Evolution or the murder of art?

Sort by date Sort by votes
S

Sabaki

Dec 4, 2012
799
0
9,771
51
Cape Town, South Africa
#1
Disclaimer: This post is totally and utterly speculation and not based on actual developer announcements.

If the burst/frame count of cameras one day reaches and potentially exceeds 24 frames per second and photography possibly becomes an exercise of selecting frames from what is essentially a video reel, how would YOU, as a photographic artist feel about that?

I have a feeling that this advancement may initially raise it's head in camera phones for some strange reason.

Quite interested to hear opinions on this
 
#3
As technology improves, it is inevitable that this will become the case. I'm not saying it will happen quickly, but if technology advances to where the frame rate can be 24 fps and a full RAW image can be captured for each frame, we'll be there. For the masses, once everything is shooting 1920x1080, stills from that are good enough for the masses. The disadvantage is you can't make better adjustments like you can with RAW and the frame will be from a compressed video stream which hurts the quality more, but still, we're talking about the masses who are content with the generally bad quality of phone cameras and who are content with the 612 by 612 low quality shots using Instagram. For professional use, it's a long way off -- maybe 10 years or more.
 
Upvote 0
#4
Somewhere out there are a couple of videos on this topic - one from a stills guy who shoots a skier and talks about needing more control (but thinks this is coming) and another with two guys testing various shoots but coming away with the feeling that the shutter speed for smooth video is too slow for most stills work when subjects are moving much. Then there's this: Photos shot on Red, which makes you think twice, at least for portrait work.
 
Upvote 0
#5
There are people who will do so in the future. Not me. The careful framing, shutter speed, depth of field, and other parameters have specific needs in each moment. Make dozens of photos to use one, and discard the vast majority, it seems stupid. While this may be necessary for scientific use.
 
Upvote 0
#6
Originally exposures took a huge amount of preparation to take the picture, and then to develop it.

Did it cease to be photography when SLRs were invented, or later on DSLRs?

A photograph is still a photograph, composition is still composition. The only difference with high frame rates is that you have more options for honing in on that perfect shot, the same as all the other progress and developments in photography since the invention of the original camera. How is this any different?
 
Upvote 0
#7
mackguyver said:
Somewhere out there are a couple of videos on this topic - one from a stills guy who shoots a skier and talks about needing more control (but thinks this is coming) and another with two guys testing various shoots but coming away with the feeling that the shutter speed for smooth video is too slow for most stills work when subjects are moving much. Then there's this: Photos shot on Red, which makes you think twice, at least for portrait work.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Even if you've got 120fps, that equates (with a 180-degree shutter rule) to 1/240s, which is ok for lots of general purpose photo work (say, most weddings?), but not any sort of action photography.
 
Upvote 0
#9
Tugela said:
Originally exposures took a huge amount of preparation to take the picture, and then to develop it.

Did it cease to be photography when SLRs were invented, or later on DSLRs?

A photograph is still a photograph, composition is still composition. The only difference with high frame rates is that you have more options for honing in on that perfect shot, the same as all the other progress and developments in photography since the invention of the original camera. How is this any different?
Click to expand...

It will just raise the bar on what is considered a good or acceptable photograph, just like autofocus, IS, high ISO's, high burst rates and digital post process have all done. Look at nature photography from 25-30 years ago vs today. Stuff that used to be NatGeo level in the 70's wouldn't make the cut for a third rate webzine amateur contest. Same for sports, journalism, weddings or anything else really except for maybe landscape or fine art where large format still rules.
 
Upvote 0
#11
9VIII said:
I was going to make fun of photography as an "art", but I'll hold back for now.

On topic: I can't wait for 120fps bursts to pick my BIF images from.
Click to expand...

I find it far more easy to make fun of a person who needs 120 fps to be considered a photographer than photography as an Art form, which hasn't been debatable for over 100 years.
 
Upvote 0
#12
chris_w_digits said:
I'm not saying it will happen quickly, but if technology advances to where the frame rate can be 24 fps and a full RAW image can be captured for each frame, we'll be there.
Click to expand...

Well, Nikons V3 can capture 60 full res raw files, i.e similar 18MP to the 1Dx or the run of the mill APS-C cam, per second, or 20fps with tracking AF. So much for "quickly" ;D

But how much effect that can have on photography is very genre dependent. For sports its quite an advancement. For anything planned not so much. And once you bring flash into the game its at least massively expensive (get me some Scoros, and that's w/o requiring high power) or way beyond that. Replace that <10kg mobile unit or some flashguns with multiple trailers filled with gear... 8)

As for picking frames from a video...both technical details like motion blur and artisitic&narrative decisions are often mutually exclusive, or at least not exactly helping each other. That's for absolute minimal budget/low quality, otherwise definitely unavailable material or fools.
 
Upvote 0
#13
slclick said:
9VIII said:
I was going to make fun of photography as an "art", but I'll hold back for now.

On topic: I can't wait for 120fps bursts to pick my BIF images from.
Click to expand...

I find it far more easy to make fun of a person who needs 120 fps to be considered a photographer than photography as an Art form, which hasn't been debatable for over 100 years.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm hardcore utilitarian. The camera is an image recording tool, and what name people apply to its use really doesn't concern me.

That being said I probably shouldn't have posted on the thread, but it was also somewhat tongue in cheek, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if I'm taking pictures that don't serve a practical use then I'm effectively creating art. Thus, no matter how much the concept clashes with my ideals, my opinion on the subject still qualifies as coming from an "artist".
 
Upvote 0
#16
I'm sure that people will find new forms of art, especially in the field of photography from cameras that are able to shoot 24, 30, 60 or even 120fps.

If you don't want 24fps, you don't have to get it...
And, if you do get it, but don't need the full 24fps, then I'm sure you can slow it down like the current 1DX.

The question you should ask is... why do you need 11-14fps (currently offered in the 1DX), but not 24fps?
 
Upvote 0
#17
I would feel the same as a writer feels about a pen, typewriter, word processer.

The art is in what you take a picture of, science is how you take the picture.

Was the "art" of writing murdered by the advent of a word processer with spell and grammar check?

Will a hack writer like me be able to write better if I use a fountain pen?
 
Upvote 0
#19
In any capture-the-moment situation, like sports, wildlife and action, photographers will love the ability to pick the exact frame from a high speed burst (why do we buy the 1DX?). But for product, landscape, waterscape, architecture, street, portraits etc. it will add little to nothing. And art will still be art, it just may have a slightly different form in some areas.
 
Upvote 0
#20
AcutancePhotography said:
I would feel the same as a writer feels about a pen, typewriter, word processer.

The art is in what you take a picture of, science is how you take the picture.

Was the "art" of writing murdered by the advent of a word processer with spell and grammar check?

Will a hack writer like me be able to write better if I use a fountain pen?
Click to expand...

Yes, fountain pens lay ink down more easily and reliably (once you have it tuned properly). I actually threw out all but a few specialized ballpoint pens once I got a good FP.
I'm guessing you weren't talking about the quality of your script though.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu