I think that some segments of photography will be effected more than others.
For example, sports. Currently you have still photographers and television cameras at most major games. Television cameras are only 1080P at the best. But what happens when they start using a Red One or something better? Why would you pay for a still photographer when you can pull a single frame from a video guy who’s already there?
Portrait and wedding photographers I think will see less of a change. Take the pictures in Harry Potter as an example where these industries are headed.Â There not really movies as there’s no storyline or anything.Â I’ve been calling them motion photographs, and the new profession a “motion photographer”.Â And you don’t even need a video camera.Â Check out this post by David Hoby at Strobist.com.Â He highlights a music video that was shot using a DSLR at 10 frames a second and lit with strobes.Â As David says, “The vid is, technically, 16,000 still photos.”
I think the still image, whether from a still camera or single frame will be around for quite a while. First a static image of a scene in many ways has more impact. When you hear Tiananmen Square you think of the photo of the man standing in front of the tanks, even though there is video available.
Second is a question of bandwith, not so much of our devices but of our minds. Humans can speak and listen at about 150 words a minute. But we can read almost twice as fast, 250 to 300 words a minute. This is one of the reasons I don’t watch TV news anymore. I can get more information in less time, and my understanding and enjoyment is enhanced by a relevant still image.