Northainan
Active member
People have a higher expectation standard for cinematography moreso than still photography.
Last edited:
Which do you find more difficult---Cinematography/video production or Photography
- Thread starter swaneon
- Start date
Drew Ott
Wish I were banned.
This is a sort of stupid answer but I'd say they're identical, and equally as hard as everything else in life. I see good and bad cinematography or photography or anything else existing on a bell curve. What is considered 'good' is in the top 5% or maybe 1% of that bell curve, and everybody is aiming at that. Since everybody in every field exists with the same probability, all things are equal in difficulty.
Boxing might be "more difficult" than golf for a number of reasons, but being the best at either sport is equally as challenging, as long as there are enough people in the competition.
Boxing might be "more difficult" than golf for a number of reasons, but being the best at either sport is equally as challenging, as long as there are enough people in the competition.
ErikTande
Well-known member
I agree. Although boxing and kick-boxing might be a better anaolgy, as they have more in common (like photography and cinematography).
SKILL LEVELS
Professional Photography = Playing the Bagpipes
Professional Cinematography = DVU Bagpipes
Professional Photography = Playing the Bagpipes
Professional Cinematography = DVU Bagpipes
swaneon
Well-known member
haha
It's a rather loaded question. I instinctively want to say video is harder, but I don't want to seem biased, since I'm only starting to dabble in photography.
The first time I edited RAW photos, I instantly became insanely jealous of the RAW workflow. So much more room to push things around in post with a RAW photo, compared to something like AVCHD video. There's no motion tracking for a single frame, so you can make a lot of little adjustments that just wouldn't be practical for video.
But there's many elements to the discussion. There's the artistic side, and the technical and grunt work side. I think you could argue that video has more technical difficulties, for the reasons mentioned in the thread.
Artistically, however, they are both going to be equally difficult to compete with the top 1%. Since artistic qualities are, to some degree, subjective, it is tough to measure how difficult artistic success can be in one medium vs another.
The same applies for the golf and boxing analogy above. While the elite of the elite have an equal *slim* margin for error, I don't think you could argue that boxing and golf are equal with regards to the physical toll on the body. That has to be factored in. Boxing has a relatively short career span, with a multitude of potential long term injury, where as golfers can golf well into old age. The physical demands aren't even close to equal. So putting it all together, I'm going to say that boxing is more difficult than golf, regardless of talent pool.
That's kind of how I see the video/photography argument. Both pretty equal, artistically, but video has more technical and physical demands to get to that level.
The first time I edited RAW photos, I instantly became insanely jealous of the RAW workflow. So much more room to push things around in post with a RAW photo, compared to something like AVCHD video. There's no motion tracking for a single frame, so you can make a lot of little adjustments that just wouldn't be practical for video.
But there's many elements to the discussion. There's the artistic side, and the technical and grunt work side. I think you could argue that video has more technical difficulties, for the reasons mentioned in the thread.
Artistically, however, they are both going to be equally difficult to compete with the top 1%. Since artistic qualities are, to some degree, subjective, it is tough to measure how difficult artistic success can be in one medium vs another.
The same applies for the golf and boxing analogy above. While the elite of the elite have an equal *slim* margin for error, I don't think you could argue that boxing and golf are equal with regards to the physical toll on the body. That has to be factored in. Boxing has a relatively short career span, with a multitude of potential long term injury, where as golfers can golf well into old age. The physical demands aren't even close to equal. So putting it all together, I'm going to say that boxing is more difficult than golf, regardless of talent pool.
That's kind of how I see the video/photography argument. Both pretty equal, artistically, but video has more technical and physical demands to get to that level.
Egg Born Son
Veteran
Define hard.
I would say from a technical stand point talking only about image then perhaps you could argue that photography is harder but more likely, given that each medium has its own specific focus (pardon the pun) you could call them equal. But then you could say that sound for film is equally as hard as photography. And scriptwriting is equally as hard as photography. And wardrobe and makeup is equally hard as photography. etc.
Defining hard as 'difficult' I wouldn't be considering technical points at all. It would come down very simply to logistics. If the challenge is to take a photo of sunrise over a lost temple deep in uncharted jungle or film a scene in said location at said time...how much gear/props must be acquired, constructed, managed, delivered? How many people need to be wrangled? From this definition there is a clear winner. Solo artist, perhaps with one or more assistants to deliver a personal vision vs a collaborative enterprise collecting many artists (with assistants) from varied departments to deliver a collective vision. Even though the director's vision has the final word (subject to producer's authority) and the individual artist's have their own vision, since it is through the prism of the script there is an inherent level of inbuilt consensus.
At the end of the day taking a photo or hitting record comes down to pressing a button. Constructing the image happens in front of the camera. My 2c.
I would say from a technical stand point talking only about image then perhaps you could argue that photography is harder but more likely, given that each medium has its own specific focus (pardon the pun) you could call them equal. But then you could say that sound for film is equally as hard as photography. And scriptwriting is equally as hard as photography. And wardrobe and makeup is equally hard as photography. etc.
Defining hard as 'difficult' I wouldn't be considering technical points at all. It would come down very simply to logistics. If the challenge is to take a photo of sunrise over a lost temple deep in uncharted jungle or film a scene in said location at said time...how much gear/props must be acquired, constructed, managed, delivered? How many people need to be wrangled? From this definition there is a clear winner. Solo artist, perhaps with one or more assistants to deliver a personal vision vs a collaborative enterprise collecting many artists (with assistants) from varied departments to deliver a collective vision. Even though the director's vision has the final word (subject to producer's authority) and the individual artist's have their own vision, since it is through the prism of the script there is an inherent level of inbuilt consensus.
At the end of the day taking a photo or hitting record comes down to pressing a button. Constructing the image happens in front of the camera. My 2c.
Egg Born Son
Veteran
Another way to define hard would be man hours to get to the point of reaching a standard. One person 10,000hrs (theoretical requirement for mastery) or 20-200 people x10,000hrs.
ErikTande
Well-known member
Here's another good example of a big budget, high end photography shoot with behind the scenes video.
http://www.slrlounge.com/behind-the-scenes-for-caleb-kuhls-wild-west-shoot
http://www.slrlounge.com/behind-the-scenes-for-caleb-kuhls-wild-west-shoot
Egg Born Son
Veteran
Holy ****! That's all in-camera?
Looks like a fun shoot, but we all know that the "cine" version of this type of shoot would involve 10 times more gear and people.
...A million years ago, back when I was a photo assistant in the pre-digital days, I was part of the crew for a large fashion shoot, where the client wanted the entire fashion spread shot at 13 fps using the Nikon F3H 35mm film camera that was flown in from New York. ( Nikon F3H Film Camera ) The set was lit with 80+ Speedotron Black-line power packs, all set to low power for fast recycle, and a custom built trigger box that would automatically switch packs as the camera fired off each shot. It was a huge shoot involving a lot of gear and a lot of people, much like a typical cine shoot.
EDV
Well-known member
It really depends what we're talking about here.
Professional work in weddings typically would involve ONE photographer with a handheld camera, whereas you could easily have 3 or more people each carrying tripods, microphones, lights, etc for 1 wedding video, plus someone else for editing.
And that's just your typical professional event, not even going into the 1%. The 1% in pro wedding video would use 10 metre tall jibs and helicopters for some of the shots, as well as a dedicated lighting person.
Now if we're talking cinematography for film, the workload is not as big, because usually the cinematographer is part of a production crew where everyone does something different to a very high standard. It's still challenging, but at least you have something specific to focus on, and even people to assist you, direct you and help you realize that vision.
Professional work in weddings typically would involve ONE photographer with a handheld camera, whereas you could easily have 3 or more people each carrying tripods, microphones, lights, etc for 1 wedding video, plus someone else for editing.
And that's just your typical professional event, not even going into the 1%. The 1% in pro wedding video would use 10 metre tall jibs and helicopters for some of the shots, as well as a dedicated lighting person.
Now if we're talking cinematography for film, the workload is not as big, because usually the cinematographer is part of a production crew where everyone does something different to a very high standard. It's still challenging, but at least you have something specific to focus on, and even people to assist you, direct you and help you realize that vision.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Here is a thought.
Videography is pretty easy.
Photography is pretty easy.
Cinematography is hard.
Cinematography is Videography where the images have photographic value - ie are as well executed as stills.
--
For example in stills the operator may add a huge amount of fill light (a flash), while the videographer may just shoot an unappealing F22, with deep shadows for example in eye sockets, the cinematographer would seek that same fill light - a bunch of HMI - hard or at least slow and expensive
A photographer may get a sharp image from up high by climbing a tree/ladder/wall, A videographer would skip the high shot or shoot 'unsharp' handheld from the tree/ladder/wall, the cinematographer would require a jib or some sort of rig to get the shot sharp and steady - hard or at least slow and expensive.
A (decent) photographer is often obsessed with eyeline and will want their lens at a very specific height. They will get this by bending their knees
A videographer on sticks operate with the camera panned down, (yuk)
A cinematographer will seek a chapman or peewee dolly to get an exact lens height and be able to adjust (boom) that height in shot - hard and expensive
--
In summary once you apply professional/high photographic standards to videography, the process becomes cinematography.. hard to do.
A still of a penalty..
Videography of a penalty
Cinematography of a penalty
Videography is pretty easy.
Photography is pretty easy.
Cinematography is hard.
Cinematography is Videography where the images have photographic value - ie are as well executed as stills.
--
For example in stills the operator may add a huge amount of fill light (a flash), while the videographer may just shoot an unappealing F22, with deep shadows for example in eye sockets, the cinematographer would seek that same fill light - a bunch of HMI - hard or at least slow and expensive
A photographer may get a sharp image from up high by climbing a tree/ladder/wall, A videographer would skip the high shot or shoot 'unsharp' handheld from the tree/ladder/wall, the cinematographer would require a jib or some sort of rig to get the shot sharp and steady - hard or at least slow and expensive.
A (decent) photographer is often obsessed with eyeline and will want their lens at a very specific height. They will get this by bending their knees
A videographer on sticks operate with the camera panned down, (yuk)
A cinematographer will seek a chapman or peewee dolly to get an exact lens height and be able to adjust (boom) that height in shot - hard and expensive
--
In summary once you apply professional/high photographic standards to videography, the process becomes cinematography.. hard to do.
A still of a penalty..
Videography of a penalty
Cinematography of a penalty
Last edited: