> No sheer numbers of frames per second, by itself, does not guarantee > an excellent image.
Of course not. > > 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. > That's obviously true. And yet the mindset is different. Photography is about the photographer SEEING that image, not simply RECORDING it. In the examples you've proposed the video could be shot with the photographer's back turned and then said photographer pulls out a frame and says "Look what I I I I I did". Bull Honkey, they didn't do THAT. They simply did the setup, maybe prompted, and then recorded. There's as much chance of a getting a good shot as there is a bad one, especially if Cindy Crawford has a booger up her nose. > 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. > That may be true in a sense, but again if the photographer DID NOT REALLY SEE the image, then I think they have no right to say "LOOK WHAT A GREAT PHOTOGRAPHER I AM". They can say "LOOK WHAT A GREAT IMAGE I GOT, IT WAS AS MUCH BY ACCIDENT AS IT WAS BY SKILL". There's guys out there that have 10 - 100K times the number of images on their digital camera bodies than I do. It doesn't make them better photographers. You say above "it changes the odds". I accept that. It's like playing WWF. Some people know lots of words and truly win via skill and vocabulary, Other people often just throw down letters and see what sticks whether they ever heard of the word before or not. The kind of photography you're referring to strikes me as more of the latter. Where's the pride in that? It's like a luthier vs. assembly line when making musical instruments. If you're objective is to turn out as many good musical instruments as possible you may take the assembly line approach. If on the other hand you're trying to make the few exquisitely good instruments, the former approach works better. > 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. To me it's not as much about the decisive moment as it is about SEEING the image. It's easy for any photographer to more often than not miss the decisive moment. However there's great pride in the result when one does get it right largely because they SAW THE image, and it was a result of their skill, patience, endurance, vision. What you seem to be somewhat advocating, and seem to be saying is an acceptable approach is 'largely forget about the photographer's skill and vision, get set up in the right spot with the right lighting and just rapid-fire away and when you get something take credit for it'. Maybe you're not saying that, but that's what it sounds like. I eschew that approach. 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.
