 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006Still professional journalist photography dead?
According to an editorial in Amateur Photography, still pro photography for news is being replaced by video. Single video images can be used if needed. > According to an editorial in Amateur Photography, still pro photography > for news is being replaced > by video. Single video images can be used if needed. This would be hard for me to believe unless the video was well-shot 1080p, in which case individual 2-meg 1080x1920 frames could be used. I have successfully upsized 480x720 (480x640 after proportion correction) Mini-DV (interlaced, with no motion in the frame) frames large enough to look good on DVD covers but I would not use this for general purpose stills... -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether > > According to an editorial in Amateur Photography, still pro photography > > for news is being replaced [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > good on DVD covers but I would not use this for general > purpose stills... Certainly it would be easier for some action photographers to capture events with video than with still cameras. No 1/500th of a second to freeze things however. >> > According to an editorial in Amateur Photography, still pro photography >> > for news is being replaced >> > by video. Single video images can be used if needed. >> This would be hard for me to believe unless the video was >> well-shot 1080p, in which case individual 2-meg 1080x1920 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> good on DVD covers but I would not use this for general >> purpose stills... > Certainly it would be easier for some action photographers to capture > events with video than with still cameras. No 1/500th of a second to > freeze things however. Actually, while video cameras may be limited to 50-60fps, their shutter speeds may range up toward 1/10,000th second, though a lot of light is needed to make use of this... -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether >>> > According to an editorial in Amateur Photography, still pro >>> > photography [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > rpn1@cornell.edu > http://www.ferrario.com/ruether TV in the US runs at 30fps (regardless of the shutter speed being used.) The fps is a scan-rate / transmission issue and not an exposure issue. Super Slo Mo replay systems run at 90-120fps (depending on the manufacturer) but are still transmitted at 30fps (well, technically 29.96 fps...Google "Drop Frame") And you'd need to be on the surface of the sun to get enough light for quality images at a shutter speed of 1/10,000. Jay Beckman Chandler, AZ www.pbase.com/flyingphotog (My "Scenes From The Road" galleries will give a hint as to the world in which I work...) >And you'd need to be on the surface of the sun to get enough light for >quality images at a shutter speed of 1/10,000. ISO 100, sunny 16 and f/1.4?  SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>And you'd need to be on the surface of the sun to get enough light for >>quality images at a shutter speed of 1/10,000. > > ISO 100, sunny 16 and f/1.4? Ahem, aperture in the "Sunny 16" rule is, well, f/16. Sorry... Jay Beckman Chandler, AZ www.pbase.com/flyingphotog >> ISO 100, sunny 16 and f/1.4? > >Ahem, aperture in the "Sunny 16" rule is, well, f/16. Yeah right. If you are math challenged, stick to f/16. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >>And you'd need to be on the surface of the sun to get enough light for > >>quality images at a shutter speed of 1/10,000. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sorry... You might want to go back and read what the rule is. But just to save you the math for a sunny day, whey you are using the funny 16 rule shooting at ISO 100 and f/1.4 would give you a shutter speed of 1/13,000 sec. Scott Scott >>>And you'd need to be on the surface of the sun to get enough light for >>>quality images at a shutter speed of 1/10,000. >> >>ISO 100, sunny 16 and f/1.4? > > Ahem, aperture in the "Sunny 16" rule is, well, f/16. Sunny-16 is a reference for which reciprocity applies. eg: for ISO-100 f/16 1/100 is the same as ISO 100 f/8 1/400 is the same as ISO 400 f/16 1/400 Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > And you'd need to be on the surface of the sun to get enough light for > quality images at a shutter speed of 1/10,000. Wow. My 1990s film-cam Minoltas had top speeds of 1/16,000th and 1/12,000th and I never needed to go that close to our principal light source. > And you'd need to be on the surface of the sun to get enough light for > quality images at a shutter speed of 1/10,000. I've shot 1/12,000 @ f/22 and 2 more stops of ND filters at ISO 100. From the surface of the earth. I assure you. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> And you'd need to be on the surface of the sun to get enough light for >> quality images at a shutter speed of 1/10,000. > > I've shot 1/12,000 @ f/22 and 2 more stops of ND filters at ISO 100. > From the surface of the earth. I assure you. Kinda begs the question: What were you shooting? A blast furnace? SignatureJohn McWilliams >>> And you'd need to be on the surface of the sun to get enough light >>> for quality images at a shutter speed of 1/10,000. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Kinda begs the question: What were you shooting? A blast furnace? Shaddow graphs of leaves. Sun was the backlight _and_ properly exposed. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > >>> And you'd need to be on the surface of the sun to get enough light > >>> for quality images at a shutter speed of 1/10,000. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Shaddow graphs of leaves. Sun was the backlight _and_ properly exposed. So that would be about the same exposure that you would use on the surface of the sun? Scott >>>>>And you'd need to be on the surface of the sun to get enough light >>>>>for quality images at a shutter speed of 1/10,000. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So that would be about the same exposure that you would use on the > surface of the sun? No, that would be another stop or two as there is the earth's atmosphere to account for, and the day in question had a lot of smoke in the atmosphere from forest fires burning in northern Quebec (it was the coloring of the sky due to that that prompted me to shoot at the sun in first place). Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > No, that would be another stop or two as there is the earth's atmosphere > to account for, and the day in question had a lot of smoke in the > atmosphere from forest fires burning in northern Quebec (it was the > coloring of the sky due to that that prompted me to shoot at the sun in > first place). Ah, so maybe the right exposure for a cloudy day on the sun? Scott > > No, that would be another stop or two as there is the earth's > atmosphere [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ah, so maybe the right exposure for a cloudy day on the sun? As to the subject, were you shooting the surface of the leaf with the sunlight directly behind it? SignatureJohn McWilliams > According to an editorial in Amateur Photography, still pro photography > for news is being replaced > by video. Single video images can be used if needed. I would not say "replaced" as much as "supplemented." It does seem that the demand is greater now for video photographers is greater than for still photographers. But the video is mostly for use on web sites, not print. If the news you are talking about is web news, then, yes, it could be said that video is replacing still photography. As a community journalist who regularly scans the employment opportunities, I've noticed several job postings lately for print reporters with video shooting capabilities for small dailies. Media convergence via the web site. Who knows what's next. > > According to an editorial in Amateur Photography, still pro photography > > for news is being replaced [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the news you are talking about is web news, then, yes, it could be said that > video is replacing still photography. >As a community journalist who regularly scans the employment >opportunities, I've noticed several job postings lately for print >reporters with video shooting capabilities for small dailies. Media >convergence via the web site. Who knows what's next. At least one of the UK's national daily newspapers has re-equipped all its photojournalists with video cameras. > > According to an editorial in Amateur Photography, still pro photography > > for news is being replaced [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the news you are talking about is web news, then, yes, it could be said that > video is replacing still photography. The reproduction in newsprint isn't much better than it's been in the last 10-20 years. Video images could probably replace most still camera images so it comes down to which image captured the moment best? If I have 1000 video frames to choose from and 50 still frames, which do you think is more likely to yield the definitive shot? On a lighter note, if you compare the number of photo mags to the number of video mags, photo mags have definitely increased in 10 years while video mags have dramatically decreased. As an artform, still photography is in no danger. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.