Will High Resolution Video Ever Replace Still Photography

What nearly video? People are more interested in Video, now of days than Headshots? How important is a video presence for a professional business owner vs having a headshot image?
Postal service your comments, I desire to hear from you.
Thanks,
Carlos Taylhardat

Personally, I don’t see it happening. But who knows?
Dave

These are non mutually exclusive media.

50 years agone 8mm movie cams were quite popular, simply never really supplanted still photography.
Maybe this fourth dimension.

It’south hard to hang a video on a wall. Fifty-fifty if I could, I’chiliad just walking by and only want to glance; would I now accept to terminate?

Almost people are more interested in videos than stills. I call up that has been the case since a long time…Information technology’due south only that video is more than accessible now.

With the web being the primary viewing method for anything, I detect video has go very significant given the widespread availability of loftier speed broadband. It’s definitely impacted my commercial business – I used to sell stills of fights to a lot of outlets, simply if yous tin see a video online, why would you await through twenty photos? This is true of a lot of sports.

In addition, I am now asked to shoot both nevertheless and video for (non-sports) assignments. Instead, I have to give up half the pay to get someone with a video photographic camera out. Maybe I will choice upwardly a camera with video and acquire to shoot it, just for now, it halves my hourly accept on assignments.

It’s hard to hang a video on a wall​

Well most people I know average 10 new videos a solar day. They hang a photo on the wall at about one time a year.

It’south just that video is more accessible now.​

That’south it in a nutshell.

Whether Video is replacing the Photographer is uncertain, only nosotros do know that Video Killed the Radio Star:

http://world wide web.youtube.com/picket?v=IUgF49Rtg7Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Editors tin never have enough photos to chose from. Video is a natural extension of that. Personally, I’k non going down that road just if you are a young person looking to make a living in photojournalism or wedding/event photography, you lot better learn how to shoot video.

The video is going to replace photography in the same way every bit movie replaced novels.

And the aforementioned manner the still photography replaced painting.

Video is replacing photography the same mode apples are replacing oranges.

I agree with Juraj, how many people read a novel last year vs. how many moving picture goers were there? I think still photos are mainly for the photograpers ain enjoyment.

People who are idle, may accept the time and patience to watch online videos. I don’t know many such people. Most educated people are busy working and they need the information they are looking for in seconds, rather than minutes it takes to sentry a video. The thought of the internet is that it’south interactive and you get to decide what y’all see. Video follows a completely unlike prototype of feeding the viewer ready-digested content which doesn’t get out the viewer the control of the pace at which they view the content. It’s corking when there is a crew of a thou people that spend one year of their working lives making the film into a masterpiece to be watched in a theatre – merely information technology’southward non that groovy for 24-hour interval-to-solar day communication of news content etc. The typically available online video content falls so far short of the expectations of quality set past theatrical movies that even a short prune of shaky online footage of some news event is too long. Usually when more time is given by the user to view it, the end result is a sigh and disappointment. I remember the produces of the content will also feel the aforementioned when they view how many clicks their content got.
Spectacular catastrophes, sports etc. are different as in that location the nature of the content is very much in line with the medium. Only and then I don’t accept fourth dimension to watch sports, either – the but time I have for sports is when I do it myself, because that’s the only type that has any beneficial furnishings (on the person’s health).

The video is going to supercede photography in the aforementioned way every bit moving picture replaced novels.
I agree with Juraj, how many people read a novel last yr vs. how many movie goers were in that location?​

I teach students aged ten-13, and I can say with certainty that the movie has in no style “replaced” the novel for them;
supplemented, yes, but replaced, definitely not. In fact, when children comparatively assess novels adjacent to their movie adaptations (in cases where such adaptaions be), it’s the movies that come upwardly short.
And speaking of adults, my wife and I, along with the majority of our friends, read a lot more than than nosotros watch (in fact, near of us don’t have Television set’s, and seldom become to the cinema).
Maybe Juraj and Charles have abandoned novel reading for picture show watching, but to merits that movies have replaced novels is pure hyperbole.

Hither’s some youtube stats.
Over 3 billion videos are viewed every day.
Over 48 hours of video content is uploaded every minute.
150 years of youtube content is viewed simply on Facebook every day.
It doesn’t matter who y’all know or who your friends are, those don’t signal trends.

I usually just pass over annihilation that is video for ane elementary reason: you need to watch information technology. I would rather only see a motion picture or series of pictures, or read it when it’due south textual. Watching is a completely dissimilar usage of time than a motion picture or text are. I command my looking and reading, but with video, yous either sentry information technology all or not. It’south not skimmable, fast readable, or return-to-able like pictures or text are.

This wasn’t nigh what people here practice, that’s irrelevant to the question as I said earlier. Information technology’south about whether it’s affecting photographers. A couple people here take no influence on what the public and photography clients consume. And there are some trends there.

It’s hard to hang a video on a wall​

I see flatscreens on walls playing video very frequently and gaining in frequency. Some in spots where prints, signs & posters used to “hang”. Manifestly its not THAT hard.

People who are idle, may have the time and patience to sentry online videos. I don’t know many such people. Nearly educated people are decorated working and they need the data they are looking for in seconds, rather than minutes it takes to sentinel a video.​

Its curious how you had acceptable time to provide an in depth analysis of how educated people don’t have adequate time on their hands.

I don’t have time to watch sports, either – the only time I have for sports is when I exercise information technology myself, because that’s the merely type that has whatever beneficial effects (on the person’s health).​

Its even more curious now. What beneficial effects were derived by the time spent drafting this less than scientific survey of the content reviewing habits of the well educated?

Earlier nosotros declare even so photography expressionless by ignoring it in the statistics near videos, we should consider the internet’southward bear upon – over 20million photos uploaded very day – and that’southward just to Facebook. Both mediums are heavily used. It’due south not about one over the other.

If the subject is specifically online, then videos are more than important because i tin can always pull a web size still from the video, even so, both stills and videos increased dramatically in our media saturated, obsessed modern society…

“How important is a video presence for a professional business owner vs having a headshot paradigm?”​

Photographer’s opinions may be limited. They may discern trends for this type of usage merely they are non necessarily privy to the trends videographers see or those who perform both crafts. They may know only what they do which is only part of the movie.
Perchance it is best to ask business organisation owners. After all, your question asks what THEY think.

Even though video has been around for some time now, I feel short video production is all the same in it’s infancy in how it’southward utilized, and consumed. The internet and less expensive equipment are bridging gaps, no doubt. Clients (and the general public) are definitely interested/ fascinated with video, only I often wonder how satisfied they are with what they end up with compared to what they anticipated. (Akin to comparing a hollywood production to a decent home movie). Perchance high end quality doesn’t matter all that much in a high consumption, disposable society?
That said, I’ve always been drawn to the integrated medium, where loftier impact stills are placed within a video production. How much better would a run of the mill fight video be if it were enhanced with Jeff’due south very dramatic, superlative activeness stills and story shots? For that affair, whatever genre of pure video could be enhanced-Weddings, PJ, sports etc etc. While these types of productions might non be feasible for the 30-60 second crowd, there certainly is room ito evolve n the commercial market.

Information technology doesn’t thing who you know or who your friends are, those don’t indicate trends.​

True, Jeff, simply your stats point nothing unless yous compare them to stats on reading. And even so, much of the viewing could be existence done past people who wouldn’t take read anyway; and then the claim that movies accept
replaced
novels would still be unsupported even with comparative stats.

WOW, I was surprised to run across the number of responses ignited by this topic. My reason for bringing this topic is that a potential advertising client decreased their print and photography budget while increasing the video and flash budget. Not providing video lost me a potential customer.
I don’t recollect that people volition stop having images in their walls, but as a photographer who has been providing services since the eighties & dealt with a not bad bargain of changes. Darkroom to photoshop, motion picture to sensor, high quality low volume to lower quality college volume…
Now, should I be adding video to my services? I have refined my visitor ( www.artofheadshots.com ), now I feel that its back to the drawing table – or not?

I was encouraged in the early 2000’s to motion into digital age and photograph.cyberspace was paramount in instructing me how to exercise information technology. Now, its video. I love stills and am frankly non as excited about video.
What should I do?
Thank you for all your great comments,
Kindly,
Carlos

I read on average two books a week and take not been to the cinema or viewed video for more than two months now …. I turned off my Telly back in September and have yet to plough it on since.
Later on the last example of video I saw taken by a professional photographer all I tin can say is ‘God Help United states of america’. I write as a retired professional film/video worker. Information technology was apauling while most of his photographs were fantabulous. It used to be, or is, two quite dissimilar disciplines which just a few cantankerous between successfully.

I wonder if instead of photographs people will hang their domicile movies [ again I say ‘GHU’] in wall hung display units … such is the country of fine art today .. automatically starting to display when somebody is in viewing distance


I suspect [ know for certain ] that skillful video is not just a photograph with movement simply a constructed storyline … as the Russian pioneers of the 1910’s discovered and showed the globe.

For Ringo I propose such a display unit of measurement with moving graphics such every bit a screen saver to attract attending until the unsuspecting person gets in distance which then automatically changes to the ‘message’ which can be video or a series of stills …. be my guest yous are welcome to the idea


Just become a competant videographer to organise the video or the stills for that thing it is pretty much the same thing just harder with stills.

Excellent discussion anybody, thanks. Video didn’t kill the Rockstar, apple did.
Thanks,
Ringo

As someone who does work for small businesses, I see less demand for photos than videos. Information technology isn’t to say that they desire less photos than earlier, simply that they have an increasing demand for videos, and on a much more than regular basis. Of course, my piece of work is well-nigh all for the web (one time once again, small businesses), then this will vary by area and company size, I’chiliad certain.

Movies did not supervene upon novels. More people are reading novels now and more beingness written each twelvemonth than when the first feature film came out.

For many people “good” videos are as hard as always to produce and to interest others in. I think when the first “consumer” video cams came effectually, along with the recorder modules and tuner modules, then along came camcorders. They didn’t kill off moving-picture show cameras for stills although they hammered home movies pretty good.
Sure it’southward easy to put video clips on the cyberspace but like home movies and slide shows, having them available to exist watched is not the aforementioned as people actually watching them. You can post your kid’s soccer game but who will sit through the whole thing.
I’thou a train fan. I videoed trains for a while when I had my video cams and as a gadget freak clumped through a fair to middling consumer camera/recorder combo and camcorder. Merely I didn’t stick with it. I can search on certain trains, engines or locations and find stills and videos of a broad range of quality simply x minutes of a long train going by is still ten minutes of a long railroad train going by.
Good video, like good stills volition have value and some commercial uses but they seem to fit in that location own target audiences and aren’t mutually sectional not will they knock one or the other out of use.

For those that didn’t go information technology, I’chiliad pretty sure the thought that movies replaced novels was supposed to be ironic. They didn’t, just like video won’t replace stills. stills didn’t replace painting, television didn’t replace movies or radio, and apples didn’t replace oranges.

Video’due south are a snooze fest. I avoid them.