Aaton, ARRI and Panavision — have all ceased production of new cameras.

[Petr Dvorak]

Kodak already adapted long ago with their production of digital senzors chips for cameras.

 

[David Battistella]

The art of perfect film exposure I'll always be thankful for learning.

That art is even more important now in with Digital sensors. That skill carries over and it is obvious in your case and the case of DP's who know how to light and expose.

David

 

[Nick Wernham]

Eventually digital cinema cameras will surpass film by producing images that tell a story in a way that film cameras never could have. To my knowledge that isn't happening just yet, but I don't think that day is too far in the future.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

True, it's very hard to make living as a photographer these days. But the thing is that everyone can take good pictures with still cameras these days. You only have to point a still camera and press the button without thinking anything. Video/film is very very different story. You can give DSLR to anyone, use automatic mode and let them take good looking pictures. Now give the same person an EPIC and teach him how to use it and tell him to make a good 1 minute short.

Pen and paper has been around for ages, but how many can really draw? When something requires more than a pressing a button you will have to have the right brain to be able to do it well.

I think you're right. The thing about digital stills is that if you take enough photos, some are going to be great. And you don't have to develop the film and spend a fortune to do it, you can just click away. I mean, you'd have to work really, really, really hard to take 500 photos and not ONE of them look good with a nice DSLR. You're going to get a few great shots, even if it's totally by accident. But if you end up with some great photos, who cares if you're a pro, or not, or if you shot 10 photos, or 500? You dump the bad ones, print the rest, and no one cares about the percentages.

With movies, at least for me, it's about story telling. You can't randomly tell a good story. You can't tell a good story by accident, no matter how much footage you shoot.

Either you've got some story telling chops, or you don't. How do you show that scene to get maximum impact on the audience for what is going on with the character? What do you decide NOT to show that creates apprehension, tension, mystery, fear? Those are decisions you can't make randomly.

With a nice DSLR you can use a shotgun approach. You can take a wide, medium, close up, zoom in, go wide angle, from the side, front, back, rear, above, below, and heck one of them should look nice.

 

[Bill Anderson]

The problem with this is that the art of photography is not about pointing a camera at things, it is about pointing a camera at things that we, as artists,
understand to such a degree as to make our view of these things meaningful, pertinent in the world of art. A "Shotgun" approach is no way to reveal the intricacies of anything,
but it is a sure way for the artist to reveal his own lack of understanding and sensitivity about the thing set before him... Covering all the angles will only provide better coverage of one's uncertainty.
This is not the same thing as using a more liberal approach to capture a fleeting moment, or explore the nuances of objects through many studies; even then, these things also demand insight.
The bravest thing an artist can do is to denounce the trade route, the money path, the one that is the safest and most travelled, and instead take the high road,
even though it is littered by the bones of those who have failed. In fact it's the only hope he has. There is nothing inherently wrong with the landscape as subject matter,
but it takes a very talented artist to make it meaningful once again after the millionth red rock vista sunrise. Robert Adams is very much aware of this dilemma.
If you are not familiar with Adams' work, take a look, it is not easy to understand. His book, published by Aperture - "Beauty In Photography. Essays In Defense Of Traditional Values", explains much.

 

[Petr Dvorak]

Photography or cinematography is allways about good eye and it doesnt matter if you catch your picture on a chip, on a fílm or something else.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

The problem with this is that the art of photography is not about pointing a camera at things, it is about pointing a camera at things that we, as artists,
understand to such a degree as to make our view of these things meaningful, pertinent in the world of art. .

The art of photography can be about whatever you like. Just purchase a nice DSLR for under a grand, a couple good pieces of glass, adn you can make your own rules for what the art of photography is, or means to you.

If that's what you want the "art of photography" to be for you, no problem. Might be something else, for someone else.

 

[Bill Anderson]

The art of photography can be about whatever you like. Just purchase a nice DSLR for under a grand, a couple good pieces of glass, adn you can make your own rules for what the art of photography is, or means to you.

If that's what you want the "art of photography" to be for you, no problem. Might be something else, for someone else.

Please point out where I said or implied there were rules.

This has nothing to do with "how I want it to be", it is simply how it is, and there is no way around that. Particularly not your "clicking away to get a great shot" approach. Your idea of "great" is obviously very different from mine.


What the art of photography is to me had better be "something else, for someone else". That is a given.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Quote: "With a nice DSLR you can use a shotgun approach. You can take a wide, medium, close up, zoom in, go wide angle, from the side, front, back, rear, above, below, and heck one of them should look nice"

Really, Eric? Why should one of them look nice?

"Rules"?: Understanding isn't a rule, sensitivity isn't one either. Knowledge? Skill? Craft?: no rules to be found there. But applying a set criteria like a "shotgun approach" is a most inflexible and crass type of rule.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

Quote: "With a nice DSLR you can use a shotgun approach. You can take a wide, medium, close up, zoom in, go wide angle, from the side, front, back, rear, above, below, and heck one of them should look nice"

Really, Eric? Why should one of them look nice?

"Rules"?: Understanding isn't a rule, sensitivity isn't one either. Knowledge? Skill? Craft?: no rules to be found there. But applying a set criteria like a "shotgun approach" is a most inflexible and crass type of rule.

I think you may have misunderstood my point, maybe not.

The idea put forth was that it's become harder to get paid work as a photographer with the advent of inexpensive DSLRs that anyone can purchase. This post was my response to that idea.

If you capture practically every angle, at practically every exposure, why would one of them NOT look nice?

Please note that I am not advocating this as a technique, or saying it makes you an "artist" of any kind.

I am saying that a pro may look at a subject, and use his experience and artistic approach to capture a beautiful photo in a matter of moments, within say 10 photos he has the angle, exposure, expression, etc., he was looking for.

The amateur with no artistic ability then proceeds to take 1 or 2 THOUSAND photos of the same scene, from every angle imaginable.

What are the odds that one of those photos is almost identical to what the pro took? I'd say they were pretty good. We are after all talking about shooting every angle, at different exposures, different ISO, DoF, etc., etc., etc. I've seen that photo that looks stunning shot by someone that had absolutely not clue what they were doing.

Now I show you both photos. One captured merely by brute force of taking thousands of photos, and one captured by a thoughtful and purposeful artist.

They look practically identical, and I don't tell you which one is which.

Is one of them "art" and the other not?

What about the person being photographed? Will they be pleased with the one photo, but not the other?

My point was, in the past, this was not possible. You couldn't afford to shoot thousands of photos on film, to get one good shot. And cameras didnt' have settings like "auto DoF" and so on.

The fact that a clueless amateur can now produce a stunning photo doesn't in any way lessen the talent of the artistic photographer.

But does someone appreciating an image care that the photographer was clueless, or threw away 1,999 photos before posting the one that turned out well?

I don't think they do.

Maybe you disagree with me that a clueless photographer can take a stunning photo with a nice DSLR. I've seen it with my own eyes, but that's only anecdotal evidence which is never conclusive.

Now, multiply this clueless photographer taking a thousand photos in an afternoon of Red Rocks, by thousands and thousands of clueless photographers now running around with nice DSLRs.

Is it inconceivable that one of those clueless thousands of photographers taking thousands of photos will produce a stunning capture of Red Rocks worthy of being a nice stock photo or better?

When you look at that photo, is it less pleasing to your eye because of the intent or knowledge of the photographer? I mean, if you start with the sky filling the frame, and work down to nothing but dirt, is not one of those photos going to be the exact rule of thirds? And if you take the photos from totally black, to completely burned out, is not one of them going to be a pleasing exposure? And if you shoot like that in a panorama, is not one of those photos going to be a pleasing angle? Although the variables in photography are many, they are finite.

Yes, that photo would lack all skill, craft, knowledge, understanding, sensitivity, and artistic intent. But how will you know that when you are looking at what is, nonetheless, a beautiful photo?

And if there are thousands of such photos floating around, how much demand is there for a pro? I would say it is less.

That's my response to the advent of DSLR's creating less demand for pro photographers. It is not in any way a slight on your artistic ability, nor is it advocating that everyone abandon learning to develop an artistic vision in favor of shooting millions of photos hoping one turns out well.

 

[Michael Hastings]

It's important to remember that although no new cameras companies like Panavision aren't just scrapping their old cameras they're great cameras they've simply said it's better for them to focus on making "New" digital cameras that's the key word here "New".
Will ARRI continue to manufacture arricam studios or 235s for those who order them? The articles aren't very clear on this.

Panavision is also hard at work on a new digital camera, says Phil Radin, Executive VP, Worldwide Marketing, who notes that Panavision built its last 35mm Millennium XL camera in the winter of 2009, although the company continues an "active program of upgrading and retrofitting of our 35mm camera fleet on a ongoing basis."

Agreed, the last B-52 bomber was built in the early 60s but still flying regularly 50 years later. Since people won't be killed if a 35mm movie camera stops working, I suspect they will still be in operation much longer than fifty years from now as long as there is film to use (film production will be dead only when they stop making film) or a digital back to replace the film since it seems like optical viewfinders and rotating mirror shutters are valuable to many DPs and don't seem to be a priority for digital camera manufacturers.