Selecting a still image

cliveh · Nov 22, 2012

Tonight, some guy spent about an hour telling me how good the Go Pro 3 was. It made me think if we are soon to film every action from multiple angles in a continuous stream, how unique film is in the fact that we select a moment/composition to capture. Do I have a point, or am I just being romantic about film technology?

Klainmeister · Nov 22, 2012

Sorry Cliveh, I really don't mean this to be insulting, but I feel like these threads are getting tiresome and boring. Yes, we're all romantics here.

Roger Cole · Nov 22, 2012

Wellll... there is something special about still images in this regard, it isn't unique to film. Digital stills are also a moment out if time, though the ease of blasting away at a significant frame rate and choosing later takes away a required element of perception. Similar can be done with 35mm and motor drives but at considerable film and processing expense.

cliveh · Nov 22, 2012

Klainmeister said:
Sorry Cliveh, I really don't mean this to be insulting, but I feel like these threads are getting tiresome and boring. Yes, we're all romantics here.

Can we view some of your none tiresome and not boring threads?

lxdude · Nov 22, 2012

The flag raising on Iwo Jima was photographed on one single B&W frame and filmed in color from the same vantage point, with one frame from the film at the nearly identical moment. Which is most revered?
A still reflects the moment when all comes together-intent, composition, concentration, decision. In most cases, multiple images from which to choose add nothing that clarity will not furnish better.

Klainmeister · Nov 22, 2012

cliveh said:
Can we view some of your none tiresome and not boring threads?

Sure, scan my profile. I simply meant that I feel like we are having a ton of analogue vs. digital threads as of the last two months. I really didn't mean it personally. I think still images, if they can be pulled from video, are just as effective--but what you're hinting at comes down to the fact that the photographer/videographer doesn't feel the same connection because it wasn't a thoughtful capture? I think this hearkens back to the comment about motor drives and burst mode with DSLRs.

Bill Burk · Nov 22, 2012

I get that talking photography in the wild, we often encounter people who only know digicams and video.

But lxdude's point strikes a deep nerve... it's the single shot taken at the moment which is prizeworthy in my mind.

lxdude · Nov 22, 2012

Funny, I didn't even think about A vs. D. I just thought of different approaches.

Ambar · Nov 23, 2012

desertratt said:
Expense, huh? Pardon me if I don't see the point. I would imagine dating somebody like Halle Berry might be expensive for the costs of a fine dinner and a nighclub but WHO CARES? A camera is a tool. How much did Hemingway spend on his beat up old manual typewriters? Does anybody care? If an expesive tool works for a person that that is what that person should use. This is just my humbug opinion.

+1

If you can make a hammer out of clay that will drive a nail through your wall. Go hang your pictures with a big smile. If you feel they're crooked, either live with it or try again.

Bill Burk · Nov 23, 2012

lxdude said:
Funny, I didn't even think about A vs. D. I just thought of different approaches.

I didn't think about it much either... My post was two unrelated thoughts: I often encounter people who only get digital. And I admire the still you mentioned.

Talking about still photographs vs extraction from immersive recording any technology is more interesting... Immersive recording could be giving an M2 to infinite monkeys. Or setting out disposable cameras for guests at a wedding.

I was going to make some witty comment about the flag raising being staged or being the second flag of the day... But after looking at the wikipedia article on it, I appreciate the battle was difficult and the fact it was second flag raising doesn't detract. Joe clarified that the staged shot occurred later. So I was left with amazed admiration for Joe Rosenthal. Even when you watch the video you see the iconic moment happened quickly and possibly only a few frames of the movie would have been comparable.

lxdude · Nov 23, 2012

It wasn't staged, but it was the second flag to be raised, and was larger than the first.

Roger Cole · Nov 23, 2012

desertratt said:
Expense, huh? Pardon me if I don't see the point. I would imagine dating somebody like Halle Berry might be expensive for the costs of a fine dinner and a nighclub but WHO CARES? A camera is a tool. How much did Hemingway spend on his beat up old manual typewriters? Does anybody care? If an expesive tool works for a person that that is what that person should use. This is just my humbug opinion.

What the heck are you talking about?

The only mention I see of expense is mine and this reply makes no sense to me unless I was badly misunderstood. Mt point is that you can spray hundreds of frames with abandon at every subject with digital and choose one later. Even with motor drives that just isn't practical to the same degree with film. Partly that's because of expense which escalates so rapidly as to become a factor for almost anyone if you shoot that wildly but it will also be limited by things like 36 shot film rolls. I haven't seen a bulk film back for a 35mm camera in a long time and even if you find one bulk color film is no longer available.

"Spray and pray" is just a lot more practical to a much greater extent with digital than with film. And in that sense this discussion of carefully recording a single moment verses shooting an entire sequence and selecting it later is something of a digital versus film discussion.

Bill Burk · Nov 23, 2012

lxdude said:
It wasn't staged, but it was the second flag to be raised, and was larger than the first.

Yes, and I appreciate the wiki article explained I was wrong and where the misconception came from... he "had" staged a later shot and said so, but when he said it he thought they were talking about the other one... The great shot, under the circumstances, was nothing short of an amazing decisive moment.

removed account4 · Nov 23, 2012

while still images are pretty beautiful in many regards
i am becoming more of a fan of time based photography.
where a single frame is exposed for an extended length of time
and instead of a fraction of a second being recorded on whatever the media might be
it is a long span. the world almost stops, and remnants remain.
the original photographers were quite involved with this, without realizing it because
their plates, paper, dags were so insensitive to light.

i'd rather forget the stream existed than be part of it.

Bill Burk · Nov 23, 2012

Roger Cole said:
What the heck are you talking about?

The only mention I see of expense is mine and this reply makes no sense.

I had to re-read this response too. I am sure desertratt badly misunderstood you. But the non sequitur was intriguing.

I'd often wondered what it'd be like to spend an evening with someone rich and famous. Hopefully they are your friend. And friends don't care how much money you have, they're just happy you're alive.

(I won't address "camera is a tool" because I just don't like that phrase).

I often think of the Star Trek tricorder when the immersive recording theme comes up... Conceptually, if you record everything around you for later analysis... Then someone can go in and pick out the frame later. In most cases I'd be repulsed with the results.

But what if the person doing the editing has an extraordinary graphic sensitivity (and no proclivity or ability to go out into the world to experience the original scene first-hand). The world could gain some equally extraordinary still photographs from the team of an explorer with curiosity and an editor back home.

blansky · Nov 23, 2012

The fact that cliveh likes to troll his digital vs analog stuff a couple of times a week is granted, pretty juvenile and the fact that pray and spray has been around long before digital, and whether it's easier with digital or not is debatable and pretty much beside the point, BUT cliveh also does pose some interesting questions buried under the surface.

The still image vs a movie or progression of shots is an interesting question. As a photographer, "nailing the shot" is important to me. But then for me I'm trying to nail the best of the expression I'm going for. If I was shooting action, then nailing the shot would definitely involve a motordrive, for the simple reason that I sooner get the shot, than worry if a bunch of guys at APUG, very few of whom are professionals or peers, would approved of the technique.

As for the impact of an individual shot vs a movie that's a tough one. I've been affected by individual shots, by their impact, whether it depravity or love or whatever. But not as much as I've been moved by a film or scene from a film, usually with music behind it.

So for me, both can have powerful impact but I've been more IMPRESSED by an individual shot but more MOVED by a movie or scene.

Dinesh · Nov 23, 2012

blansky said:
The fact that cliveh likes to troll ......

Ding .... we have a winner!

cliveh · Nov 23, 2012

blansky said:
The fact that cliveh likes to troll his digital vs analog stuff a couple of times a week is granted, pretty juvenile and the fact that pray and spray has been around long before digital, and whether it's easier with digital or not is debatable and pretty much beside the point, BUT cliveh also does pose some interesting questions buried under the surface.

The still image vs a movie or progression of shots is an interesting question. As a photographer, "nailing the shot" is important to me. But then for me I'm trying to nail the best of the expression I'm going for. If I was shooting action, then nailing the shot would definitely involve a motordrive, for the simple reason that I sooner get the shot, than worry if a bunch of guys at APUG, very few of whom are professionals or peers, would approved of the technique.

As for the impact of an individual shot vs a movie that's a tough one. I've been affected by individual shots, by their impact, whether it depravity or love or whatever. But not as much as I've been moved by a film or scene from a film, usually with music behind it.

So for me, both can have powerful impact but I've been more IMPRESSED by an individual shot but more MOVED by a movie or scene.

Please dont feel compelled to contribute to the discussion in my posts, particularly as those in the Ethics and Philosophy thread are a bit out of your depth.

Dinesh · Nov 23, 2012

cliveh said:
Please dont feel compelled to contribute to the discussion in my posts, particularly as those in the Ethics and Philosophy thread are a bit out of your depth.

I suspect he will find it hard not to, as you produce several inane posts daily.

ROL · Nov 23, 2012

cliveh said:
Please don’t feel compelled to contribute to the discussion in my posts, particularly as those in the Ethics and Philosophy thread are a bit out of your depth.

Really, cliveh?!? I've been on APUG for awhile, and I've always looked forward to blansky's participation and humorous takes in any forum, especially when he was mainly analog. He's only said what many of us have tried to broach perhaps more subtly, that your many posits can be a bit pedantic.

FYI: I have come to steer clear of cliveh treads, but as I am presently making a video with a GoPro2, I was sufficiently intrigued to stick a toe in the water. I totally accept the tool for what it is. The resulting video is merely a string of jpeg stills. And for the record (in case you didn't know), I shoot and print plenty of "stills" in film formats ranging from small to large. Brrrrrrrrrrrr....

cliveh · Nov 23, 2012

ROL said:
Really, cliveh?!? I've been on APUG for awhile, and I've always looked forward to blansky's participation and humorous takes in any forum, especially when he was mainly analog. He's only said what many of us have tried to broach perhaps more subtly, that your many posits can be a bit pedantic.

FYI: I have come to steer clear of cliveh treads, but as I am presently making a video with a GoPro2, I was sufficiently intrigued to stick a toe in the water. I totally accept the tool for what it is. The resulting video is merely a string of jpeg stills. And for the record (in case you didn't know), I shoot and print plenty of "stills" in film formats ranging from small to large. Brrrrrrrrrrrr....

There are 60,920 on APUG, sorry the three of you don't like me.

removed account4 · Nov 23, 2012

Darkroom317 · Nov 23, 2012

Where are the mods when you need them? This is just another pointless thread. No, that is not a reference to the original question, although it has been asked before. I have high respect for those involved in this thread and I enjoy these sort of posts. However, this is the kind of crap that is going to make people steer clear of this forum.

Darkroom317 · Nov 23, 2012

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Diapositivo · Nov 23, 2012

When human expression is at stake spray and pray has always been a basic tactic. It's not easy to get the real magic out of a face. With still life you can afford hours of preparation and a few single shots. With people you can as well, but the final result is not guaranteed to be the best.

For certain types of photography, spraying is the normal way to go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wygqlfUoJEs

Selecting a still image

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency