Comments on: Digital Photographers, Welcome Back to 1999

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:59:56 +0000

This is a great article and probably ahead of its time for professional shooters. I suspect that the majority of your readers are not pros but, like myself, are amatures who have no intention of going pro. Since they aren't using the gear already available for serious amatures to shoot video, they are using dSLRs precisely because they are interested in capturing still images. For advertising and wedding/event pros, you're absolutely right: the business of photography is changing, however photography itself, the art form, is not.

By: Video feito com a Canon 5D | André Nery

Video feito com a Canon 5D | André Nery — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:31:37 +0000

[...] quem acredita que o video nas câmeras DSLR veio para ficar, eis aqui um bom artigo que aponta 2009 como o ano que iniciou essa revolução no video, assim como uma [...]

By: IJ

IJ — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:48:33 +0000

“Oh wait? Did I make those last points with statements that were in motion?” You did, but I didn’t click on the play button. Playing a video takes time, which I’m not necessarily willing to spend. Instead, focusing on your text, my mind flew past the crappy stills representing the videos. As content continues to compete for our attention, stills will remain important for conveying information instantly. Regardless, thank you for an interesting post.

By: brett maxwell

brett maxwell — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 07:37:58 +0000

video news has been around for decades and has not killed print news. what has killed print news is online “print” news. like print and video, stills and video will continue to coexist peacefully. the medium by which they are delivered will continue to change, but the two, the static and the moving, are fundamentally different and both will remain.

By: jimmyD

jimmyD — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:21:51 +0000

Does this mean, since I have even more overall exp w/video than stills, I’m poised for the future as a result of my past? (and present?)

By: canvas pictures

canvas pictures — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:25:33 +0000

The evolution of our current mindsets and methodologies will prevail. Those that will suffer are the ones that are unable or unwilling to move with the times.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:26:31 +0000

I agree with Ed. Production costs of stills will be lower. Also the costs of displaying the ad. Video screens and other media cost more initial cost and more operation costs. Like the scene in minority report. How much energy/money does that take to run? Oh and did you notice how Tom Cruise and most everyone else in that scene just kept walking by. This day and age of eco friendly,go go go rush society, and kids having the attention span of a goldfish, I think you are going to reach more people with stills than video. You look at a still and you get the message instantly. Nike, Calvin Klein, Mountain Dew the message they convey is interpreted as soon as you see the add. They have only a brief moment to display and convey the message before the consumer moves on to other things. When it comes to video you have to stop and watch it takes seconds, even minutes to get your point across. You have to give up some of your time and make an effort to watch said video. Some people will watch but most people will ignore it and keep on moving. Video will have it’s place I’m sure, but to captivate and convey an instant message about your company and product, stills will be the most cost effective, easiest, and instantaneous way possible.

By: Photography Today! » Blog Archive » Are the Photographic Print Dead?

Photography Today! » Blog Archive » Are the Photographic Print Dead? — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:00:35 +0000

[...] the article on Pixsylated blog Sly Arena in an article ‘Digital Photographers, Welcome Back to 1999 ’, it discusses the demise of still photography with the greater emergence of [...]

By: Ed

Ed — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:00:34 +0000

Where it involves commercial media, I think you’ll find an interesting turn-around where video will actually be the second choice, or alternate (longer) view of an advertisement or news story.

Marketers of products and news will realize that most people will scan through the onslaught of media, opting to take most of it in quickly without the visuals setting the timeline. Viewing video will be an option, not a given. Static images will be the standard first and most important visual to drawing the viewer, hopefully, in for more.

Then there’s the issue of budgets. Since still photography will cost less to produce than production video, and the still image will be of higher initial value, will video always be budgeted for?

By the way, I love video production, too. But I realize it is not the same media experience as still imagery. They are two different things entirely.

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 02:28:44 +0000

Hey Syl is it possible to show us a little tid bit of what you have been working on? I agree video will become more popular just not as convinced as you are it will be the only way. I am not going to be so stubborn to not learn how to do it because I will, and I am sure I will like it, and invest in it. If you like taking pictures what’s not to like about making a creative movie? I just don’t think it will take over stills that’s all. I would be interested to see some of the work you speak of.