Which do you find more difficult---Cinematography/video production or Photography

[swaneon]

I was discussing this with my friend who said that photography was much more difficult hands down.
We actually discussed film production versus photography rather than cinematography vs photography.
The situation we were discussing revolved around live weddings and how photographers have a much more difficult time
since they had to think about the shot in their mind, each shot being the perfect extension of their vision.
I asked is that not the same for video production? And theirs sound to worry about--which is a whole world to grasp.

And he said no, you just put the camera on, get great shots and leave it. Then someone called so we halted our discussion.

 

[mcbob]

All I know is that for video production, I have to carry a lot more crap around.

 

[ErikTande]

That question can be interpreted in a few different ways.

If you're talking about end result, for me, I can produce a video scene with "Wow" factor fairly easily. It's a challenge, but something I'm good at. With photography, I find it more difficult to get an image that looks amazing. The kind of photos you see where even professionals look at it and say "Wow, that's an awesome photo."



If you're asking which one takes more work, I'd say video production, although they can be pretty close to even depending on the type of shoot. If you look at photographer like Benjamin Von Wong (http://www.vonwong.com/), his productions can rival the amount of crew and equipment of small film crews. He has models, hair and makeup artists, gaffers, lighting, special effects crew, etc. http://vimeo.com/34364427

 

[swaneon]

That question can be interpreted in a few different ways.

If you're talking about end result, for me, I can produce a video scene with "Wow" factor fairly easily. It's a challenge, but something I'm good at. With photography, I find it more difficult to get an image that looks amazing. The kind of photos you see where even professionals look at it and say "Wow, that's an awesome photo."



If you're asking which one take more work, I'd say video production, although they can be pretty close to even depending on the type of shoot. If you look at photographer like Benjamin Von Wong (http://www.vonwong.com/), his productions can rival the amount of crew and equipment of small film crews. He has models, hair and makeup artists, gaffers, lighting, special effects crew, etc. http://vimeo.com/34364427

he is definitely amazing for that work---but i think that in a general term it requires more work, especially since it requires a crew.
But the outstanding thing is editing is the big factor. Crafting the story over time is harder for me than editing a some stills. Especially color correcting, tuning and such.

 

[mcbob]

Delving in a little further...

Simple numbers game, video production SHOULD be harder than photography simply due to the amount of stuff you must perfect:

Photography (roughly), Composition, color, contrast, and context tell your story.

Video production: all that stuff, plus sequence, pacing, transition, script, and sound. Hell of a lot more to deal with and mess up.

In the professional world, though... well, not sure. The (relative) easy buy-in to professional photography means you have to be VERY good to get paid reliably, and very good photographers often only stay at the hobbyist level. With video, the buy-in is currently greater, so there are relatively fewer videographers and fewer hobbyists; in some markets, simply being able to expose properly and hold a camera steady and not get terrible sound are the only requirements to steady work. Or maybe I'm all wrong.

 

[morgan_moore]

Video seems harder.

So many more setups typcially and issues placing the camera, also the paucity of constant light vs flash and being nailed to 1/50th and the price of RAW 5k cameras.

Really hard to get images with video.

Now. Photography - firstly you need to get everything together into fewer images, and tell the story more efficiently because you can just chop in cutaways on video.

Getting those elements together is hard.

It should be remembered that a 'video prodcution' is different from 'video'

You need script, story, motion graphics for intro

To really measure fairly you would need to compare that to producing a piece for a magazine, which is photography , writing, design just most phoographers dont do the other bits.

Moving from stills to video has been hard because it has forced me to become a writer/journalist!

Overall I still think video is harder.

and post?

Dust on the sensor? photo ? no worries!

S

 

[David G. Smith]

This is in an interesting question. There is no doubt that cinematography/video production takes much more resources to do, without question. However, I had an interesting experience this weekend that really got me thinking....

Now, I have been doing film and video production for quit a while and I have done a bit of work that I am proud of. I have recently begun to do more still photography, as an adjunct to my continued development as a cinematographer. So this weekend I took my little T2i, with a vintage Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm f2.8 - 3.5 zoom lens and went to the Detroit Jazz Festival. I was all intent on taking some great shots but I have to admit that it was very difficult for me. While I was able to get off some good shoots, but, I have to admit, I was actually a bit overwhelmed. The visuals of the event were outstanding, of course, but my experience in cinematography was NOT immediately, instinctively transferable, for me at least, to successfully documenting the surroundings with still photographs. After feeling very bad about this for most of the weekend, and thinking pretty hard about it, what I realized was that what I lacked at the Jazz Fest was CONTEXT. I realized that all the work I have done in cinematography and video work is always in the context of a story and any shots that I make have to stand as part of that context. Thinking in terms of a stand alone photograph is not a process that I have spent much time cultivating and it was a humbling experience.

I now have a very new found respect for talented still photographers. Of course practicing cinematography/video production takes more stuff and more people, usually, but the creative process involved in making great still photographs is as demanding, if not more so. My hat if off to good still photographers.

 

[morgan_moore]

thats the thing with video its easy to build a scene.

The location (master wide) , the hands, the fingers on the trumpet, the overflowing ash tray, in video you build the scene.. but which one of these lone images says 'detroit jazz festival'

S

 

[swaneon]

thats the thing with video its easy to build a scene.

The location (master wide) , the hands, the fingers on the trumpet, the overflowing ash tray, in video you build the scene.. but which one of these lone images says 'detroit jazz festival'

S

you bring up a good point . On the motion image world, how does composition of those scenes contribute to a story or direction?
Which order, audio choice/point, and color work for that? I think im a bit biased but I like sitting down to see and hear a good story. One I can invest and immerse myself in due to many factors whereas with brilliant still I'll look at it then if i can will save it somewhere but sometimes I want that still to continue---"what happens next?"

 

[morgan_moore]

Simply im talking an editorial assignment, single image, you would probably be looking for the one point where you can see the word detroit, a jazz player (the main element) and some crowd and fun too.. in one frame

It might not actually be there at all

S

 

[swaneon]

Simply im talking an editorial assignment, single image, you would probably be looking for the one point where you can see the word detroit, a jazz player (the main element) and some crowd and fun too.. in one frame

It might not actually be there at all

S

oh i see.
The technicalities aside, I mentioned that having a crew and directing them is challenging but the editing process is really where the fusion of sight and sound be seen. I might direct him to post his opinion here.
Hope all of this is in good standing, just wanted to hear other's opinion. Btw is there any other large forum for digital besides dvinfo, cinematography, cinema5d, reduser and bmcuser?

 

[morgan_moore]

A crew is as large or small on a stills shoot as a vid shoot.

I personally have found video more challenging and rewarding because indeed you can move the story, and audio, its like stills with many more creative directions

Actually getting a good still is no less challenging however..

S

 

[Nektonic]

IMO, for events, they both have their challenges, but ultimately I think photographers might have it easier.

That statement is in no way meant to take away from good work done by photographers, nor to suggest that they don't have challenges in terms of professionally capturing events via still images. It is just that not only do the photographers not have to deal with sound at all, they get to do a lot of posing and 'directing' of the talent so to speak, which is for say a wedding, the bride & groom and wedding party. On top of that, a flash is much less obtrusive at a wedding than either on-camera or supplemental lighting for proper video exposure. Especially if the bride & groom really desire that romantic candle-lit atmosphere at a reception. So the photographers can get away with having more control over light in certain scenarios. Not only that, but they often have better low light capabilities with DSLRs (although this has been changing with HD DSLRs and large sensor/interchangeable lens HD cameras).

Not only that, but from talking about this topic with the event/wedding photographers I regularly worked with, there seems to be on average way less time spent in processing/post production on the photos compared to editing a video. Maybe that varies between some people, but by and large I've heard time and again from photographers that they spend less time afterwords dealing with the images compared to an editor dealing with all the footage from a live event.

Now, take an experienced videographer and hand them a DSLR and flash and tell them to take great pictures, and you are going to see some problems as that person needs to practice with new gear and techniques. Same if the reverse were done to a photographer. But comparing a photographer and videographer, both comfortable with their respective gear and experienced in the same field of event coverage, then it seems that photographers have less crap in their way when acquiring their images.

I was all intent on taking some great shots but I have to admit that it was very difficult for me. While I was able to get off some good shoots, but, I have to admit, I was actually a bit overwhelmed. The visuals of the event were outstanding, of course, but my experience in cinematography was NOT immediately, instinctively transferable, for me at least, to successfully documenting the surroundings with still photographs. After feeling very bad about this for most of the weekend, and thinking pretty hard about it, what I realized was that what I lacked at the Jazz Fest was CONTEXT. I realized that all the work I have done in cinematography and video work is always in the context of a story and any shots that I make have to stand as part of that context. Thinking in terms of a stand alone photograph is not a process that I have spent much time cultivating and it was a humbling experience.

Thing is, you do this a few more times, and you'll get better at translating your cinematography skills to still photography. As you said, already you figured out that you need some context for taking photos, a goal for the event if you know what I mean. That is the same with event photographers at least. They zone in on what is important, and aren't taking pics of unrelated stuff. Example: at a wedding or party/festival, they take pics of important people related to the event, and don't get distracted by neat architecture or a bird or some unrelated thing that doesn't have anything specifically to do with said event (not that it is a crime to take a few shots of a bird or something like that, but if a photographer or videographer/cinematographer gets sidetracked on a job, they might just miss the important stuff).

Not that I'm a photographer, although I do like to play around with photography more for fun and relaxation. I do work with photographers a lot and they have to do the same thing I do as a videographer at an event, zone in on the important stuff (like you said, context). If there is extra time to grab a shot of something cool but unrelated, then great. I actually think of it a bit like a movie doing storyboards. That is kind of the same thing, zoning in on what is necessary to shoot so as not to waste time and money. When I go into an event to shoot video, I have in my head a mental checklist of what I'll need to get (done weddings long enough that I know all the specific things that are truly necessary). Of course I also capture extra stuff that I may or may not use in the edit, but have as wiggle room or cut-a-ways if need be.

Photographers seem to do this kind of thing too, so as not to miss something essential at an event. As for weddings, talking to photographers, they'll on average take approx. 800-1000 photos per wedding. That is just one photographer too. Sometimes I work with a two-person photographer team. So with two photographers taking pics all day, I'd wager they'd have combined, approx. 1500-1800 pics for the day. Just as with video, it seems event photographers always have extra so as not to box themselves in when they give the final proofs to the client or design a photo album.

So maybe as you're still getting the feel for still photography as a separate discipline from cinematography, you could research the next event type situation you want to capture with stills? For the example you gave, a jazz fest, you could maybe google it and see past pictures of that event? You could go to the grounds of the event a day before while things are being set-up. That way you get an idea of what is where and which areas to zone in on for taking pics. From there you might be able to get a sort of basic shot list in your head, which can be written down if you feel like it will help you on the day of the event. Perhaps you can talk to one of the organizers or staff of the jazz fest and see about getting a press pass type of access? Maybe make a deal to let them have some photos for free in exchange for giving you access to areas that might allow for the best pics.

 

[TheDingo]

...Coming from a professional photography background ( 20+ years shooting 35mm/6x7cm/4x5/8x10 formats ), I would say that film has a lot more variables to control than photography does, and it's much easier to shoot multiple photos than it is to shoot multiple takes of a scene.

But if you think today's work is difficult, take a trip back to the non-digital days, where both photographers and film-makers had to get EVERYTHING PERFECT with NO CONFIRMATION of your work until you saw the processed film the next day. You could go out of business really fast if you didn't really know your stuff.

 

[Jon Starr]

I was discussing this with my friend who said that photography was much more difficult hands down.
We actually discussed film production versus photography rather than cinematography vs photography.
The situation we were discussing revolved around live weddings and how photographers have a much more difficult time
since they had to think about the shot in their mind, each shot being the perfect extension of their vision.
I asked is that not the same for video production? And theirs sound to worry about--which is a whole world to grasp.

And he said no, you just put the camera on, get great shots and leave it. Then someone called so we halted our discussion.

I'm not sure I get his reasoning. The complete opposite could be said about photography.

"For video you have to set up the shot, and bring about a vision to it. For photography you simply point and shoot." That's simply discussing approach.

I'm not saying that's the case, but photography and video go so close hand in hand that it's frivolous to discuss something like this. In fact video has movement to take into account. The "shot" has to be good from beginning to end, not just in one frame.

HOWEVER, if you're talking about amount of work, photography doesn't have nearly have as much post nor sound.

 

[Bruce Watson]

I was discussing this with my friend who said that photography was much more difficult hands down.

He/she is either crazy or inexperienced.

I've got 10 years in doing the most difficult form of photography (large format). When I started doing video 2.5 years ago, I was amazed at how much more difficult video is. Three things we have to do that photographers don't. First, sound. Second, motion of the camera. Third, motion of the subject(s). There are of course many more, but these three are way more than I need to make my point.

Just adding sound at least doubles the complexity. Good sound is really difficult, and not at all obvious -- either how to do it, or the effect it has on the end result. "It's just dialog" right? Oh my.

Motion of the camera is more added complexity. Simple pans and tilts can be so difficult to get right -- so that in the final result you don't notice them happening. Perfectly level, not too fast, not too slow, no bounce-back, etc....

Then there's tracking a moving subject. Just maintaining focus is a chore. Where a still photographer can screw around with focus all he/she wants before clicking the shutter, we have to be right all the time.

Sigh... no point in going on. Either a photographer can grasp what I'm saying or not....

 

[Nektonic]

Motion of the camera is more added complexity. Simple pans and tilts can be so difficult to get right -- so that in the final result you don't notice them happening. Perfectly level, not too fast, not too slow, no bounce-back, etc....

Especially when you factor in pan speeds if shooting at 24p. Oh, and nowadays rolling shutter and all that with large sensor cameras.

Then there's tracking a moving subject. Just maintaining focus is a chore. Where a still photographer can screw around with focus all he/she wants before clicking the shutter, we have to be right all the time.

Agreed. I was making a similar point with lighting for a live event situation. Photographers can get away with ultra-bright flashes because it is just a split second burst of light, where with video lighting has to be continuous to capture a scene. Also, guests and patrons of the event are usually flashing away with their point and shoot and smart phone cameras anyways, so a photographer isn't really adding anything extra obtrusive with their flash. A videographer has to tread more carefully in terms of finding the right balance between light intensity and ISO/gain levels while still not destroying the ambiance of the event.

As for camera flashes, at events they are even more of a problem for video due to just about every camera's sensor being CMOS instead of CCD. Besides the HMC150, has there been any professional/prosumer models released in the last four years that are CCD based?

 

[swaneon]

i agree--one thing i found irritating was that you set the composition, exposure and let it stand on the tripod. And that was when I said," wait what?"
you never take video and you think thats all that we do?
I asked him if he could do video and he said yeah it would be easy--everything else was pretty calm until that point--i find that crafting the flow with the shots is the hard part

 

[TheDingo]

i agree--one thing i found irritating was that you set the composition, exposure and let it stand on the tripod. And that was when I said," wait what?"
you never take video and you think thats all that we do?

...You should swap jobs for a day and see what the results are like. I have a feeling your friend might be in for a big surprise.

 

[swaneon]

...You should swap jobs for a day and see what the results are like. I have a feeling your friend might be in for a big surprise.

i did but he dodged the question, ill ask again--the next wedding is in a month, hopefully i get my blackmagic--it happens to be the one he's shooting also haha