Oh wow, once again I thought I was retro and find that I am really avantgarde with my cute little (OK, not so little at 8# ea) cassette recorders...
<GRIN!> Cotty wrote: > On 13/5/07, Pawel Bartuzi, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> After all, some say in several years time hardly any pro will be >> shooting still pictures - so we can see times when there won't be any >> camera above "intermediate". :-) >> >> http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0704/the-coming-earthquake-in- >> photography.html > > Interesting. > > "Still cameras that shoot film have already been abandoned by most > manufacturers. Increasingly, newspaper photographers are being asked to > shoot video for Web sites." > > I go to many press conferences and the guys shooting on a handy-cam are > not the stills photogs. They are journalists and they all have acne and > too much gel in their hair. (I guess at least they *have* hair ;-) > > "With video becoming the prime tool of acquisition, audio of course now > enters into the picture. In fact, it becomes as important as the video. > This means that a whole new set of skills must be developed by the > photographer. Every photographer has already become a computer > technician, spending more time on the "post" process, such as Photoshop, > than on taking the picture. In the future, editing will be done in such > programs as Final Cut Pro. All of this means that photographers will > have to be smarter." > > I would not say that video is becoming the prime tool of acquisition > here in the UK - yet. But audio does enter the picture - and is proving > more than some can handle. I watched one presser go completely awry as a > hapless youngster recording video on his miniDV camera came unstuck when > his cheap and cheerful radio mic bit the dust. The whole scene became > totally unprofessional as the presser was halted before it even started, > complete with gobsmacked relatives of a murder victim sat at the table > with detectives all ready to pour their hearts out in an effort to track > down the perp. The hack was flustered and it was painful to watch. The > entire cost of his kit was less than I paid for my tripod. Plus, no > redundancy. I have at least two of most items on board my kit. But at > the end of the day this guy was shooting for the web site of a local > newspaper. They would have been happy with a cameraphone picture. > > It's a scenario I see frequently. VJ's (Video Journalists) turn up to > jobs and struggle with kit they have been given that they don't know how > to use, had little training with, or are just inept at using. The > resultant quality is atrocious, and it shows. And this is the local BBC! > You get what you pay for. > > As for Dirk Halstead's supposition above, I would broadly agree, but I > think that where he's got it wrong is that it's not the photographers > who will have to cope with yet more new technology. It's the pimply > journalist wannabees that will. Publishers will prefer a journo with a > handycam rather than a photographer with a handycam. Why? Because when > they're back at the office, the journo will write the words to accompany > the awful video. Most photogs could not. Those that do are already > 'proper' photojournalists, and/or are already shooting video for TV. > > Multi-skilling is the name of the game in this brave new world. But > taking pictures and writing are two separate talents. Both can be > taught, but those that do it well didn't learn it - it came to them > easily. Doing both together - and well - commands a dexterity that has > to be paid for, and paid well. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
