File :-(, x, )
are moving picture the future? Anonymous
Now that old fashioned magazines and morning papers are available online, and everyone browses internet with movie capable computers, do you think still pictures will get phased out any time soon?

Will moving pictures ever replace the photograph? I mean, if there is capacity for movies, then why use a still frame at all?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:02:13 22:20:19Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height600RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
i seriously doubt it. pictures are fastest and cheapest way to convey messages that i can think of off the top of my head.

and besides, you could analyze a "moving picture" for what it is- a series of pictures being shown in rapid sequence, and realize that pictures are still going to be around.
>> Anonymous
Now that we have oranges, we'll never eat apples again! I tell you!
>> Anonymous
No. Or rather, they shouldn't be. Never underestimate the ability of media editors to pander to and increase the number of people included in the "lowest common denominator."

1. Both are valid means of creative expression for different people, or sometimes the same people. Photographs did not replace paintings. And a good photograph contains exactly the same amount of substance as a good video, and vice versa.

Also, am I the only one who would like to see a reporter that was a talented drawing/painting artist and integrated that into their reportage?


2. A still frame shows it all at once, and if done well, sums up the whole situation in a symbolic "decisive moment." Better for news that way, since I think that's the sort of situation you're talking about.

As an illustration, look at this photograph by Cartier-Bresson:

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=Mod_ViewBox.ViewBoxZoom_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOQA8VQS1&a
mp;IT=ImageZoom01&PN=9&STM=T&DTTM=Image&SP=Album&IID=2S5RYDZEQWEA&SAKL=T&amp
;SGBT=T&DT=Image

If that had been a video, it just would've been nasty.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>63193
Of course. Just like how photos totally obsoleted drawings and paintings, and how those same drawings and paintings are why we no longer have any stories told just with words.
>> Anonymous
but pictures were used because of the lack of anything else, or the expensive gear needed, but now that we can easily view both pics and movies, why use the less advanced one?

stories have indeed faded away quite a lot!
ask a random person when he last read a book, then ask when he last watched television!
>> Anonymous
>>63233
>ask a random person when he last read a book, then ask when he last watched television!

This is why I fear.
>> kaoru
When I watch my tv I don't expect it to be artistic, I expected to be entertaining. Now a days I don't even get that. I only see reality shows almost on every channel, it's sad.

When I see a picture I analyze what I see, as if looking at a painting. One time I saw a picture on national geographics of a kid holding on to his sister during a flood. His sisters head is under water but his still holding on for dear life. That stayed with me for quiet sometime. Pictures also tend to be like paintings too. It describes current events, the opinion of the person who made it and show the talent of the photographer.

If Video ever replace pictures then we would talk to each other quoting episodes we see on tv. We all be mindless morons
>> Anonymous
>>63226
Well there are still paintings though. When photography was introduced and began to be used mainstream they were first used for portraits. Originally artists used to do this, so now they were out of the job, because photographs could do it so much cheaper than they could. This then allowed painters to paint what they wanted now, since there was no longer a need to try to paint as realistically as possible.

Now what the op was saying is even more true when you think about how soon they will be able to mass produce screens as thin as paper. The main use of photography right now is for news and magazines, but if the written format becomes totally digitized and wifi becomes powerful enough to stream video everywhere I highly doubt photos will still be used as often. However there is no way to replace the art of photography with video, as there was no way to replace that of actual paintings. Hope this didn't seem too obvious to everyone else.
>> Anonymous
HEY GUYS WHAT IS FILM