Pulling stills from video, is this photography? Or that's the future?

What do you think? Way of the future just to capture the 'moment'?

i've been thinking about this after looking at the work of doug rickard:

http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2011/newphotography/doug-rickard/

i mean is this guy a photographer if he doesn't go out and actually take the photograph?

honestly, i think so. in a way all we are is editors: we make selections from reality and freeze them, choosing what we like and what we don't like. maybe doug rickard isn't a good "photographer" in that he might not be good at freezing particular moments with a camera, but he's a good editor because he can select little rectangles of reality in a way that produces a compelling result.

in the end i'm not sure if anybody ever cares how you GOT an image, only that you have chosen to freeze a slice of reality that speaks to them in some way.

i mean we want to recoil at the thought of this because we spend a lot of time and effort learning how to produce the best result with our cameras/software/etc., and the thought of someone just walking in and "passing go" by capturing *everything* and editing later seems like cheating. but that's just our own insecurity. produce compelling images by whatever means are available.

i mean how will we differentiate ourselves as photographers if in ten years someone can just walk out there with a HD lytro video camera and record everything and produce exactly the image they want later?

this is what photographers are scared of. who cares? you have to be an editor. you can capture the entire world but nobody's going to pay attention if you can't edit it down to something manageable and compelling.

You'd only be able to do that with a 1DC or another camera that captures 4K video because with other SLR's shooting at 1080p the photos are only 1920x1080 pixels. Pretty low res and good enough for about a 5x7 I guess maybe? So if you drop what, $12k on a 1DC, then I guess you sort of have a right to shoot whatever way you want considering your investment. It's a whole other level.

Some people take photographs.

Some people make photographs.

Monito wrote:
Some people take photographs.

Some people make photographs.


yes

is one inherently better than the other?

frame grabs are the future, give it a few years.

goosemang wrote: yes

is one inherently better than the other?

Yes. You'll be more productive of successful photos if you make them rather than take them.

That is of course a generalism and there are a few rare exceptions that "prove the rule". Some seeming exceptions are not really exceptions. For example, a person who specializes in street photography doesn't do much arranging of subjects (would lose the candid aspect) and may "snap" very quickly, possibly even from the hip, but the most successful of them do a lot of preparation, scouting out scenes, practicing, packing a specific kit for a specific shoot, post-processing, etc. They often spend a lot of time reading a scene and analysing the motion of the people and picking out a vantage point. They may spend time waiting for lighting so that a certain spot is lit the way they want, with fill reflection from a store window, etc.

Even the Doug Rickard example linked in the second post: he makes his photos by doing a lot of research, searching, and post-processing.

Video lighting is very different from still photography lighting.

The future is here.

Great video.

I've said for a while that we are heading to a video and photo-burst composite for stills. The simplest way around the MP and DR race is to micro-burst shots, and then composite them in-camera. Why this hasn't been introduced yet, I don't know. Faster processors needed? Well, build them! But I see that as the future -- everything pulled from high frame rate video or burst composites.

The sooner, the better.

I think people, including many Canon customers, have been underestimating where Canon is going and the progress they are making. Many comments on this forum show a dislike and intentional ignorance of video and its potential, resulting in complaints about Canon not developing the types of stills cameras/features/prices the insular still community wants/needs/dreams of.

I don't mean any disrespect, but it is a big imaging world out there, and I still feel Canon is in the lead, regardless of Sony having good sensor tech, or Nikon having the sense to buy from outside vendors. Both other companies are missing out in the actual "space race" which is coming through video development and computing.

Interesting times.

Monito wrote:
Video lighting is very different from still photography lighting.

How so? The basic principles still apply, one is just continuous.

Monito wrote: Video lighting is very different from still photography lighting.

RogerC11 wrote: How so? The basic principles still apply, one is just continuous.

When there is motion involved in motion picture photography (includes cinematography and videography), whether it is subject motion or camera motion, the lighting has to be simpler. It is not possible (or desirable) to get a lovely Rembrandt lighting triangle on a cheek that follows the actor as they engage in dialogue in a scene.

One consequence is that lighting for video is often softer and less contrasty, though film noir does have deep moody lighting and can have hard contrasty scenes.

Video lighting is a combination of and compromise between many possible lightings that could be applied to individual stills.

Still photography lighting can be optimized for a single shot in ways not possible for almost all video.

goosemang wrote: in a way all we are is editors: we make selections from reality and freeze them,

An awful lot of photographers, including some skilled ones, work this way.

But it is far from "all we are".

If you want to "up your game", explore ways to alter reality while preserving it or to create hyper-reality or alternate realities or fantasies.

Even when making landscapes, I will move a frond of grass that is interfering in the shot and remove a cigarette package carelessly discard. That is in addition to all the constructive choices I make about shutterspeed, aperture and depth of field.

I am looking forward to "upping my game" with macro photos by supplying additional light and subtracting other light, just as a beginning. Flowers can be taped in place. Out-of-focus backdrops can be supplied.

Product photography, fashion, interiors, architecture, portraiture, and many other genres involve building a special reality by posing, lighting, set design, wardrobe arrangement, hair & makeup.

artsupreme wrote:
frame grabs are the future, give it a few years.

Exactly, the technology is expensive right now but in a few years it will be commonplace.

Great video, thanks for the link. Beside the obvious technical aspects the short does a good good capturing the existential and identity issues photographers will face coming to terms with this new technology.

I think there a few things being discussed here.

1) pulling 'screen grabs' from a video isn't inherently any different than taking a photograph. A 1Dx will take a 14fps video if wanted. A 1Dc just does 8mp at 24 fps.

2) pulling photos from someone doing some 'run and gun' video with no planning, etc.

In the end, the best photos will still come from people who have the technical and artistic understanding and experience. In some settings you might get better candid shots with a video capture, but that would be the exception I think. Maybe also in the sports world with high speed action. But I doubt that any landscape photos will be better once we take video screen grabs.

If you setup in a blind and wait for the perfect moment to capture a hatching bird, does it matter if you take a series of single exposures or capture it in 4k video and pull the best frames later?

Monito wrote:
goosemang wrote: in a way all we are is editors: we make selections from reality and freeze them,

An awful lot of photographers, including some skilled ones, work this way.

But it is far from "all we are".



yes, sure. my statement is an oversimplification. unless you're truly "spraying and praying" the photographer is exerting his or her influence over what is being captured. this goes back to street photography like you were mentioning. sure you can get lucky shooting from the hip, but when the photographer "edits" the shot - be it finding the right spot, waiting for the right light, framing a certain way, post processing a certain way, etc - then they're inserting themselves into the process, and their expertise will play a role in how compelling the results are.

Thanks for the link. There is no doubt we're on the cusp of an exciting new time in photography.

Save up your money for the next generation to come.

For action sequences, why not take frames from video.

For shooting a posed scene? I don't think so. The click of the shutter represents a moment that's frozen in time forever. You lose that concept when you shoot continuously and pick the moment at a later time.

Also, the use of strobe lights would not be possible.