The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

OMG -HassyH3D22 versus RedEpic - the end of Photography ?

MaxKißler

New member
So Stefan, did I just choose to perish? In a couple of month I'm beginning my education at the locals finest school of photography which will most likely rule the next three years of my life in its entity. However, I'm very certain never to touch a video camera for work. I can't tell you how long I already own my 5D MKII and despite being a rather curious human being I have not yet tried the video mode and am not planning to do so.

Of course it's everyones own decision on which tool to use but in my very humble opinion video is just inferior both in IQ aswell as in handling and just not suited for a still cameras job. At least not in the way your video suggests.

I think in this case the complexity lies in directing the model to the pose the photographer imagined. It is totally insignificiant which medium is used to capture that pose and I think it is definetely not easier to use especially focus a huge video camera.
If you're capable of anticipating the models moves you know when to push the button right?

I think this video stuff might be interesting because it's new and video reached a point where it hasn't been before but after the heat dies down people will reconsider their tools. Who wants to go through thousands of files? It's time consuming and expensive...
 

T.Karma

New member
That was what some of us said about digital photography too, less than ten years ago...
.... and because some overeager adopters were listening to the sirencalls with such devotedness it went so fast in transition. The whole recycle speed of new technologies is so fast, because people get tempted to make a quick coin (they are led to believe it). Then the others are forced to follow.

But nobody is forced to step in first. Even if Stefan predicts your existinction .... :ROTFL:
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Max -

well it is hard to tell you this,but unless you will work as an artist (and be able to make a living from it) or one of the top creative professionals pure Photography in the definition of the 19th century will not be able to serve as an income for a number of photographers as of today. We already had a significant shrinking market for "usage photography" and the trend is clear and ongoing. The paradigm change in volume media is driven by the kind of used media, mostly online and TV with a shrinking print market. It´s simply evolution. This all had happened in the 19th and 20th ´century when Photography replaced painting, (see here:
Essay: The Impact of Photography on Painting - Fine Art Blog - ArtRev.com - Your Ultimate Fine Art Source. )
but now the evolution will eat large parts of the Photo business, as it has happened with painting. This did not mean painters disappeared, but the focus changed. Nearly all of the usage painters that happened to make a living for2-3000 years got jobless, just think about cinema posters, advertising stuff for shops, fonts painters and so on.
As the Print media will shrink further the classic models will disappear. In germany recently Neckermann- the Prototype of printed catalogue mail order house has stopped doing a catalogue- instead they switched completely to an online shop model.
So Pro photographers can still work for this, but differently, faster, cheaper, lower res, database driven, connected with the catalogue numbers as IPTC or prestructuring for content management systems and so on.
The classic Craft will stay, but for the noncommerical and art photography and it must bequestioned how many will be able to make a living from this the way they did this 10-20 years ago.

If you love photography do it- I can only encourage you, but know it will be taking 100% of your will and capability and talent PLUS some luck also.

These are the facts and I would not feel well telling young people some chichi about how nice and cosy this job is.

Blowup was in the 60ies- now is now and we need to be realistic.

regards
Stefan
 

MaxKißler

New member
Oh don't worry about me, I'm going to make it. I don't see video replace stillife-, food-, architecture or any other kind of photography that requires view camera movements any time soon. BTW keep in mind that online shops need images aswell. Advertising is still and always will be demanded.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Photography isn't going away, not this week anyway. It's just taking different shapes. One of the challenges is to figure out what technologies will develop into profitable tools at what won't. And the market changes. While the usage painters worked for a tiny market, photography has become a giant one. There are zillions of websites out there that need new photos, videos and illustrations every second of the day. 20 years ago, they didn't even exist.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Well you know I am a friend of drastic titles, but in this case I was holding back, you need to see this. Of course this is NOT a solution for todays portrait studios, simply because of the price point.

Watch it and get your own opinion:

Will Video Cameras Kill Still Photography? Red Epic Vs Hasselblad | Fstoppers

regards
Stefan :)
Even if it wasnt much more expensive, and if there were as nice viewfinders for the Red, and if the handling was the same, wouldnt this be a waste of storage and more important a waste of energy? Using constant light instead of flash (and what does this mean for the eyes of the models and the temperature in the studio?) to shoot a piece of film just to sort out one image afterwards.
And arent the requitements regarding the user interface much different for a film camera vs a photo camera?
By the way I recently decided to carry a smallcamcorder and a still camera, because the camcorder handling is way better IMO than using a photo-camera with video mode. And I would assume the same is true in the other direction.
I really dont see how this has anything to do with the first motordriven car which was a real innovation something totally new.
What we see here is film camera becoming better so you can eventually use it for some still shots as well.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Think about it. This is not nice but this is how things devellop.
Jorgen is of course right, there is a different approach with photography, but the customer rules and money rules. Sooner or later the customers will force this as a next step and you either learn to swim by that rythm or perish.

regards
Stefan
Ah, yes. The mad rush to the bottom where skill and vision can be replaced by a machine and the untalented. It might be the future, but one I am not interested it.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Well I know there are the hardcore disbelievers, but here is another piece of the puzzle take a look a the printdivision numbers:
HP to Cut 27,000 Jobs - the classic models with PC´s and printers do not work anymore. "The company is also in the process of restructuring its printing business, sales of which declined by 10% over last year." Well as to be expected, and an indication that people use Monitors instead of paper.

HP to cut 27,000 jobs - May. 23, 2012


Regards
Stefan
 
H

hvk

Guest
Well I know there are the hardcore disbelievers, but here is another piece of the puzzle take a look a the printdivision numbers:
HP to Cut 27,000 Jobs - the classic models with PC´s and printers do not work anymore. "The company is also in the process of restructuring its printing business, sales of which declined by 10% over last year." Well as to be expected, and an indication that people use Monitors instead of paper.


Regards
Stefan


I try to stay out of these silly debates, but this is too clueless to pass.

I used to work for HP. Your interpretation of what is going on is completely wrong.

1. The printing market is moving to a services model. HP didn't realize this and lost market share to Xerox and others.
2. HP has cut R&D 50% (based on revenue) during the last 10 years. This has allowed competitors to gain marketshare, as the product portfolio is no longer competitive.
3. HP has more than 300000 employees. The majority of these are in services, not printers.
4. Do you think people in Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal are looking to buy new printers?

Only a "hardcore believer" would use HPs demise as proof the still photography market is dying.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Well I know there are the hardcore disbelievers, but here is another piece of the puzzle take a look a the printdivision numbers:
HP to Cut 27,000 Jobs - the classic models with PC´s and printers do not work anymore. "The company is also in the process of restructuring its printing business, sales of which declined by 10% over last year." Well as to be expected, and an indication that people use Monitors instead of paper.

HP to cut 27,000 jobs - May. 23, 2012


Regards
Stefan
It is just like people do not use sail boats any longer. There are no world-class sailing ships that are used in regattas. And the best place to eat is MacDonalds because the serve the most food the fastest.

Sorry, your example really has nothing to do with us. The values of mass production and consumerism are not the end all and be all.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Stephen

"I better sell my HP printer. Does this mean no more printing?"

probably, if you don´t have another one, it could become difficult ..........

HVK

the good thing is that company specialists always have a nice explanation about why it didn´t work, unfortunately mostly _after_ it happened. It would be refreshing if these explanations would fit in advance and would help preventing these substantial layoffs.

And the people in Greece , Spain, Portugal and Italy have enough of these nice stories, they just want jobs. Explain us why there are no new jobs, not why there are nearly 10 % of HP´s workforce have to go.

Were you working at Kodak next ? They also had nice explanations......
And if you want numbers, buy a GFK study or maybe this one:

Photography in the US Market Research | IBISWorld

here is a bit more detail of this study

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9294028.htm

regards
Stefan
 
Last edited:
H

hvk

Guest
the good thing is that company specialists always have a nice explanation about why it didn´t work, unfortunately mostly _after_ it happened. It would be refreshing if these explanations would fit in advance and would help preventing these substantial layoffs.
I absolutely agree. One of the problems in large companies is that there are lots of unsubstantiated opinion and people who cannot absorb information that does not fit their agenda.

In other words, the corporate world is very similar to internet forums.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
"In other words, the corporate world is very similar to internet forums."

touche

problem is that I never said that there is no more photography. I asked- is this "the end of Photography ?" and asked for peoples opinions.

So much for exact reading and listening. Yes communication is difficult. But you are right - I am not completely innocent in expecting some people would do exactly that and freak out and write "interesting" replies.


regards
Stefan
 

malmac

Member
Stefan, thanks for poking a stick through the bars of my cage and keeping me awake to possibilities.

Also I respect that there are many opinions and I for one enjoy the humour that some folk are able to bring to this subject area we all share.

bring it on....
 

SergeiR

New member
I'd stick to shooting. Yellw tabloids are not my thing. But i am sure there is thread cooking on how shooting yeti with RED will be better than shooting it with current MFd offerings, and it is end of the world how we know it.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
"Is this the end of photography?"

No. Motion pictures is photography.

Will still photography be dead in future?

No. Picking selects from 24 fps is still picking single frames ... Except, it's twice as many frames to wade through as from a 12fps Sony A77 that's about the size of the RED Epic's lens, or a high fps Canon, etc. ... and they are presented as stills, not live streaming wastes-of-time where one has to stop, freeze frame the exact image, then go in to inspect if the DOF is deep enough or if certain details are clear. We can shoot 8, 10, 12 fps now, but few do.

What is the need for still photography?

Well, the very premise presented is picking "stills" from motion pictures. If stills aren't needed at all, then the premise is rubbish.

Why are stills needed?

No one wants to shoot the huge array of product shots all around us, everywhere we look, in every media, by blasting off 28 fps or 12 fps or any multiple amount of frames ... when only one is needed.

Same for the huge portrait industry ... if the technique was viable and important, then portrait photographers could do it now with any of the video enabled DSLRs. However, consider this: so we video 100 to 200 frames per set-up with a $80,000 RED rig, then spend endless hours pulling select stills to then retouch and print, so we can collect the average $300 to $1,500 fee? This is technology as a slave driving arrogant master ... hello bankruptcy. :thumbdown:

Bet the billion dollar wedding stills industry just can't wait to wade through 70,000 frames to make sure they got that decisive moment when dad wiped a tear from his daughters eye. There is derogatory term for this ... the mark of a talentless, insensitive hack ... "machine gunning" the wedding ... in effect this proposes we give the hack a M134 Gatling gun to replace the slow machine gun they now use. Hacks celebrate the application of technology like this. :thumbup:

Etc., etc., etc.

BTW, ever see the batteries or generators required to drive BIG continuous lighting on location?

-Marc
 
Top