On 13/5/07, Pawel Bartuzi, discombobulated, unleashed: >After all, some say in several years time hardly any pro will be >shooting still pictures - so we can see times when there won't be any >camera above "intermediate". :-) > >http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0704/the-coming-earthquake-in- >photography.html
Interesting. "Still cameras that shoot film have already been abandoned by most manufacturers. Increasingly, newspaper photographers are being asked to shoot video for Web sites." I go to many press conferences and the guys shooting on a handy-cam are not the stills photogs. They are journalists and they all have acne and too much gel in their hair. (I guess at least they *have* hair ;-) "With video becoming the prime tool of acquisition, audio of course now enters into the picture. In fact, it becomes as important as the video. This means that a whole new set of skills must be developed by the photographer. Every photographer has already become a computer technician, spending more time on the "post" process, such as Photoshop, than on taking the picture. In the future, editing will be done in such programs as Final Cut Pro. All of this means that photographers will have to be smarter." I would not say that video is becoming the prime tool of acquisition here in the UK - yet. But audio does enter the picture - and is proving more than some can handle. I watched one presser go completely awry as a hapless youngster recording video on his miniDV camera came unstuck when his cheap and cheerful radio mic bit the dust. The whole scene became totally unprofessional as the presser was halted before it even started, complete with gobsmacked relatives of a murder victim sat at the table with detectives all ready to pour their hearts out in an effort to track down the perp. The hack was flustered and it was painful to watch. The entire cost of his kit was less than I paid for my tripod. Plus, no redundancy. I have at least two of most items on board my kit. But at the end of the day this guy was shooting for the web site of a local newspaper. They would have been happy with a cameraphone picture. It's a scenario I see frequently. VJ's (Video Journalists) turn up to jobs and struggle with kit they have been given that they don't know how to use, had little training with, or are just inept at using. The resultant quality is atrocious, and it shows. And this is the local BBC! You get what you pay for. As for Dirk Halstead's supposition above, I would broadly agree, but I think that where he's got it wrong is that it's not the photographers who will have to cope with yet more new technology. It's the pimply journalist wannabees that will. Publishers will prefer a journo with a handycam rather than a photographer with a handycam. Why? Because when they're back at the office, the journo will write the words to accompany the awful video. Most photogs could not. Those that do are already 'proper' photojournalists, and/or are already shooting video for TV. Multi-skilling is the name of the game in this brave new world. But taking pictures and writing are two separate talents. Both can be taught, but those that do it well didn't learn it - it came to them easily. Doing both together - and well - commands a dexterity that has to be paid for, and paid well. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
