What’s Your Preference?

SwissJon · #1 (**permalink**) 02-13-2012, 01:49 PM

Ok, so I've been thinking recently, with pretty much every DSLR these days coming with the ability to record HD video, is photography ever going to go out of fashion? Are we going to become defunct and replaced by moving pictures?

I personally don't think so, and here's why:

Video comes in two varieties..

Very short shots repeating themslves over and over. This makes a picture seem alive, but to be honest, I can't see this taking over. The shots to me feel creepy and actually their repeating nature makes me feel slightly seasick.. Like a stuck record, you just want to move it on.

Then there's long videos of people. Now one might think this presents competition to a still photo, but I don't think so. How many people would show a video of their kids in the bath, but are prepared to show a snapshot? Show a photo of their wife in a bikini but wouldn't show a video. To me, a video represents a little too much intimacy.. It digs too deply into our private lives to want to share it with anyone that we wouldn't share the reality. Photography is less invasive. It represents a carefully doctored part of our lives that we can crop and share with our friends.

Now, one might say that you can do that with video, but not really to the same extent.. With photos, you can take a series of shots, have some where you might be prepared to share with your best friends, some with the man in the pub and others with your mother.. With a video of the same occasion, it's really all or nothing.. You can't skip through and show one part then fast forward through the embarrassing things, then show them the next bit quite so easily, and even when you can show your mum a photo album, and your best friend a different one, then share with your partner an intimate moment that happened in between that you want to keep to yourselves, you're really not doing much other than showing a series of photos anyway.

I don't think our craft is likely to disappear in the near future. It might change.. With something like Lytro, we may find a slider labled "Focus" and another labled "Depth of field" in Lightroom v10.. But really, that's just moving the place where you make these changes from the camera to the computer, it's not a revolution, it's just going to change the time at which we think about these things.. I can see Lytro bringing us into the 3D world too.. But again, that's not going to make a lot of difference. A skilled photographer is still going to be able to see things an amateur won't.

The skill with taking photos isn't just in the equipment, no matter what equipment that is, it's about what you keep in the photo and what you leave out.. It's about being able to "see" a photo in something that looks ordinary.. It's also about bending the truth and making something appear different to how it is in reality.. With film, people expect to see the bigger picture.. If you have a news story, it's a lot easier in photography to make a small group of youths appear like a large group than with film.. Making someones wedding appear a happy occasion when in reality your mothers started fighting with each other has got to be easier with pictures than with film.. That one time when they actually were talking can be judiciously added. A photograph showing a pop diva or a play on broadway, or even a burger in Mc Donalds might be a lot easier to sell the product than something that something showing your burger going limp, or that you're never close enough to actually see the person on stage.. People expect film to show the reality, they accept that photos can't.. So it's easier to mislead people with photos.

So for all these reasons, good and bad, I think photography will remain for many years to come.

Biomech · #2 (**permalink**) 02-13-2012, 01:54 PM

I.... "am"... a believer that video is for video cameras, photos for camera cameras. However, I see an increasingly large amount of professional productions filmed on DSLR now - although I do support the argument that a 5D is cheaper to blow up than a hollywood HD camera :P

I was on a job recently and working away this couple came up to me with a DSLR on a tripod and a massive plate LED light on top, I thought they were taking photos of me doing my thing, then the woman stuffs a microphone in my mouth and starts introducing me to the camera. I was like ... :O

All that said, I am probably going to sell my HD camcorder and just use my DSLR for youtube and video shorts :P

UlpilotSC · #3 (**permalink**) 02-13-2012, 07:17 PM

I hate camcorders. I had a lot of them over the years. Full size VHS, smaller sharp view cam with the little vhsc tapes I think, and used a canon handheld with flash memory only, I think the avhd format. All those different formats sucked. Who has a VCR any more? I've got tapes I can't even watch. The viewcam is long gone, along with the tapes. Too much trouble to convert all of that. The canon digital format blows too.... It's unusable straight off the camera, you have to convert it.
The best video camera I ever had was my canon a620 digital camera. Avi format and editing (cut off beginning/end) right on the camera. None of that mp4 QuickTime crap. 620x480 at 30fps. I mean, hd is good if you are burning to a blue-ray disc, but I don't have one yet. My canon t1i records video, but it comes out in QuickTime form. I prefer avi, just because windows media player opens faster and behaves better. Although the VLC player kicks ass....
But to me video is always secondary. It's an add on instead of a main means of documenting stuff. I can make prints for the wall, I can make photo books, and if I really want a video I can make a slideshow and score it with some mp3s (I did one of our Disney vacation and used Disney music in the background. It was a lot of fun), interspersing it with little video clips. But it's hard to beat a nice 16x20 on the wall.