Why is photography more popular than video?

roxics

roxics

Veteran
I always hear this argument that there are more photographers than video people. Hence the reason Canon, etc. tend to focus more on photography. Also the reason used to explain why anything labeled cine is more expensive by a magnitude.

It's not that i don't believe this claim, I certain do. But the question is, what is it about photography that makes it more popular?
People spend hours marathoning Netflix, they go to cinemas, they watch various youtube videos, they play movies on their phones. But when is the last time a normal (non photo video) friend told you they went to a photo gallery or spent hours going through photos on a regular basis?

So what's the deal?
 
David Jimerson said:
By and large, still photography is easier.
Click to expand...

+1
Easier to fake your way through it...capturing a moment in time rather than a series of sequences in motion. Of course there are geniuses in still photography (I don't even have to mention Ansel), but even the untrained eye can come up with a great still picture (sometimes by mistake). There now...that should open the flood gates.
 
No controversy there, it is much easier, simpler, quicker and cheaper to make bad to medium quality still images than bad to medium quality moving images. To make amazing images, true art, engaging, emotive, moving stills or video take a lot more skill, time, resources, perseverance, vision and imagination. I shoot both stills and motion and have done both for decades, two different yet related animals. Everyone is carrying a Smartphone in their pocket, that with some skill/luck, is capable of amazing still imagery. Can't really say the same with the video capabilities of everyone's phones, although with a lot of skill and other gear, smartphone video can look great. Also, still photo equipment has had a head start on digital video and cinema cameras, which really only became amazing over roughly the past five years. We have had pretty competent digitial still cameras for a couple of decades. At some point, with Millenials and the YouTube generation, fewer people will take or care about still images, all that will matter is video. We're not there yet but you can see it coming.
 
And it's cheaper. You can certainly spend a lot on photography gear, but To be a medium or well equipped video pro you will spend more.

It's funny. My websites are for video. I promote video production and share videos. Yet I am almost always known and called a photographer by friends others though I never call myself that. And they ask if I will do photos for them.
 
Was having a conversation with a good friend the other day who is a photographer about whether or not photography is actually an art form. Video too for that matter.
 
roxics said:
I always hear this argument that there are more photographers than video people. Hence the reason Canon, etc. tend to focus more on photography. Also the reason used to explain why anything labeled cine is more expensive by a magnitude.

It's not that i don't believe this claim, I certain do. But the question is, what is it about photography that makes it more popular?
Click to expand...

1) One can make beautiful and artful photographs without a crew.
2) No motion.
3) No audio.
4) Each frame can and indeed must stand by itself. Each frame (print) can be examined for as long as the viewer wants to look at it.

In short, photographs are easier to make than videos. And photos are easier to examine and view than videos.

roxics said:
People spend hours marathoning Netflix, they go to cinemas, they watch various youtube videos, they play movies on their phones. But when is the last time a normal (non photo video) friend told you they went to a photo gallery or spent hours going through photos on a regular basis?
Click to expand...

Now you're confusing making videos with watching videos. Way more people go to the movies than ever consider making one. You're right, they'll watch them anywhere, but you won't see the vast majority of the consumers of video entertainment actually try to create a movie.
 
It's not just easier (questionable). It's more versatile. Almost every situation lends itself well to stills. Video requires a plan, including processing it after. Photos can just be uploaded. And for people doing it artistically, you can get the same detailed study of a frame you can from a painting. Video is generally different, being about what's happening rather than what is. And with photos there's a chance someone might actually look at it, and enjoy doing so. Briefly.
 
Last edited:
Also Im told people still pay out the ass for photography vs what theyre willing to pay for video.

photo can be on the mantel for anyone to see very easily. to play a video you have to do some work.
 
roxics said:
when is the last time a normal (non photo video) friend told you they went to a photo gallery or spent hours going through photos on a regular basis?
Click to expand...

Most professional photography isn't for art and entertainment. It's for weddings, family portraits, school portraits, church portraits, company portraits, postcards, brochures, catalogs, packages, websites, newspapers, magazines, books, calendars.

Most of the time, people just need a still photo. Imagine if every picture on a website was a video. Imagine if every illustration on every product in the grocery store was animated. 99% of people want wedding photos, but I doubt even 0.1% want a wedding video --- even if they could afford one.
 
Josh Bass said:
Also Im told people still pay out the ass for photography vs what theyre willing to pay for video.

photo can be on the mantel for anyone to see very easily. to play a video you have to do some work.
Click to expand...

This. I agree with a lot of what's said in terms of difficulty, but we can't forget the consuming side of things along with the creation. Even as someone who makes a living producing video, I get annoyed with the push for video everything at times. Sometimes I want to read an interview and not have to watch. Often times I don't want to sit through a video. Photos are instantaneous and require much lower investment to enjoy. I'll flip through photos but I will often pass over videos if they don't hook me quickly.

I've heard a lot my non-photo / video friends and family say the same.
 
I think what makes photos appealing is that the viewer gets control of how and where their attention is directed. You can chose to look at something for as long as it holds your interest, not forced into following. You can contemplate and ruminate. Something video only allows after the fact.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
Most professional photography isn't for art and entertainment. It's for weddings, family portraits, school portraits, church portraits, company portraits, postcards, brochures, catalogs, packages, websites, newspapers, magazines, books, calendars.

Most of the time, people just need a still photo. Imagine if every picture on a website was a video. Imagine if every illustration on every product in the grocery store was animated. 99% of people want wedding photos, but I doubt even 0.1% want a wedding video --- even if they could afford one.
Click to expand...

Didn't you see Harry Potter?
 
We see the world like video.... a simple photograph allows one to interpret the world in a more abstract way. Video is very manipulating, it directs one to think and see in a pre-determined manner. A simple photo allows the viewer more freedom to come to their own interpitation, rather than be manipulated. At times it's a relief in this modern age not to be constantly manipulated.
 
Last edited:
Greg_E said:
Art vs. commerce, sometimes they mix but most often they do not.
Click to expand...

Yea, that's what I mean. Most of it is commercial photography, most of the time a great photo is just being in the right place at the right time. Great photos are more about synchronicity than actual planning. The Forrest Gump effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top