Tue, July 4th, 2006 by Miles
According to an article on PDNOnline more and more of the images you see in your newspaper could be grabs from high quality video rather than stills cameras.
The Dallas Morning News won a Pulitzer prize for its photographic coverage of hurricane Katrina and several of its staff photographers now use HD video cameras as their primary equipment. One of them, David Leeson, says, "I look at it like I have the fastest motor drive in the country right now. I shoot 30 frames per second." He used two HD camcorders in his coverage of Katrina.
There's still a need for improvements in the technology before many others are convinced, video cameras' relatively slow shutter speeds mean they don't capture action well and storage of the mass of data generated is a problem, but technology is improving fast and there is an ongoing debate amongst professional photographers about the implications. Some feel that HD video could be the format of choice for events like weddings, where capturing that one vital moment or expression can make all the difference to your coverage.
At the moment the quality produced is good enough for newspapers but not magazines and other professional applications. What interests me is the idea that, in time, video might become the street photographer's format of choice. If street photography is all about capturing the moment then 30 frames a second is a lot of frames from which to choose that perfect, decisive, moment...
It's a scary thought and makes me understand how film purists feel about digital cameras.
New server!
July 4th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
I've been following this story for a while now and also seeing how other photojournalists are reacting to it.
Its natural progression at it's best but for me its the end of the decisive moment.Newspapers will see it as a way of saving money on using freelance photographers and just arming cheap college grads with a stock HDTV unit and telling them to point.
Rather than planning the shot, photographers will just point and film and then look for the right moment.
Another point to bring home is the fact that shooting GOOD film requires a huge range of skills, if the end effect is not having it look like a home video.
The still camera will still be there and it's always important to stress that its not always the kit which makes the picture, its the person seeing the picture in the first place
July 4th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
I think that because there's so much more to an image than just capturing the right moment, such as composition, context, clarity, etc etc that even if HD video becomes commonly used by photojournalists it will still require experts to shoot it effectively, and the abilities of the photo(video)ographer will still show through.
The image below, from the San Jose Mercury News, shows two stills taken by a photographer using a HD camcorder, Richard Koci Hernandez, in the paper. Both are good photographs, whether from a video still or not. I think they show how these guys are using the camcorders as they would stills cameras, rather than as video cameras.
July 4th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
I'm surprised this is just coming up here. We talk about it a lot in school. Our job listing board is packed full of newspapers looking for photographers to carry a video camera. They even pitched out a plan for us to shoot video at our school newspaper.
Personally, I’m not a fan of video or how they are using it in the Newspaper industry. There is a lot of 'buzz word' madness going on in the newspaper industry and how it handles the transition from paper to the web...and they are all throwing the buzz about without taking any formal plan. I've seen a lot of video content coming from newspapers in the last few months, most of it looks like a boring episode of COPS if you as me. 90% of the "New Media" content is nothing more than a slideshow with really bad choice of music. And if it says 'interactive' anywhere on the page, it normally never is.
I personally thing it's more of a fad, all these news things the newspapers are doing seems more because they can, not because its practical.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
The Red Video Cinema project looks interesting too. I think it was started by the owner of Oakley Sunglasses who is big into photography. 11mp, 60 frames a second brings up the storage medium problem for sure though. I think it can be found at www.red.com
July 5th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Dang... that RED camera is fun. Now all I need is a spare $20k, so I can go pick one up in 2007, heh.
Really, though... in the future I see the line blurring between still cameras and motion cameras. I mean... it's all just about the trade-offs between megapixels and FPS. At a certain point we'll have enough control over those values that labeling a camera as a "still camera" or "motion camera" may not be terribly meaningful. Eventually, they'll just be cameras with really good specs and you'll be able to choose how you want to use it. Once we're at the point where we can have 20 megapixels at 120 fps, then who cares if it's called "still" or "motion."
In the meantime, I think it's awesome that newspapers can use HD recorders to create still images at about 2 megapixels. I mean... why not? It's just another tool to use or not use, depending on your circumstances.
I just can't imagine a good reason to have fewer tools at our disposal. If you give creative people a vast array of choices, then they can make some pretty amazing things.
July 6th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
The "fear of digital" Mute talks about comes from the belief that everything there is to the skill of photography is to seize the right moment. This is derived from an equally strange belief that this or that basic sets of skills defines who is a photographer and who is not.
But if one knew how difficult it is to do cinematography (in which there must be not one decisive moment, but thousands of them, reaching continuity), he or she would have no such fear.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:09 am
The true test will be if some of the hardcore photojournalists, based in some of the roughest regions of the world, adopt the technology.
I know my recent trip to Chernobyl wouldnt have happened if i didnt have my Canon 1dmkIIN. It was -16, the camera was frozen, totally wet and dropped down a flight of stairs i fell down and yet still managed to shoot the images perfectly.
With HDTV videocamera's they aren't designed for such rough abuse, but im sure that will change