Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Convergence of Still Photography and Video  (Read 15749 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2008, 01:38:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey, itīs all flying at 30,000 ft above my head anyway; Iīm still fighting with the problems of getting that perfect print digitally down on paper...

Rob C
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2008, 07:31:59 PM »
ReplyReply

The emphasis in these convergence threads seems to be on expensive, high-end video cameras that produce images of such a good quality that individual frames can be used for perhaps 'decent' stills.

I've often wondered why APS-C and FF 35mm DSLRs can not be adapted to provide a movie mode as P&S cameras usually do, and offer higher quality video in line with the capabilities of their big, low-noise sensors, which are actually higher resolving and have better low-light performance than most (or all) high-end video cameras.

The obvious obstacle would appear to be the mirror. One can't expect a mirror to flip up and down 30x a second. However, the development of LiveView has removed that obstacle, has it not?
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2008, 11:51:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hey, itīs all flying at 30,000 ft above my head anyway; Iīm still fighting with the problems of getting that perfect print digitally down on paper...

Rob C
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


To take this away from the technical for a moment and just look at marketing and advertising in a different non traditional way, I suggest everyone that produces artistic content for any form of commerce to read this short article.

[a href=\"http://tinyurl.com/68t5vp]http://tinyurl.com/68t5vp[/url]

The author is not advocating anything other than an open thought process to identifying, marketing and selling goods and though the article does not go into the details of high tech, web play, or mention much about traditional advertising, he does make one major statement about how under the line and over the line mindsets should be erased.

I know right now most of my clients (ad agency and direct) are searching to find a balance or better put, a way to "converge" their traditiional advertising assembly lines (and streams of income) with new ways to attract and engage a consumer.

Or as this author states, every client is looking at ROI, regardless of the media.

This is just the beginning of the process and whether we like it or not, in advertising, theatrical even fine art, the only person who's final say maters is the consumer.

Another point the author makes is a lot of marketing success happens on the street level, usually regional.

Ask any fashion merchandiser which option they would prefer . . . 12 free pages in vogue on 6 extra POS displays in Walmart, JC Penny, or Neiman Marcus.

I think you'd be surprised at the answer.

What plays well in Manhattan may not resonate in Des Moines and this is where tradtiional media falls down and this is where new technology can offer a quickly adjustable form of visual content without delay, that is tailored to each specfic market.

In my view, what I think you will see happen is a change in priorities.  

Televsion marginalized print and radio, and major advertisers moved to the model where 70% of the budget goes to broadcast.  Now there is a rethink were the budget goes where it has the most effect and I believe the days of the big budget tv spot are coming to an end.


Where convergence comes in is the word ROI.  What works for the web should work for TV and should work for print because they all are going to share the viewership.

JR
« Last Edit: May 15, 2008, 08:29:49 AM by James R Russell » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2008, 12:58:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I read the article, James, but it strikes me that Mr Roth might just be flying a kite.

I was in advertising photography and out of it long before you - sadly - and I seem to recall that agencies were not all that sure of anything much even then. The difference, perhaps, was that what they would say in private they didnīt come out like that and say in print. But then, lots of things didnīt come out and I think we were all a sight better off for it!

I canīt remember a time when anyone honestly expected to have any measureable take on whether or not advertising did or did not work; the best one hoped for was brand recognition and, in the more local sense (as Roth says) the idea was that you might advertise something in the local press as a hook to get folks into the department store. Thatīs an area where I had some great clients and times: weīd shoot some boutique-style clothes but it didnīt really matter squat if any of them sold, the deal was to bring Mrs Client indoors to see the rest of the shop. Iīm obviously not considering the advertising related to second-hand cars, records or other stuff that fills the personal pages of local papers in this post; thatīs all a different world but it does seem to work out quite well.

I have to agree with you about the reluctance to spend money buying space in Vogue (for example) as a couple of the same clients for whom I did local advertising pics were also sometimes involved in buying into promotions in that very magazine and I did the shots in both cases, but I have to say that the self-motivated ones were always better than the promotional packages for many reasons, not least of all that the deals were so indebted to airlines, tourist boards, hotel groups etc, that the poor old product was in danger of coming off second best... not the case at all with editorial, where a different set of accepted rules seemed to hold sway, with the pictures being numero uno. I find that curious. Why did they want their pound of flesh in the promo deals but not when providing hospitality for editorial? Perhaps the answer isnīt to do with the providers at all, but to do with the difference in psychology (strength?) between a magazineīs space marketeers and an editorial department. But I digress.

I donīt buy that using  internet advertising will be any new final solution; most of the time adverts are blocked, if possible, and serve as little more than intrusions into whatever one happens to be doing online. Far from engendering good relations, they annoy. That canīt be good for ANY brand! Of course, I might just be out of touch, as is anyone who takes the non-accepted direction, but I see them as being even more intrusive than TV commercials after their second showing. After all, you can at least use their running time as a toilet break from whatever you happen to be watching. (I say toilet break where others might think of a cup of tea; problem is, one inevitably leads to the other and programmus interuptus multiplied by two.)

Perhaps the truth is that if you know what you want, then the computer gives you the opportunity of finding it without wearing out your shoes, but that requires an interested client in the first place.

I sometimes wonder how good or otherwise websites are for selling art. It seems to me that all one can do is to judge from oneīs own set of ideas, and I would find it very hard to buy anything I have not first seen in the flesh; perhaps websites are more of a route for those of us who canīt get into a gallery and enjoy its prestige and position in the market. That is certainly not how Iīd see it if I were selling wedding photography - for that, I think it (a website) allows a prospective client a good idea of what the photographer can do, but sorry, I donīt rate that quite in the same league as art. Even though an artist might do weddings, but letīs not go there. Please? Iīm just trying to illustrate a point.

In the end, maybe the photographers should just stop beating their heads on the wall about where itīs all going: take the work you get, do your best and trust in your gods.

Rob C
Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2008, 10:24:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Nearly everyone here assumes that convergence means that the video frames have to be suitable as high-quality replacements for still photos.  Why?  Image quality is relative, and changing all the time.  Why can't we just get better cameras that enable both high-quality stills and medium-quality frames making up a video, but unlike today's cameras, make the selection of shooting mode more transparent so it becomes as natural as visualizing the task in one's head?
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2008, 11:40:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nearly everyone here assumes that convergence means that the video frames have to be suitable as high-quality replacements for still photos.  Why?  Image quality is relative, and changing all the time.  Why can't we just get better cameras that enable both high-quality stills and medium-quality frames making up a video, but unlike today's cameras, make the selection of shooting mode more transparent so it becomes as natural as visualizing the task in one's head?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's a matter specialisation. You can't have it all. You either get a top-of-the-line videocam with decent still capability, or you get a top-of-the-line still camera with decent video capability.... at present. Who knows what the furure will hold!
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #46 on: May 16, 2008, 09:26:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's a matter specialisation. You can't have it all. You either get a top-of-the-line videocam with decent still capability, or you get a top-of-the-line still camera with decent video capability.... at present. Who knows what the furure will hold!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196034\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually those are the perfect choices - the former for my neighbor and the latter for me.  Then make sure I have transparent operation so I don't have to manipulate a "mode" dial and I will be happy.
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 17, 2008, 02:43:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In the end, maybe the photographers should just stop beating their heads on the wall about where itīs all going: take the work you get, do your best and trust in your gods.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I agree with a lot of this with the exception of trust the gods part, because by the time PDN or Time magazine says "this is the way it is", it's usually too late.

Your right though, produce the best work you can, move forward, don't look back, don't fixate on the future, but be prepared.

JR
Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5727



WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 20, 2008, 06:06:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Another perspective, here:

http://tao-of-digital-photography.blogspot...-selection.html

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad