Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2016 · The cell that ate the Canon

  
 
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · The cell that ate the Canon


Before the forum police jump in, I know that "what does this have to do with Canon?" will be the first response. Only tangentially as each quarterly report shows slowing sales at the bottom end pushing towards extinction. I know that most (all?) current model Canon's have video though I don't shoot video.

This link One second a day from the New York Times shows a 1 second video taken every day of last year. This could of course been done with any Canon, but I doubt any of us could capture the spontaneity shown here. The clip lasts exactly 365 second (excluding the 14 second ad at the beginning). This is a different art form than most of us pursue, but I have to ask myself, how is this changing the perception of image? What is it going to the future of still photography? Are we shooters headed to the niche still stubbornly held by B&W film shooters? Just a niche of out of date duffers?

What to you think?

RobertOne second a day



Jan 06, 2016 at 10:29 AM
Shutterbug2006
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · The cell that ate the Canon


Still photography will never go the way of the dinosaur. Try to print and hang your 'one second a day' on a wall.




Jan 06, 2016 at 10:53 AM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · The cell that ate the Canon




Shutterbug2006 wrote:
Still photography will never go the way of the dinosaur. Try to print and hang your 'one second a day' on a wall.



I can see our view of hanging prints changing from a paper based output to a digital photo frame which can display both stills and videos.



Jan 06, 2016 at 11:31 AM
Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · The cell that ate the Canon


They have had digital frames for a few years now and are not that popular.

Then you can always slap a large flat-screen TV on a wall and have it display a single image, slideshow, or video.



Jan 06, 2016 at 11:51 AM
curious80
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · The cell that ate the Canon


OntheRez wrote:
Before the forum police jump in, I know that "what does this have to do with Canon?" will be the first response. Only tangentially as each quarterly report shows slowing sales at the bottom end pushing towards extinction. I know that most (all?) current model Canon's have video though I don't shoot video.

This link One second a day from the New York Times shows a 1 second video taken every day of last year. This could of course been done with any Canon, but I doubt any of us could capture the spontaneity shown here. The clip lasts exactly 365
...Show more

To me this video is not much different than taking one picture a day and putting it together in a photo-album. You could say this is a slide show where each 'picture' is a one-second clip. Overall I didn't find it that special. I would probably take a photo-album over it simply because with that you get more of a chance to pause at each picture and re-live that moment. Either way nothing very earth shattering about it IMHO.



Jan 06, 2016 at 12:07 PM
mttran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · The cell that ate the Canon


Stills & consuming media will be different significantly after 8K ( or larger) with WDR and faster AF video available.


Jan 06, 2016 at 12:07 PM
technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · The cell that ate the Canon


chez wrote:
I can see our view of hanging prints changing from a paper based output to a digital photo frame which can display both stills and videos.


Yes, wait a few years and we will have affordable OLED screens that are thinner than a framed picture (and possibly can be rolled up too), with bigger color gamut and higher contrast ratio than prints. Even for some types of stills this will offer better display opportunities, and the video is a bonus.

---------------------------------------------

curious80 wrote:
To me this video is not much different than taking one picture a day and putting it together in a photo-album. You could say this is a slide show where each 'picture' is a one-second clip. Overall I didn't find it that special. I would probably take a photo-album over it simply because with that you get more of a chance to pause at each picture and re-live that moment. Either way nothing very earth shattering about it IMHO.


Agree, not very different from what we do now with stills but I think when high quality 4K or 8K video becomes more common photographers will adapt and discover new creative options that benefit from change, motion etc.

However, taking both stills and video at the same time - switching art forms - is tough. I have a similar problem taking both normal color and infrared pictures on the same occasion, even though I use the same DSLR for both types of use (one of them an IR conversion).



Jan 06, 2016 at 12:22 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · The cell that ate the Canon




Imagemaster wrote:
They have had digital frames for a few years now and are not that popular.

Then you can always slap a large flat-screen TV on a wall and have it display a single image, slideshow, or video.


I've seen a go fund me page that had a very thin 16x24 flat panel with a matte inside a frame that looked amazing. That will be the future.



Jan 06, 2016 at 12:38 PM
ggreene
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · The cell that ate the Canon


I think still photography will be fine. The output medium is what will really change. Prints have already begun to fade in popularity with the average person. They are fine viewing them on a cell phone, tablet, computer, or as Chez mentioned a digital frame.


Jan 06, 2016 at 12:45 PM
Bacalhau
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · The cell that ate the Canon


....aside the introduction time, I took my roughly 10 seconds before click it off.
YouTube has videos of grass growing too, btw

I like the idea of digital frames, ultra thin, wireless streamline and power - you just hang on the wall, and get the picture to change as a screen saver (assuming the price for let's say a 8x12 frame would be equivalent to buying a frame and printing a photo same sizing)

better yet, carrying a small stick that would allow to display/project a frameless
picture, like a hologram sort of thing, a bit translucent up in the air, but full definition on a surface...


regarding the post idea, but why? it's a niche utilization/form of art.
it's more about the software and concept than the gear obviously



Jan 06, 2016 at 01:03 PM
NCAndy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · The cell that ate the Canon


To be honest, the clip made me nauseous and had to turn it off after 15 seconds.


Jan 06, 2016 at 01:12 PM
jimmy462
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · The cell that ate the Canon


Hi OnTheRez,

Well, it was a mere 10-years ago that this forum was filled with happy shooters who were raving about the ability to shoot 8.2 MP stills @ 8.5 fps with their 1D2's and 1D2N's, and today 4K or 3.75K UHD is allowing folks to capture 8.8 MP or 8.3 MP stills-from-video at the astounding rate of 30fps, methinks the writing has been pretty much on the wall as to the future of fast action photography.

6K is already upon us, the RED Dragon shoots 6144 x 3160 = 19,415,040 stills at up to 100fps! And waiting in the wings, true 8K at 35.4MP stills (8K UHD @ 33.2MP).

FWIW, I almost exclusively shot slide film (still do) for the very reason that, to me, images always presented better when illuminated as such, and it's why almost the entirety of my imagery has remained in the digital form since going digital as I prefer to see my images with light coming from within them not projected towards and onto them. Don't get me wrong, I love prints and I am not slamming them here, I'm merely agreeing with some of the other posters to this thread that flat screen OLED panels (for example) offer a brand new avenue of presentation for my work! And, I will be embracing it! I don't sweat that any of this is "niche", these are great times to be alive for stills and/or video imaging!

Now, if Canon would just snap out of their slumberings and provide us with some competitively-priced wide-DR 4K (UHD) cameras folks like me can get on about our business instead of reading about the latest offerings from Sony and Nikon!




Jan 06, 2016 at 01:42 PM
Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · The cell that ate the Canon


jimmy462 wrote:
Now, if Canon would just snap out of their slumberings and provide us with some competitively-priced wide-DR 4K (UHD) cameras folks like me can get on about our business instead of reading about the latest offerings from Sony and Nikon!



Indeed, yes. If the next iteration of the 5DS doesn't match or exceed Sony (who will no doubt have ironed the wrinkles in their current A7RII), I suspect we will see a lot of migration away from Canon.



Jan 06, 2016 at 02:09 PM
technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · The cell that ate the Canon


jimmy462 wrote:
FWIW, I almost exclusively shot slide film (still do) for the very reason that, to me, images always presented better when illuminated as such, and it's why almost the entirety of my imagery has remained in the digital form since going digital as I prefer to see my images with light coming from within them not projected towards and onto them. Don't get me wrong, I love prints and I am not slamming them here, I'm merely agreeing with some of the other posters to this thread that flat screen OLED panels (for example) offer a brand new avenue of
...Show more

I also shot almost exclusively color slide film, with the occasional Cibachrome print, before moving to digital. For some subjects prints have always been a bit disappointing, dull, to me. When I viewed my own images on a big top of the line 4K TV two years ago I was totally sold; it's like slide projection but in many ways with better image quality and more creative possibilities.

I'm happy I didn't purchase the 4K set then, because the technology and standards keep evolving and OLED (which wasn't even available in 4K then) is quickly becoming mature and affordable technology. I'm looking forward to hanging a big 4K OLED on the wall to show my recent work (maybe including some 4K video, computer art etc.).

When viewing the images from my simple 450D on that 4K TV I also realized that I need a much better camera for the best possible results, especially when it comes to shadow noise/DR.



Jan 06, 2016 at 05:08 PM
05xrunner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · The cell that ate the Canon


I dont know who would want to display that clip. I thought it was awful and didnt show anything special. It was pretty annoying after about the 10sec mark. I dont know who could watch the full thing


Jan 06, 2016 at 06:09 PM
dmcphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · The cell that ate the Canon


Before photography people were drawing and painting the scenes they liked. People still draw and paint, and galleries sell their work for quite a bit of money.

I know one person who uses an enormous view camera to directly make large (20x24 inch if I'm not mistaken) images on sheets of Polaroid film. They sell, and they are not cheap.

Platinum and palladium printing, like traditional silver gelatin printing, is not yet dead by any means. It's just not "mainstream". In fact such prints typically fetch far more than comparable Epson 9900 prints. But, some now make the negatives for these on inkjet printers.

Prints are *objects* crafted by an artist to look a particular way way based not just on the image but on the choice of physical media. Paper color, texture, and finish make a tremendous difference in the look of any given image, not to mention that quite a number of people print on other media like canvas, aluminum, and wood to name a few. When you buy a print you have a physical thing that was crafted by someone, not just virtual representation.

That brings us to price. Art lovers will not pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for a file they have to display on their televisions. I have never seen a gallery selling such files. The only market for them is corporate, mostly for use in printed matter. That's a great market, but it is very different than the market for wall art.

Last but not least is the effect of supply and demand. When an image is electronic it is only a matter of time before it gets out into the world (as on the Internet) and anyone who wants it can have it for free. The completely unlimited supply drops the value of the image to zero. No one will pay much something that can instantaneously become worthless. Even "unlimited" edition prints are finite in number and therefore have more monetary value.

I don't think there is anything wrong with displaying images electronically, but I think electronic image display and physical prints are so completely different that they have no real effect on one another. I also think we'll continue to see galleries offering drawings, paintings, various types of photographic prints, woodcuts, linocuts, etchings, engravings, lithographs and other types of prints for many generations to come.

All IMO...



Jan 06, 2016 at 06:43 PM
msalvetti
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · The cell that ate the Canon


dmcphoto wrote:
I know one person who uses an enormous view camera to directly make large (20x24 inch if I'm not mistaken) images on sheets of Polaroid film. They sell, and they are not cheap.



She's retiring, running out of film: Elsa Dorfman

Mark



Jan 06, 2016 at 07:31 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · The cell that ate the Canon


I am waiting for high color definition e-ink framed displays... No power to keep your image up until you change it, and it can look like a painting or drawing.


Jan 06, 2016 at 08:03 PM
PicGuy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · The cell that ate the Canon


I bailed on that video after 20 seconds. It is likely a big hit with the ADD crowd. I predict that virtual reality will be the real destroyer of peoples' lives as it gets more realistic and affordable.


Jan 06, 2016 at 08:09 PM
technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · The cell that ate the Canon


dmcphoto wrote:
That brings us to price. Art lovers will not pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for a file they have to display on their televisions. I have never seen a gallery selling such files. The only market for them is corporate, mostly for use in printed matter. That's a great market, but it is very different than the market for wall art.

Last but not least is the effect of supply and demand. When an image is electronic it is only a matter of time before it gets out into the world (as on the Internet) and anyone who wants it
...Show more

agree that each of these display media have their own use.

But I think you are a bit wrong about what 'art lovers' are willing to pay. First of all the amount people are willing to pay for a 'paper print' varies strongly even between countries - in the US it is still much easier to have people pay ridiculous prices for traditional prints (which can be produced in infinite amounts, theoretically) compared to most of Europe where until recently a print was just 'a copy' for most people.

On the other side, there are already examples of artists who sell their work (files, software) as part of the hardware: you buy an art 'installation' that includes a big TV display for free (I remember someone doing this for special adaptations of the 'electric sheep' software).

With OLED and much lower display prices, that approach may become more common. It won't replace normal prints directly, but they are going to compete for attention and market. I look forward to the time that I can have an OLED screen that looks like a Cibachrome and that will, for just a little more than the price of a professional Ciba type print, offer not one but thousands of images or maybe an image that is different every day in an interesting way. I guess we may get there in 10-15 years.

Before you know it, photographic prints might become more 'antique' than 'art' for the average person, just like printed books and other dying technologies.



Jan 07, 2016 at 06:38 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.