http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/10/swit ... ve-photos/
Very interesting concept.
Thoughts?
Printable View
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/10/swit ... ve-photos/
Very interesting concept.
Thoughts?
death of photography - yep.
I think it sounds pretty cool!
But will it take itself to Grandma's and take pictures of her birthday party for you? :wink:
You know actually upon some more thought, I don't think this will totally kill photography. Studio work, lighting set up - that all will probably stick around. But things that require luck with good timing; airshows, sports, quickly developing news situations/stories...the days when a photographer would cover those could be out.
only if we are really luckyQuote:
Originally Posted by moose135
No way will this "kill" photography. What they're suggesting is basically shooting video. The whole art of making a photo, considering composition, perspective, emotive elements is rudely brushed aside with this bastardization of image capture. It's at best a gross exaggeration of the "spray and pray" approach.
To me, photography is about seeing and capturing a single moment in time in that one glorious, climactic push of the shutter button. There's zero class in pulling a still out of a sequence of frames and saying "I took that shot". It robs one of the pleasure of knowing that they timed it just right before selecting the moment for action. It's kind of like the kid in junior high gym class that made a basket after a series of random, ridiculous moves who then said "I meant to do that".
I'm glad Nikon didn't come out with this idea. :mrgreen:
THIS.Quote:
Originally Posted by megatop412
I don't think this will ruin photography at all. I will continue to capture moments thoughtfully as I see them happening...the way I feel photography is supposed to be. I can't even imagine trying to "find" a memory after the fact. It almost angers me that someone would compare this to photography.
All of this is very true, but in the end, publications and end users aren't going to care how a photo was taken or how much skill was involved. As long as they like the shot, that's all that matters to them. That's where technology like this is going to hurt photography and photographers who actually have a clue. Take for instance the concert photography I do. I knew that there was a good chance that the keyboardist would do a ridiculous jump during a certain song (http://www.flickr.com/photos/carylia...7624545696724/), so I got in place, zoned in on the keyboardist the whole time, listened to the music for cues, and was able to get the shot. With the new "camera" concept, someone would be able to get the same shot, or better, with absolutely no skill involved. And I can guarantee most will have absolutely no shame that they hand-picked the shot from a video clip. So, if people thought the photography market was already flooded now that everyone has a digital camera, it's only going to get a lot worse when this thing essentially bridges the gap between amateur photographers and professionals.Quote:
Originally Posted by megatop412
Photography will certainly stick around as a hobby, the same way people still like to get older film cameras to toy with. But this video contraption is just as Cary says it...many will not care and it will become the staple for respected photographers to be prepared to use so that moments are not missed in blanket-coverage.
But won't they care how much extra post-production time may be involved to find the good frame? This just all seems to stupid and anti-photography to me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary
When taking photos of babies and children, like I do...I could never just come in with a video camera, spend 20 minutes "filming," leave and then go "find" the good shots. It's impossible to get genuine and real shots that way. IMPOSSIBLE. I'm sure you can gather some good, cute frames in the footage, but it defies the essence of photography. Ugh, I am so mad! Any real photographer would never use this piece of equipment.
I have to add that it already irks me enough when I see photographers who hold their shutters down and aren't thoughtful about the shots they take. I understand if there is a "moment" that you want to burst a few shots of...but if you just click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click the day/shoot/event away....how are you putting any care into your shots?
Unfortunately for most, probably not. Just like all those publications who go around trying to get a photo to use for free. They keep going from person to person until they find someone who's willing to give up their photo just for a credit. They don't care that there are better photos and better photographers out there...they just want to keep their budget intact. I've had plenty of photo sales fall through because I asked for mid-to-high $xx, and others obviously underbid me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellyrose
Yeah, I'm not a fan of that either. I could care less that one of my cameras shoots 10fps, because I never use that speed, but those who are into max fps and hold their shutters down will like this new camera. Every time I shoot a day-long concert, I end up with around 700 photos while the click-happy photographers are in the thousands. But I have the satisfaction in knowing that I actually thought about my shots, used less hard drive space, and used less shutter life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellyrose
If the new camera can only shoot everything in focus (and there's no switch to turn it off), I think portrait photography will be fine in terms of the gap between pros and amateurs not being affected. Professional sports photography will also probably be okay, in the sense that access is limited, and your average Joe can't just sit on the baseline of a basketball game with this camera and start shooting. But I think once the lenses and image quality on these things get good enough, and one respected photographer starts using it, a lot more will follow - especially in sports photography, where they love the spray and pray technique.
Hi Cary,Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary
I'm afraid that what you and Phil say here is probably true, that this "cheating" will at some point become known as a "tool" that gains credibility within the ranks of pro shooters. That's one reason why I don't do photography for money, or for any rewards other than getting stoked when I see my shots up on my monitor. Whenever they get compliments from you folks, I get extra stoked. But knowing how the world tends to work, I don't get my hopes up that people will realize this for the sham that it is. Even if they do, as you say, folks like editors won't care about the differences in effort and skill- at the end of the day it's always about the bottom line.