On 26/08/2012 4:11 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Aug 25, 2012, at 7:46 PM, frank theriault wrote:
Photography remains the only medium that literally captures a moment
in time. Think about it: nothing else does that!
As such, it will always be intriguing and valuable to us.
For many years the moment in time captured by photography was somewhere between
several seconds and several minutes long. With video that is still the case,
the subjects just aren't constrained to sitting quite so still.
The goal of early photography was to capture a moment in time, it took
the technology a while to allow it. To say that because it took several
minutes to capture that moment because of technical limitations, early
photography has something in common with video is somewhat of a stretch.
Don't Bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me.
Video makes no pretensions that way, never has, never will.
To me, the sea change isn't still or video, it is how we look at images.
The vast majority of images now are viewed on monitors. The monitor
doesn't care if the image is moving or not, however people want instant
gratification.
Video really doesn't give them that the same way a discreet image does.
A 10 minute exposure to make a single image is, in effect, a moment in time.
A 10 minute video is, in effect, a waste of 10 minutes unless the person
actually knows something about shooting video, and most people don't.
--
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
