| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2006 04:15:19 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 04:19:31 PM · #2 |
Good one :) Looks like it could be a lightsphere ad also.
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 16:21:25. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 04:23:50 PM · #3 |
| Unfortunately, I think wedding still photography is on the way out. HD video cameras can produce very nice prints from still frames and they are dropping in price all the time. Soon, weddings will be all shot on video and the pictures generated from individual video frames with no need for a still photographer. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 04:27:44 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Unfortunately, I think wedding still photography is on the way out. HD video cameras can produce very nice prints from still frames and they are dropping in price all the time. Soon, weddings will be all shot on video and the pictures generated from individual video frames with no need for a still photographer. |
no way dude. That will only happen when the entire still photography business goes byebye. And that is a long long way away.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 04:31:34 PM · #5 |
I don't think the vid is going to replace still anytime soon. I agree with your reasoning, but I have no probs getting weddings but a vid guy I know, a good one too, has trouble getting clients, and I see few vid guys at the weddings I've shot.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 04:36:45 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Unfortunately, I think wedding still photography is on the way out. HD video cameras can produce very nice prints from still frames and they are dropping in price all the time. Soon, weddings will be all shot on video and the pictures generated from individual video frames with no need for a still photographer. |
no way dude. That will only happen when the entire still photography business goes byebye. And that is a long long way away. |
There are lots of Videographers selling just such a service, They offer to supply not only a video, but an album of prints as well. They sell this service usually at no extra cost, eliminating the need for a separate still photographer.
I don't think it will happen overnight, but I think it will happen, probably sooner than you think.
Why do you think a bride would need a still photographer if she can get a good album of prints from the videographer?
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 16:38:28. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 04:41:47 PM · #7 |
LOL that video is funny. I like to get my shots, but I make sure I am not in anyones way. I make sure to be curteous to everyone, because I expect the same from them. That doesnt always happen though.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 04:51:03 PM · #8 |
Setup I suspect. I did a couple of weddings years ago (when video cameras were worn on the shoulder and had manual focus :-o). Appears to be a camera set on a pod and is too wide to be too useful. Still the photg are pretty out of control, I mean how many pics do you really need from 2 cameras at that point :-/
I agree that video will replace some parts of still photg (mostly journalism I suspect) but it may be a while before it's common. Those Canon pro line cameras are pretty cool - besides there is an adapter for Canon SLR lenses, so maybe it will just be a body change :-)) [Yeah, I know right now they add a crazy multiplication factor but still]. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:01:16 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why do you think a bride would need a still photographer if she can get a good album of prints from the videographer? |
Its a function of technology, timing, expertise and coordination. Maybe in 50 years, but not now. In theory it seems to streamline the process, but in practice it seems like one huge headache for both parties at this point.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:15:15 PM · #10 |
The videographers using one of these would sure be able to make good prints:
//red.com/technology.htm
12mp sensor, that's 2540P at 60fps, uses 35mm lenses too.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:22:29 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
The videographers using one of these would sure be able to make good prints:
//red.com/technology.htm
12mp sensor, that's 2540P at 60fps, uses 35mm lenses too. |
Did I see that it costs $17k? haha. That's kinda my point. But it is more about specialization. Why do you think something like radio has existed so long? It has a niche. Or even use a photographic example. People still use film. A lot of people. I would never, but my point is, there is always room and reason for multiple avenues by which professionals and customers can choose from. The digital darkroom, if used expertly takes a long time to master. I have been at it for 2 years many hours a day basically and still am only 50% of the way there. Do videographers have the knowledge and time to expand their breadth of knowledge to include everything the professional photographer has come to know? Maybe, but again it will be quite awhile.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 07:36:36 PM · #12 |
Let's look at it this way. There are (and will continue to be) limitations in how well video can produce prints.
Let's take flash for example. A still photographer can burst off a few frames with flash for fill or for main illumination.
A videogrpher would need to either burst strobes at a constant 30 fps or would need to have hot continuous lighting to do the same thing.
I'm not scared of being put out to pasture anytime soon. As a matter of fact, I see skills of competent photogs becoming more appreciated as more people begin to realize how badly things can be done by amateurs and hacks.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 08:57:42 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
[quote=Cutter] [quote=Spazmo99]
Why do you think a bride would need a still photographer if she can get a good album of prints from the videographer? |
I don't think it's a lack of quality from the 'video' prints as much as a lack of artistry. Not that I am saying AT ALL that videographers are not artists, but they have different constraints with the way they can shoot. I think a videographer could generate an album of prints that would adequately document the event for sure, but I still there is a huge addition that a still photographer brings with the use of creative perspective, angle, DOF, and on and on. Unless of course Stanley Kubrick is shooting your wedding ;)
Really, seriously, no offense meant at all to wedding videographers. I appreciate the talent and skill that goes into, I really do.
Liza
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 20:59:05. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 09:24:40 PM · #14 |
Shot a buddies wedding a few weeks back. They love all the shots. Got another wedding to shoot on November 12th.
Both of these were/are trail runs for me to see if I wanted to pursue this.
Weddings are too much like a job and I didn't buy all this shit to have another job. So I won;t do weddings for sure. Too much stress. I have commited to this one on Nov. 12th and have tried to back out three times but they keep telling me they only want me to shoot their wedding so after this one you all can have those damn weddings. If someone is close to me and wants them when they come my way let me know. Cause I can then give them your number.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 11:13:09 PM · #15 |
Take a look at this article:Rangefinder
Scroll down to the section titled: WEVA Expo 2006
Keep in mind that this is a still photographer writing for a magazine that focuses on still wedding and portrait photography.
Sure a still photographer may be able to provide a few shots that can't be gotten from video, but that gap is narrowing. What exactly do you think thata still photog can provide that can't be gotten from HD vid and why the bride would care?
If nothing else, those of you who do shoot weddings need to think about this and be prepared.
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 23:16:47. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 11:26:19 PM · #16 |
to me, Spazmo's right.
It's not somethin I look forward to as a photojournalist...but if I don't learn how to produce multimedia slideshows soon (thank goodness my next newspaper staff intern position is going to have me doing this) then I won't be getting a jobs later on.
Video and multimedia is taking over, and I don't like to talk about it as much as the next guy...but when I get a video camera stuck in my bag for perhaps some documentary photography project I do in the future...I'm gonna do my best to try not to gripe and to learn to appreciate the new aspect of catching life as it happens for my work.
What photographers don't understand is that the majority of folks won't care if their bigger prints are grainy, and they dont stare at prints with a magnifying glass.
If photography is your hobby, that's cool.
If you shoot commercially, I think you'll be ok with high resolution photography.
But if you're a wedding shooter, documentary photographer, photojournalist, freelance editorial assignments for magazines etc...
If you don't learn to record audio and video soon, I think that's gonna hurt ya.
It's a reality I'm trying to deal with. I got into this because of my love of PHOTOGRAPHY, not videos, not audio or multimedia blah blah. But you gotta use any tools you can to better tell the story. And those tools aren't just still cameras anymore.
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 23:26:38. |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 12:01:41 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't think it will happen overnight, but I think it will happen, probably sooner than you think.
Why do you think a bride would need a still photographer if she can get a good album of prints from the videographer? |
I agree with this.
Newspaper media is already working towards this. The only current drawback is that the best video cameras can't capture a very high resolution still image yet, but it will come.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 01:34:15 AM · #18 |
Both clips were funny, but for anyone that has done a number of weddings, it's a fact that you can't stay hidden and out of sight all the time. And it isn't expected in most cases... at least not completely. We don't have the story from the photographers side... they could have been hired to get as many images as they could from every angle during the whole ceromony. I've done weddings like that. Short of taking the grooms place, the couple wanted me to get shots from all angles and places. Even the minister had no problem with it. That kind of coverage was rare for me, but it does happen.
It was funny, but this video person was slamming still photographers and probably using it in their business to convince their clients not to hire still photographers. I've heard of the same kind of stories about videographers... except they were going around shinning their bright lights into everyones eyes and causing lens flare all over the place. Maybe a still photographer should do the same kind of thing on some of the videographers they have had to deal with.
And why do people feel they have to apologize for everyone else. Maybe there wasn't anything to apologize for.
Mike
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 02:26:17 AM · #19 |
I can't see video taking over still for a long time yet. Out of the last 5 or so weddings I've photographed only one of them actually had someone other than family officially doing a video!
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 03:42:04 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't think it will happen overnight, but I think it will happen, probably sooner than you think.
Why do you think a bride would need a still photographer if she can get a good album of prints from the videographer? |
I agree with this.
Newspaper media is already working towards this. The only current drawback is that the best video cameras can't capture a very high resolution still image yet, but it will come. |
I've seen some damn good 5x7's & 8x10's from some frames out of one of the new HD cameras. |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 07:43:42 AM · #21 |
WOW!!!
those two are just plain embarrassing!!!
And spazmo, every time a new technology comes out people say that it's the end of photography. Just because you can get a good print from a video camera, does not mean photography is in jeopardy.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 11:02:52 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by mrorange002:
And spazmo, every time a new technology comes out people say that it's the end of photography. Just because you can get a good print from a video camera, does not mean photography is in jeopardy. |
I never claimed it was the end of photography, only that video cameras are now capable of generating good prints, that the technology is getting better and cheaper all the time and that wedding videographers are looking to take advantage of that technology to take away some, or all, of the market for wedding still images from still photographers.
Stick your head in the sand if you want. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 01:44:54 PM EDT.
