craigbowman
Veteran
Its called editing.
Is photography dying because of the cell phone camera?
- Thread starter Gillvane
- Start date
Its called editing.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
We are all mostly amateurs in almost all aspects of our lives but we presume to be experts (or at least knowledgeable) because basic information about the issue is freely available on the internet. Likewise we believe ourselves to be OK image makers because it's so easy to make an image. That creates two issues, the perception of the image and real understanding of the image. How many of us understand images - i've been on this forum for many years and very few here understand image beyond "pretty" or "telling story" and this is forum dedicated to images (in context of films)! So its' easy to assume that public at large HAS ABSOLUTE NO IDEA HOW TO READ IMAGES as even dedicated people barely know what they are talking about. This is a huge problem because images contain a crap load of messages and without the ability to discern those messages we'll become victims of those who have vested interests in disseminating those messages.
The fact that anyone can snap a picture produces a dangerous set-up: people presume to understand and thus their guard lowers. By making the images they assume to "understand" images and the message behind those images. Usually that "understanding" is pretty shallow - namely that there is no message beyond "cute," "pretty," "interesting" etc - all the banal components of images produced by public at large. The public come to understand the images in those simplistic terms yet what happens when they encounter images that are trying to accomplish something else than simply be cute? They start presuming that just like their message-less images, the images produced for their consumption are as innocent!I shoot crap load of commercials and it's pretty amazing the kind of mental manipulation attempted by even the most primitive of commercials. And those commercials are only trying to sell some soap, pancakes or juice! What will happen when the same public so willing to accept the commercial messages encounters ideas that are trying to change one's opinion on important issues?
A doc i'm producing right now deals with those very issues in context of a blind photographer who realizes that after years of taking photographs she realizes that people simply don't care. You can watch the trailer here:
http://swlthemovie.com/
The fact that anyone can snap a picture produces a dangerous set-up: people presume to understand and thus their guard lowers. By making the images they assume to "understand" images and the message behind those images. Usually that "understanding" is pretty shallow - namely that there is no message beyond "cute," "pretty," "interesting" etc - all the banal components of images produced by public at large. The public come to understand the images in those simplistic terms yet what happens when they encounter images that are trying to accomplish something else than simply be cute? They start presuming that just like their message-less images, the images produced for their consumption are as innocent!I shoot crap load of commercials and it's pretty amazing the kind of mental manipulation attempted by even the most primitive of commercials. And those commercials are only trying to sell some soap, pancakes or juice! What will happen when the same public so willing to accept the commercial messages encounters ideas that are trying to change one's opinion on important issues?
A doc i'm producing right now deals with those very issues in context of a blind photographer who realizes that after years of taking photographs she realizes that people simply don't care. You can watch the trailer here:
http://swlthemovie.com/
Last edited:
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
To continue, the images ARE not dying but the people's ability to fully understand those images does. Thus an image maker has to accept that with each day his/her understanding public is shrinking.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
The art of photo isn't dying. But the value of each photo is and will be even greater reduced. Not only is the large number of photos taken reducing the general value of photography the exposure is also an important contributor when everything is showed to everybody.
Kate looks great at 40. I'm sure there's a little photoshop help going on, but so what, still looks hot.
I fundamentally disagree. People want their movies to look like Hollywood. Even cats in funny hats video is progressing as people have access to better cameras. The standard is going up, not down. Even reality shows like No Reservations are going for more cinematic looks:
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/10/anthony-bourdain-parts-unknown-cinematographer-zach-zamboni-sony/
I don't really think that's so true, just as people don't care if their video games are photorealistic and complex. Cf. Angry Birds.
I think you may be comparing apples and oranges. Angry birds was free, or like a 1.99 game app for the full version or something. Cats in funny hats on youtube are free to watch.
Call of Duty is 50 bucks, and that's just the "standard" edition. the "prestige" edition is 169 dollars, and it's selling. I seriously doubt anyone is paying 169 bucks for Angry Birds, and no one is paying 15 dollars to watch cats in funny hats on youtube, although there's money to be made from ads. I don't think you can make a Call of Duty game and make a profit if you sell it for 1.99 because it takes so much labor to produce and I don't think everyone will quit playing games like Call of Duty because they want to play Angry Birds instead. Same goes for movies. Sure, people can watch cats in funny hats on youtube for free but I don't think that's going to stop them from wanting the next installment of The Hobbit, and if you make that with one guy, a camera and some cardboard people are going to be pretty upset when they pay their 15 bucks to see it.
Although I would watch that on youtube for free, one guy making The Hobbit wiht just some cardboard in his back yard. I'm sure someone will do it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danieln...-1-billion-call-of-duty-ghosts-day-one-sales/
Activision Boasts $1 Billion 'Call of Duty: Ghosts' Day One Sales
Last edited:
There will always be a place for Hollywood movies, just as there will always be a place for professional photography. But with all of this, you're kind of making my argument for me.
I think we're making different arguments or arguing past one another.
Your argument is, hey, you can make cats in funny hats videos. People will watch them on youtube. The quality doesn't have to be great. I don't disagree with you.
My argument is while you can make cats in funny hat videos and people will watch them, you cannot make Hollywood movies without a good cast and crew no matter how good or cheap the technology is.
[video]http://www.jest.com/video/4635/sleepy-cats-with-cups-as-hats[/video]
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Why do you presume that adding polish of fancy looking images in The Hobbit automatically makes the film more valuable? Why do you presume that the Hollywood version is more worthwhile than the "backyard" version with "cardboard cutouts"? Historically it's the cardboard movies that brought fresh perspective and new ideas into any genre (often specifically because cardboard is cheap). It's your narrow perspective that extracts value only from quantifiable qualities that puts sparkle and polish of well execute but meaningless images of The Hobbit Hollywood in "better category" than The Hobbit Backyard.
There is over 7 billion people on this planet. Some choose to see the Hollywood Hobbit some choose to watch the Cardboard Hobbit, others - many others - couldn't care less about one or another, they prefer another form of entertainment.
We often make grandiose speculations about "how things are" but those speculations never really pan out. Did you know that "Titanic" - one of the largest film of all times - was seen by only 5% of world's population? What do you think the other 95% were doing? Do you know that the the highest rated TV show in US is seen by... 3% of the US population? That means that numbers can be manipulated in any way you chose - as "many" as 10 million people watched "Breaking Bad or as "little" as 3% of US population.
Those skewed statistics directly relates how people can't see past the surface of anything (images, numbers etc). They choose what to see to support whatever reality satisfy them at the moment.
Last edited:
Honestly, I'm not arguing past you at all, but I think you're arguing past me.
Actually, my argument is that the "Hollywood" level of overall visual quality isn't required to entertain people, and they are becoming more and more tolerant of lesser visuals, so it becomes less necessary to achieve those superior optics requiring the big and expensive crew.
No, you can't make the Hollywood movie without the crew. But you can make movies that people will watch and enjoy which aren't "the Hollywood movie," and don't require that level of crew, and it's happening more and more. Put another way, the Hollywood movie you're describing is becoming less in demand, and having its lunch eaten by other efforts. Just like Angry Birds and dollar apps are eating the lunch of the $60 game.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Yup.
This in turn creates an interesting landscape where Hollywood HAS to relay on proven formulas of sequels (films that market themselves), or bombastic spectacles costing tens of millions to differentiate themselves from Angry Birds. In that environment ideas are not top priority. In a way anyone who complains about Hollywood being stale and lacking ideas is missing the point by a mile.
I am not arguing that Hollywood level of visuals are required to entertain people. People can be entertained by watching free amateur porn on the internet, or riding a bicycle. That's the part where you are arguing past me.
I disagree that high end video games are not doing well:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danieln...-1-billion-call-of-duty-ghosts-day-one-sales/
Call of Duty 1 day sales $1 Billion dollars.
Last edited:
sequels have been around so long, they even predate 'talkies,' motion pictures with sound.
http://www.livescience.com/32781-what-was-the-first-movie-sequel.html
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Sequels have been around for almost 100 years, only back then they were talking thousands, not millions, but you know, inflation. They really revved up in the 1970's, but we still get plenty of new movies or there'd be nothing to make sequels of.
Sure, a lot of the top ten are sequels, but I bet you can pick out the movies that aren't sequels and you may have even liked some of them:
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013
I liked Oz The Great and Powerful, World War Z, thought Pacific Rim was kinda entertaining, anyway definitely not a sequel, Ender's Game was good, I liked Hansel and Gretel, 12 years a slave wasn't my cup of tea but definitely not a sequel, and the list goes on.
Last edited:
This:
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013&p=.htm
Unless by "value" you mean something subjective, in which case it's whatever you want it to be. In that case I wouldn't argue against it any more than I'd argue that Pistachio ice cream tastes better than Rocky Road or vice a versa.
Then what are you actually arguing? You seem to agree with everything I say, yet you're still disagreeing somehow.
OK, but that's only a single example, and as I said, there will still be a place for it. But in the bigger picture, the $60 game is being eaten alive.
In that bigger picture, things like this:
Get millions of views and require very little to make other than the creativity of it. It's a novelty, but I don't think it's any less entertaining than many, many things which have huge budgets and crews.
That's what mega-million-dollar movies are competing against, making it much harder for them to make money, and that's why there aren't so many of them made anymore. So yeah, it's affecting feature film production, to say NOTHING about how many fewer scripted TV shows there are.
OK, but like Call of Duty, that's a single example -- and also a pre-packaged product with a built-in guaranteed audience. Yes, movies like that will continue to be made, but there will be fewer and fewer of them. How that's not a big downward impact on feature filmmaking, I don't know.