Really? Like the Model T has never been completely replaced by modern transport. There is a small proportion of enthusiasts who nurture and keep them going. They don't use them as their everyday transport.
Film will not die out totally, as there will always be someone interested in using it, but the tipping point has long since been reached. That's what I mean by dead. Ask Kodak if they plan to open any more film manufacturing facilities.
I don't think video is going to overtake stills in sports until the focusing issues are resolved. Thin DOF field with long lenses is where current dslr's shine and those shots are not going to be possible with video for a long while. Video is great with large DOF, but when you want bokeh in your shots you have to set up the shot hollywood style with fixed positions for cameras and subjects. There is no telephoto action shooting at wide aperatures in video. It is always going to take a skilled photog to track sports players, birds in flight, or other fast action at small DOFs regardless of the recording format. I saw some fantastic portrait shots in this forum a while back that were shot at f1.2. I don't think you would get any more keepers shooting video as opposed to stills for that type of shoot.
mark fadely wrote:
I don't think video is going to overtake stills in sports until the focusing issues are resolved. Thin DOF field with long lenses is where current dslr's shine and those shots are not going to be possible with video for a long while.
Sorry, that's nonsense. There are plenty of focus aids already available for video acquisition and the new technologies that are coming onto the market will make it even easier to track focus at any aperture at any focal length.
markholmesphot wrote:
Really? Like the Model T has never been completely replaced by modern transport. There is a small proportion of enthusiasts who nurture and keep them going. They don't use them as their everyday transport.
Film will not die out totally, as there will always be someone interested in using it, but the tipping point has long since been reached. That's what I mean by dead. Ask Kodak if they plan to open any more film manufacturing facilities.
The problem with trying to weigh in on a subject of which you're not fully informed about is that it makes you sound ignorant. Comparing the model T to film is a bad analogy. There are professionals today that still shoot on film and not just because their nostalgic.
Ask Ilford if they're opening any more film manufacturing facilities. They just bought Kentmere and it was a sizable investment for them. Kodak recently came out with a new emulsion; Ektar.
markholmesphot wrote:
Really? Like the Model T has never been completely replaced by modern transport. There is a small proportion of enthusiasts who nurture and keep them going. They don't use them as their everyday transport.
Film will not die out totally, as there will always be someone interested in using it, but the tipping point has long since been reached. That's what I mean by dead. Ask Kodak if they plan to open any more film manufacturing facilities.
The masses that a large corporation like Kodak needs for profits yes but again there are many smaller film companies making film that are doing quite well and will continue. Again I think in some markets film will continue to be a very marketable because of the hand crafted QUALITY and the visual qualities that also come with film. A zone system finely printed silver gelatin or platinum print hand printed by a very good B&W photographer is still going to have a place at the table. This section has never had a large place at the table but has been there all along. Again the more the masses turn away from some of these processes the more valuable the ones that have those skills will become.
Just because CDs and digital amps came along that didn't kill the old vinyl industry. In fact a lot of audiophiles still insist that turntables and tube amplifiers still deliver a better quality sound.
pawlowski6132 wrote:
The problem with trying to weigh in on a subject of which you're not fully informed about is that it makes you sound ignorant. Comparing the model T to film is a bad analogy. There are professionals today that still shoot on film and not just because their nostalgic.
Ask Ilford if they're opening any more film manufacturing facilities. They just bought Kentmere and it was a sizable investment for them. Kodak recently came out with a new emulsion; Ektar.
In fact there was an article in How Magazine a while back where they interviewed to heads of two of New Yorks largest ad agencies and they both still insist on film.
I just wanted to add that I do think the mass production, cookie cutter type photography businesses are going through and going to continue to go through some real challenges with the ever rising GWC syndrome.
If you're a working professional this is going to be a real problem from now on. I do think that the really talented photographers that have a real niche' that require special skills will always be in demand. Those are areas that clients would never use someone that doesn't have a specific skill set.
liamh wrote:
Sorry, that's nonsense. There are plenty of focus aids already available for video acquisition and the new technologies that are coming onto the market will make it even easier to track focus at any aperture at any focal length.
Can you link a video to some long lens wide aperture (f2.8) video action, with nice bokeh? I doubt it.
Carte de visite is killing Portrait Photography eight images on one plate! The technology in which we do buisness will alway change and the quality of the work will on average always improve. Its not a matter of fighting new ways of working as it is carving out a niche and doing it very well.
mark fadely wrote:
Can you link a video to some long lens wide (f2.8) video action? I doubt it.
Theres a sport guy that already puts like 4 or 5 1DsMkIII on a platform with say all 400 2.8 lenses points them where he know the action will be and has several set ups like this pointed at several high action places and has a remotes and he gets over 25 FPS depending on how many cameras and whether its 1DMkIV (could be more) ands sits up in a booth and fires them when theres action is in those areas which are like home plate, the pitcher, etc. I wish I could find the link but to lazy to look but its happening now.
MilkCrates wrote:
Carte de visite is killing Portrait Photography eight images on one plate! The technology in which we do buisness will alway change and the quality of the work will on average always improve. Its not a matter of fighting new ways of working as it is carving out a niche and doing it very well.
Yep exactly. If you're down there fighting in the low end work that doesn't require special skills, knowledge or connections its gonna get messy. It is already.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Theres a sport guy that already puts like 4 or 5 1DsMkIII on a platform with say all 400 2.8 lenses points them where he know the action will be and has several set ups like this pointed at several high action places and has a remotes and he gets over 25 FPS depending on how many cameras and whether its 1DMkIV (could be more) ands sits up in a booth and fires them when theres action is in those areas which are like home plate, the pitcher, etc. I wish I could find the link but to lazy to look but its happening now. ...Show more →
What I was talking about was following the action with one camera in continuious focus mode. That's where I think video will have a problem with a 400 2.8 wide open. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen such a thing. Maybe really high-end hd-tv video cams can do it but that's a different animal all together. While there has been a revolution in dslr technology in the last 10yrs, the lenses that get mounted on them are basically unchanged.
liamh wrote:
Mark, my day job is making films and high end digital video, trust me when I say you're off base on this one.
you said Long Lens video......
with the RED, Arri, F35 and Genesis cameras on an FF chip camera, we use 300, 400, 600 mm lenses for 'film' work.
Canon and Nikon glass, so the Bokeh is the same.
basic 'video' production you can't find it of course, but watch high end tv shows like mine, Cold Case or any of the CSI's and you'll see gorgeous Bokeh from a Nikon 600mm lens on a full frame chipped HD camera.
Check out any high end car spot... all shot with 400/600mm still glass.
Kurt, it's not just high end shows or features that can get beautiful bokeh, any kid with a 7D or 5D mkII can do it and when Epic comes out, you'll be able to pop your Canon telephoto on it and use a touch screen to activate focus tracking whilst your AC fetches the coffee.
To say things are changing fast is an understatement. I have a client who last year I shot a spot on 35mm with a full crew, but this year we shot on a 7D with one man and his dog! Bonkers!
airfrogusmc wrote:
Just because CDs and digital amps came along that didn't kill the old vinyl industry. In fact a lot of audiophiles still insist that turntables and tube amplifiers still deliver a better quality sound.
Ha! My other money pit hobby...
I almost exclusively listen to vinyl thorugh tube preamp and amplification on single driver speakers. Cassetes, 8-Tracks, CD and MP3 evolved not by chasing high fidelity but...consumer convenience. The challenge all along was how to strike the right balance. And yes, high definittion Analog to Digital to Analog technology sounds damn good but, Analog to Analog to Analog can give you goose bumps that last a week. As long as you're willing to sacrafice ease of use for high fidelity.
I would say, this is a great analogy to film vs digital sensors.
with the RED, Arri, F35 and Genesis cameras on an FF chip camera, we use 300, 400, 600 mm lenses for 'film' work.
Canon and Nikon glass, so the Bokeh is the same.
basic 'video' production you can't find it of course, but watch high end tv shows like mine, Cold Case or any of the CSI's and you'll see gorgeous Bokeh from a Nikon 600mm lens on a full frame chipped HD camera.
Check out any high end car spot... all shot with 400/600mm still glass.
Same bokeh and skillfully Manually Focused too !
Thanks for the info, and that was my point (manual focus - just like hollywood - not autofocus like I was questioning)
