Video Killed the Photography Star?
Could it happen? Could video cameras ultimately replace the still camera? Dirck Halstead at The Digital Journalist seems to think so. He writes about The Coming Earthquake in Photography almost as if he himself weren't a photographer. This hurts Dirck. Deep down… this hurts.
…in the future photojournalists would no longer be shooting still pictures, but instead would be using video as their prime medium of acquisition.
His prediction is that in the next 10 years, still cameras will suffer at the hand of video worse than film did with digital (no offense to you film guys, you're a dying breed — but keep it up). Did I mention he's a photographer? And what's more, most of the major camera manufacturers will be out of business in 10 years — except Canon. Um, okay. I seriously doubt that Sony is going to throw in the towel that quickly. Just look what they've done with Betamax, Minidisc, Memory Stick, PlayStation 3, and Blu-Ray.
However, it is video that will undoubtedly become the main means of acquisition in photography. Today, almost all the manufacturers of prosumer video cameras have moved to High Definition. These cameras, off the shelf, are capable of delivering a 2-megapixel still image.
Whoopty-Doo. Most new cell phones can grab a 2MP photo. Plus, I really doubt that video cameras are eventually going to get the same size sensor as a still camera. There's no need. You watch video on a monitor. Monitors are fairly limited in resolution compared to a still camera.
Because video cameras now all feature a 16:9 “wide-screen” aspect ratio… you can expect to see wide-screen pictures not only on your TV screen, but in print as well. We predict that magazines (those that still exist) in 10 years will be bound on the top or bottom, not on the sides as they now are. That will allow the magazine to be opened to display a horizontal rather than vertical layout. This will accommodate all those “wide-screen” photographs.
Yes, because that would be so very convenient for reading. And eventually, through evolution, our right arm will migrate down the side of our torso to accommodate those horizontal bound magazines. Even if, by some chance, still cameras went 16×9… I think they'd still print books and magazines the same way they do now. At least I'd like to think so, because I can't afford to update all my books with that outdated side binding crap.
Part of this article makes me want to laugh, but I'm a little ticked at the same time. How can anybody who has been shooting photography for any amount of time think that video will take over? How do you control the shutter speed on a video camera? How many of you have video cameras with interchangeable lenses and manual apertures?
My guess, is that still cameras (SLR) are going to incorporate video capabilities into them rather than the other way around. But there will always be the need for good dedicated still and video cameras. I'm perfectly happy not having video capture on my dSLR. Likewise, I've never used the still capture on my digital video camera. And I never will.
Jenni
April 17, 2007I started reading that article as well but stopped about 1/3 in because to me it seemed like total BS.
I’m totally with you in thinking that the chances of dSLR cameras getting video are higher than photos disappearing totally.
Another point that just came to me is that all he is talking about is photojournalism and not photography as an art form. Because those two consumer groups have totally different neeeds and while he might be right about photojournalists (but not in 10 years) I don’t think he will be right about the art form, because there is some stuff that doesn’t have the same effect on video (i.e. Macro)
Jenni
April 17, 2007That was the sentence after which I stopped reading, in fact. Because there are just too many manufacturers for that to happen, and most of them also make videocameras and see them as seperated parts of their business – for a reason.
Brian Auer
April 17, 2007I agree on the photojournalism bit, but I think the author went a little overboard to make the statement that most camera manufacturers will be out of business in 10 years. I still don’t understand how a photographer could make those statements about cameras. You get the impression that he’s never used one before.
quirkyalone
April 19, 2007Sorry, but I don’t get your “almost as if he himself weren’t a photographer” argument. He is not allowed to make such predictions, when he himself is a photographer? You exchanged reasoning with sentiment. Moreover, he wasn’t talking about photography in general, but about photojournalism.
Anyway, I don’t want say that I agree with him. I think still photography will survive, as well as print.
Brian Auer
April 19, 2007Hmm… now you’re making me think on my feet. You bring up some good points about what I’ve written, so here’s why I wrote what I did:
1) A photojournalist is still a photographer.
2) Dirck’s article went beyond the scope of photojournalism.
3) Photography is a form of art.
4) When it comes to art, sentiment and reason become blurred along with passion, beauty, innovation, and emotion — at least in my opinion.
Mainly, the whole article just didn’t sit well with me. Even when I turned my sentiment off, my reasoning still couldn’t justify many of the points made in the article. If it had been written by somebody other than a photographer, I probably would have read it, laughed, and moved on. But the fact that a photographer wrote it got me all hung up on it.
In the end, I think you’re right — still photography and print will survive. These are things that have been a part of our culture for quite some time, and they’ll probably continue to be. At least as long as we’re around.
Jenni
April 23, 2007Another interesting article on the topic: https://iantalbot.wordpress.com/2007/04/23/whither-photography/
Brian Auer
April 23, 2007yeah, it seems like every photography blogger out there has picked up on the story and commented about it. I’ve seen at least 7 or 8 articles in reply to Dirck’s article.
Jim Goldstein
April 25, 2007Interesting. I can see the arguement that video will overtake still photography in the realm of photojournalism in the near future (5-10 years), but that is dependent on some substantial technology shifts and shifts in user behavior. Still photography is far from going the way of the dinosaur.
Just a note the Canon HD video camera does have interchangable lenses, but the resolution is far less than their flagship 1Ds Mark II. In fact still photography timelapses are often converted and used in video. I think it is fair to say there will be a melding of these formats, but the jury is still out on how and when.
Brian Auer
April 25, 2007Thanks for the note on the Canon HD video camera — I had no idea they’re creeping into the realm of interchangeable lenses. But you’re right about the resolution being less than the dSLR. There’s just no need to have a huge sensor on a video camera. No video display will support anything that big.