Selfie Stick on steroids!
So maybe they have a few dozen customers in New York City, London, Paris, and Milan. It does not look like a Kirk Tuck investment.
Now all portraits and fashion shoots can look identical!
Frank said it. But new studies shows that people skip selfies. They are just not interesting. Don't think a pumped up version will be any more interesting :D
I have to agree with Chris. Aside from colour, there is little else int he shot, and little space for customization.SO great for large online realtors maybe, but if the marketing reps I know are anything to go by, once the novelty wears off, and they want something more than a plain or solid background, they come back to the photographer.Of course I could be wrong.One thing I noticed, in this video it seems a lot of it was shot with cameras NOT built into the device.Just a thought.
This is the future of some kinds of advertising. It's aimed at young people, not their grandparents ...you know, the young lady who doesn't read Vogue.Remember the kerfuffle when Amazon got U.S. Patent No. 8,676,045 for taking a photograph of an object in front of a white background?
Where I live (Denmark), doing pack shots for clothing companies (not high fashion, just everyday clothes) is already a specialized genre where the photographers are working inside the storage facilities provided by the logistics company responsible for distributing the clothes to the retail stores. I think this type of devices may find a home with a few of these photographers but for the most of us, it's going to business as usual - small batches from local vendors that should have been done yesterday or larger products (I shoot a lot of bathtubs and whirlpools, e.g.) that are shot at the storage facilities or on location, depending on the type of image we're creating.Also, at least for now, I think the lighting patterns provided by the LED panels are pretty limited - this is obviously meant for pack shots for use in catalogues and online stores and not much else.All that aside, you still need someone to choose the visual style, direct the model and evaluate the final outcome. While that may not need a photographer per se, it will still require someone with a solid knowledge of these things.
It's different, but if it works and provides a solid feed into the bank account, one might even be able to pay for the darned thing ;-)Any surplus probably highly welcome.If you look at the frontpages (and most content) of magazines displayed in your nearest kiosk, bespoke production at bespoke prices - huge, inner-city studio, large crew, hassy's en masse etc - does not necessarily lead to bespoke looks reeking of inspired epiphany; if you get my drift ;-)Maybe it's time for industrial fashion photography of industrial fashion?The banks can tell, whether it works or not. In a few years time.
Nope. Not even close to the work you are doing.
Some time back I read about Vogue using stills (frames) from a RedCam for a fashion shoot. They didn't want cine content, just frames. The AD was gushing over the content captured in a short time. That system looks like a high-tech photo booth. Maybe they will build a big one for photographing cars? Robot food stylists are next.
Thanks for sharing this. I think at some point this type of approach may become more widespread. However, it merely stresses the importance of some of the points you e consistently made on your blog over the years: equipment is important, but the ability to make model comfortable and engage with them can't be duplicated by a machine; it's about the story, the visualization, and the concept, not just the technical execution. On the same way you signaled a couple of years ago that photographers had to move beyond delivering stills to doing good video as well, this new technology merely reinforces that folks in your field will have to continue to evolve their skill set and value proposition as the "image capture device/process" moves to the next iteration, as it will.
Where do you throw in the coins? :-)
Oh dear! No room for studio dog in that set up I fear.
You wouldn't want to take it with you on the subway.
I can't unsee the thin bearded guy in the hip suit. My mind is at capacity with such images. The "studio" looks like something out of a Woody Allen movie. The orgasmatron?
"Endless stream of content." That's the problem right there. Nobody is asking for good fashion photos or video. Nobody cares about whether the work is good, only that there's a lot of it.
Several years back a company I did some consulting for purchased a device similar to StyleShoots but on a smaller scale. A booth at a conference had some shiny pictures, some over the top slogans and a series of slick videos showing how easy and automatic the device made jewelry photography. It required significant operator training but allowed only a narrow range of photographs to be made. First thing I did when I came on board was to shelve the device. This thing looks even shinier but similarly narrow in its usefulness. Also, where's the audio?
Style and good taste can't be automated. It never was and never Will be!
For catalog houses that have to churn out content 24/7.
A well experienced digital tech (maybe a grand a day) can churn out all this stuff in, what the intro video claims is one of its benefits, the 'correct file formats and aspect ratio's. And assistants can hep with the workflow as a sentient photographer adjusts for each setup.Seems like a solution looking for a problem.That being said, there is a LOT more micro video being used online to sell stuff. I could see a big clothing catalog (LL Bean?) putting short video snips online to show the clothes front-back-side in motion. Or Amazon buying a bunch of these and in addition to charging you for the platform to sell your clothes/whatever they include a service to provide photos/videos ... for a fee.Now to address how a model will be paid for showing off 237 looks in a day ...
Post a Comment