important developments would come
along in the future that would render obsolete the equipment of his time.

Adams was a diligent and creative maker of prints. Were he alive today, he'd
probably be a master user of Photoshop.

Bob

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:01:50 -0500, Rich wrote:
If video does replace still cameras for still photography, ....

Do ya mean like still cameras replaced drawing and painting?

No...
Wait....

Pinaki wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:45*am, John Navas wrote:

"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams

Um, for photos taken today, those 12 inches would be
thin air :-)

And that's exactly how most of those pictures look like.

jue

? "Allodoxaphobia" ?????? ??? ??????
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:01:50 -0500, Rich wrote:
If video does replace still cameras for still photography, ....

Do ya mean like still cameras replaced drawing and painting?

Or records replaced live music and operas?


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
? "Allodoxaphobia" ?????? ??? ??????
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:01:50 -0500, Rich wrote:
If video does replace still cameras for still photography, ....
Do ya mean like still cameras replaced drawing and painting?

Or records replaced live music and operas?

That is perhaps not the best analogy.
To an extent, recordings have replaced live played music:
How many nightclubs have a band (or bands) playing for the whole night?
How many places have piped music or muzak?
There area a whole host of further instances where recorded music has
made live performance redundant or unwanted.

Rather than replacing video stills with purpose built still camera
image, it is more likely that video footage will or has replaced still
images altogether.
Does the nightly TV news show just a single still image or is it mostly
video of events?
Perhaps if newspaper where delivered to Kindle/ebook type devices, then
short video clips could replace still images there as well.