... about all this 360 stuff you write about?
Thanks for asking. As some of you know, photography was a big part of my life through most of my working years. During the 30+ years we were in the photography business, there was some evolution... then one big revolution. The evolution: film improved. Cameras and lighting equipment improved. The big "wow factor," though, was in how the photographer used that equipment.
The big revolution: electronic imaging. Also known as: digital. Instead of processing the latent image on the negative, then making photographic prints, the image was captured on a sensor. The resulting image could be seen immediately and transferred from device to device with no loss of image quality. At first, digital images lacked the amount of "information" captured on a negative. The equipment was outrageously expensive... but it was to be the future of how people would deal with images.
As prices for equipment came down and sensors improved, the change in photography was inevitable. We were in on that change early, embracing digital imaging. Already knowing how to "shoot tight" (digital imaging isn't as forgiving as film for exposure and contrast) and having had a full color lab (processing color film and high capacity photo paper processing), we knew how to color correct. We could make prints from wallet size to wall size. Canvas mounting. And all the "retouching" possible. It became a balance of "keeping it real" and making client images the way they saw themselves. The digital processes we used were more stable than photographic film and paper.
The big change to the photographic industry happened in 2007... the first iPhone. Cellular phones at the time had crappy cameras that resulted in less than satisfying images. The iPhone changed that. If you look at those early iPhones, the cameras weren't great compared to now, but they were a big step forward compared to other phone/cameras. People could e-mail a photo to Grandma - they didn't need to have an actual print made to capture memories. A lot of people in the photographic industry consider this "the beginning of the end." Kodak, an early pioneer in electronic imaging, didn't see the onslaught of phone cameras and cheap (crappy) Asian digital cameras that were all-of-a-sudden cheaper than film cameras. The public was all in, and Kodak's dominant position in producing film and photo paper was no longer needed.
No going back.
In the 80s, we added video services (mostly for weddings) to what our studio offered. Video editing in VHS was an incredible time suck. The equipment was big, heavy, and expensive. We made a fundamental change in our business in 1988 and stopped doing weddings, concentrating on portraits and commercial photography. The video imaging industry went through similar changes as the photographic industry. Besides improved cameras in phones, most of them included video capabilities.
Think about it: do you see many cameras or video equipment being carried around by people these days? No - everyone takes photos and videos with their phones. One segment of the video capture market that phones haven't made inroads: action cams. A typical phone isn't easy to hold in extreme action situations AND they are more fragile (to bumps and water intrusion). Thus: GoPro. GoPro kinda had that market to themselves at first, but other less expensive alternatives have eaten away at their market. GoPro made incremental improvements in their cameras, but they didn't keep up. See the theme here?
The big thing with 360 cameras (and GoPro does have a 360 model, but it is, in true GoPro fashion, clunky) is: you don't have to point the camera at the action. The 360 camera sees in front, behind, to the sides, and above - it captures everything. If you've ever missed getting a great clip with a GoPro because you didn't have the camera pointed quite right, you will really appreciate the ability of a 360 camera to capture... everything. Now, to be fair, it won't be with the same quality of a dedicated video camera run by a good videographer. But, if the action happens behind that videographer, the video view looking forward missed it. That is the revolution that 360 offers.
The downsides: it takes more time to edit it to something that the average person wants to look at; the extreme wide angle is good for capturing the action, but not always the most flattering perspective. 360 is cute for some people's "walking around video" for social media. It is an amazing way to capture motorcycle riding; motorcycle vloggers have really jumped on this technology. The learning curve for use it not tough - it takes more time/effort when it comes to the editing, but the software is making that much easier these days. Insta360 is incorporating AI (artificial intelligence) into their app to let it do the "thinking" for you.
GoPro is having to play catch-up to companies like Insta360. I'm guessing that phone manufacturers are already working on how to incorporate 360 technology into their phones. Using a 360 camera last summer was eye-opening to me. It also has some advantages for still photography, if you are willing to accept the perspective. Unlike a typical GoPro, I can choose a 360, wide angle, and up to "narrow" view after taking the shot.
The price for this technology isn't prohibitive. Less than $500. Compare that to what most people spend on a phone these days. Or, what a DSLR or a mirrorless camera runs. The change is a comin'.
A shot from my bicycle ride yesterday...
That's a 360 camera (Insta360 One R) sticking up from the handlebar; the Roadie (remote) on on the grip on the lower left. The thing in the middle of my handlebars is a phone holder - I took this photo "the old fashioned way," using my phone. ;-)
And this still shot (also shown in yesterday's post) of a "tiny planet" using that equipment...
Yes, that is kinda hokey, but try to do that image with your phone. Or a typical digital camera.
I have fun taking videos on the scoots. The Insta360 camera makes that painless, without much in the way of input while riding. SO much better experience than any GoPro I've used.
Do you remember your dreams? I frequently do. Last night's dream had me in a public square, taking photos with a Hasselblad. That was my camera of choice before jumping into digital imaging; I still have good memories of using those cameras. In the dream, I was taking photos when a guy came up to me and asked, "Is that a Hasselblad? I've heard of them, but never seen one being used." We talked for a while and I asked him if he wanted to look through it. He was surprised that you had to set the f/stop, shutter speed, and focus. Before long, there was a line of people wanting to look through that camera. Weird dream.
Here's what a state of the art camera looked like back in the day...
;-)
5 comments:
Ah the holy grail - Hasselblad and medium format film - for when your Nikon F2 and its 35 mm format wasn't quite good enough. I remember those days (but I'm feeling much better now). Photography was my part-time job that helped put me through college, and beat working in the dorm cafeteria by a mile. The last time that I used my film camera seriously was to shoot a friend's wedding, and they recently celebrated their 25th anniversary.
Hi Earl - always a pleasure to hear from you! We didn't use 35mm much in the studio, but the Hasselblads were our workhorses. Well, until digital took over. The digital cameras that got the most use were Kodak/Nikon hybrids - they used the Nikon F5 camera/metering with the Kodak digital sensors and software. This was before Nikon released their own digital SLRs. Can't say that I missed all the chemicals in the lab (mixing 50 gallons at a time for our paper processor) nor having to work in the dark for film and when moving rolls of photo paper from the package printer to the processor. It was a big bite going with a full digital lab, but it was a definite advantage. Ah, those were the days. ;-)
I'll take an old Hassel' any day. What a great piece of engineering. Fossil Bob Jarrard
Hasselblad was "good enough" for Apollo 11 (and subsequent moon flights). I always read about them and loved the idea of swapping backs to use color or B&W -- and even Polaroid for test shots. But they were beyond my budget when I was into photography big time, mostly as a college student. I have shot occasionally with 8x10 cameras, and some medium format with borrowed equipment, but mostly 35 mm in a photojournalist mode. Shooting 15-20 rolls of film in a week was not unusual covering sporting events, new conferences, etc. I never did much studio work.
Ahh, the pungent vinegar smell of stop bath and fixer. I remember countless hours in the dark room. One of these days, I should pull out my binders of negatives and scan the best for posterity.
The scan of negs is not the problem, it is how to create the cross referenced file system. Wonder if anyone wants pictures, seems like folks want the pic-in-a-moment only. Cool today in Nevada, nice after 100+ yesterday. I cannot believe how many food channels there are on YouTube that specialize in Texas, I would gain 100 pounds if I lived near you!!!!! Not that I cannot do that just fine here near Las Vegas. Bob Jarrard
Post a Comment