No sheer numbers of frames per second, by itself, does not guarantee an excellent image.
But we are dealing with only one variable in my position (the number of frames per sec). In any good fashion shoot, an obviously good lighting set up is needed (etc). Changing the camera in ones to a video camera that can produce enough resolution at 30 fps does not in and of itself change any of the other necessary ingredients to getting a good image. A sports photographer may not work with any extra lighting (beyond, perhaps, on-camera flash) so his composition skills and anticipating where to be at the right moment to capture the proper perspective does not change just because the tool in his hand does (whether that be a film camera, a digital camera, a 6 fps, or a 30 fps video/still camera. The only thing that changes is his odds of getting (more) superior images. The technology does not change or denigrate the other skills that you need. I liked Bob's quote about "a better mediorcrity" however. And I think that's very true. A rising tide lifts all boats. I don't think there is any question that the OVERALL quality of photography has gone up since more people have had more tools available to them (and an interest in mastering). Now commercially, we have a whole different kettle of fish. One need look no further than Getty Images to see that the prices paid to photographers have been in freefall since this revolution. But I don't think there is any putting that genie back in the bottle and my point is that there is probably no putting the video for still genie back in the bottle either. I'm not particularly happy about it either, and it may not ever change what I call "photography" or the way I practice it for enjoyment. But I think anybody who is young and aims to be whatever they call "pro" tomorrow is going to need to concentrate more on those other aspects of photography other than how to "capture the decisive moment". Perhaps ANTICIPATE the decisive moment, would be a better skill in the future. On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: > Darren wrote: > >> I see. So replace the still camera in your hand with a video camera and WA-LA >> any good imagery you produce is now due to merely chance because your >> skill and vision >> have been eliminated? Sorry, that is an argument I can't begin to buy. > > Conversely, I don't buy the argument (which I admit may NOT be your > argument) that having 100X the number of images to choose from, and > finding a proverbial 'needle in a haystack' makes one an excellent, > good, or better photographer. > > If one were to take a significant amount of pride in that one needle > image, then I'd say their pride was misplaced. To use the gun analogy, > it would be the same as me firing a machine gun at a target and > thinking I was a superb marksman because I happened to score a perfect > bulls-eye. > > Tom C. > > Tom C. > > -- > 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. -- "The key to seeing the world's soul, and in the process wakening one's own, is to get over the confusion by which we think that fact is real and imagination an illusion. It is the other way around." -Thomas Moore, "Original Self" -- 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.
