Why is photography more popular than video?

I work for a very fast paced agency that has very high standards. Its in my experience that I find photography to be judged much harder than cinema work. Not sure what that means or implies...just simply an observation.

Might have to do with video being ingested and judged over time while a photograph is a perfect moment (in terms of all the elements of great cinematography) that is judged immediately (or at least much faster).

I'm sure its different if its just your hobby....but for an advertising agency...photography seems to have a ruthless sense of judgement.
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
I work for a very fast paced agency that has very high standards. Its in my experience that I find photography to be judged much harder than cinema work. Not sure what that means or implies...just simply an observation.

Might have to do with video being ingested and judged over time while a photograph is a perfect moment (in terms of all the elements of great cinematography) that is judged immediately (or at least much faster).

I'm sure its different if its just your hobby....but for an advertising agency...photography seems to have a ruthless sense of judgement.
Click to expand...

I agree. In my experience that seems to be the same. With a photo people look at a single frame longer and can often pick out the various issues it might have, whereas the human eye is attracted to motion, add motion blur as well and the details aren't as apparent. Which is also probably the reason we can get away with 2 megapixel video on a cinema screen but desire more resolution if it's a still image blown up that large and viewed from the same distance.
 
I think it depends upon the type of photography and imagery.

Abstraction, landscape, portraiture etc. has to stand on it's own. Documentary photography has to tell a story in a series of 6-12 pictures (usually as the media outlets required). Editing photography (in a series) is ruthless...there is an immediacy to each frame of the story...each one has to count, and for editors today, each frame has to be near-perfect for their purposes.

Photography is usually easier to plan, and is usually a solitary endeavor. But that discounts the productions for high-dollar portraits, covers, and even architectural photography, which is not just slapping a wide on the camera.

I like still photography because I can leave for a walk with a camera and return with something wonderful to view, or capture a thoughtful moment in time. Remember...still photography can be about story, too. Some technically terrible photos are great storytellers, whether they're captured for a Pulitzer or for a family event.

Video/motion pictures seem to lend the ability to accept fairly pedestrian shots to further a story. Editorial photo stories don't afford that luxury...each frame...each one...counts.

As far as post-production, a photograph can be exactly what you envision it to be, and a photographer has sole ownership over that process (now that we don't use professional printers). Post for video is very collaborative, and it truly a team effort.

Still and motion are captured using similar technology (whether silver halide or silicon), but are very different.

http://davidmanningimages.tumblr.com

In some of my own photography, I can't consider it any easier or cheaper than video. Inaccessibility to locations or subjects presents the same problems either way. Sound, however...much easier and cheaper :)
 
I am somewhat appalled by these X is better or harder than Y discussions.

Photography and videography are artistic disciplines. As such their scope is only limited by the human imagination.
I think that one is not better or harder than the other, and both deserve their due respect for their intrinsic values.
 
Cary Knoop said:
I am somewhat appalled by these X is better or harder than Y discussions.

Photography and videography are artistic disciplines. As such their scope is only limited by the human imagination.
I think that one is not better or harder than the other, and both deserve their due respect for their intrinsic values.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. They are both different disciplines and both carry their own artistic methodology. The topic title of the thread is a bit elementary in nature...but being that we live in a world where there are many people who are required to be skilled in both trades, there is an interest for me to hear others stories.

I know the world I live in at the agency. Just curious if others have a similar experience. I do find that working in a higher end photography environment does help sharping all things video.

I would never go as far as to ever imply that one is "better than the other." That would be like having a conversation that guitar is better than bass...

...and everyone knows the bass is better.


Kidding :)
 
Not sure what it has been like for everyone else, but more and more these days people Im shooting in 4K for are asking me to pull stills from the files.
 
Noel Evans said:
Not sure what it has been like for everyone else, but more and more these days people Im shooting in 4K for are asking me to pull stills from the files.
Click to expand...

Whenever I have clients who want to do that, I simply explain about 1/48th of a second shutter and motion blur. If the camera and or subject are moving and the video/digital cinema camera wasn't shooting with a high enough shutter speed to freeze the motion, the still is going to look like mushy mess. I have pulled stills from interviews that looked pretty good but typically the camera is stationary and the subject was mostly stationary too.
 
When I say I'm photography is 'easier' I'm not
saying it's 'easy' or anyone can do it.....in fact I'm
not even commenting on the artistic side of it at all.
I'm talking about physically doing it. To make a good
video, you usually have a bigger camera, matte box,
filters, tripod, maybe a slider or gimbal if you want to move
the camera, audio gear, and lighting if you are doing
interviews and so on. It is very liberating to be able to
take a small camera body and lens and nothing else
and go do some photography, at least for me. Of course
certain photography tasks require off camera flash, maybe
a monopod, but in general there is less physical 'gear
schlepping, needed and the gear that you do schlepp is
physically smaller.
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
I know the world I live in at the agency. Just curious if others have a similar experience. I do find that working in a higher end photography environment does help sharping all things video.
Click to expand...

Funny. That's exactly the reason I hate food shoots in advertising. People think it's easier than the large exterior or sound stage sets, but it is a nightmare...for the very reason you mention. Like still photography, in food motion work for commercials, the client and agency stand around a tabletop world that is sometimes literally no larger than the top of a table...and I swear, they pick it to death, right down to where the last sesame seed will go. On the large sets (interior or exterior), when the 1st AD shouts "last looks", everyone looks up from the book they are reading or from the text they are writing or from craft services and nod...then we shoot it.
 
Artistic disciplines? Not all video and photography is art. An amateur can take a photography course in a single day , buy a $5000.00 camera and with any luck snap a 1000 photos and have one so-called masterpiece. Just point and shoot. Not quite the same thing as taking a chunk of marble and fashioning it into the statue of David, or painting the Mona Lisa, or a Van Goah, or composing the 9th symphony.
 
I think the simplest, least offensive way of saying this is that the barrier to entry is much lower with photography than it is with video, although that barrier is getting lower and lower for video every year.
 
Michael Thames said:
Not quite the same thing as taking a chunk of marble and fashioning it into the statue of David
Click to expand...
Ahhh - that's easy. We all recall Michelangelo's famous quote: "I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free,"
which has been bastardized a bit through the centuries to read, in response to how one can carve such a realistic horse, to "I just carve away anything that doesn't look like a horse." I sure wish I was a genius.
 
I'd agree that the barrier to photography is lower than video, which doesn't mean it's good photography. On the other hand, every cell phone has a video camera. People remember in still images, not moving ones.

For me, I like shooting video...I really dread post.
 
Consider also that habit and tradition come into the mix. After all, people have been taking still photos of weddings and/or brides and grooms since the 1800s. Wedding videography is relatively new. People KNOW they want still photos, and pay through the nose to get a good photographer. Videography seems to be a luxury that many choose to forego.
 
David_Manning said:
People remember in still images, not moving ones.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree. People talk about movies they've seen a lot more than about photographs they've seen. Photos can be great for capturing the emotion of a moment, but only video allows you to hear the vows being said. To hear the words of the officiant when he or she says "I now pronounce you..." To hear the music. When the groom chokes up from emotion during his vows, the still camera cannot capture that -- but the video camera can.

Photos help people remember their weddings -- a good wedding video helps them re-LIVE it. And that's how we have to pitch it to the bride and her mother. :-)
 
If I were getting married today, I would never hire a videographer, I just don't need to relive the wedding in that way, so literally, memories play a lot better for me. A few photos would be fine and I would pay good money for a pro. When you think about it, nobody really looks at wedding videos or photos much anyway past the first month or possibly pulls them out once for the 5th or 10th anniversary. You need one or two good posed ones for the record and for the future to look at when you are old, and that's it. I've never understood the 500 image wedding album or the 2 hour wedding video. Sure, you want a photo to share of the ceremony but what kind of mind thinks that they need hundreds or even thousands of images of a single day? I can't handle the narcism and vanity in society anyway, why are people so wrapped up in how bitchen they look doing everything? Drives me crazy, I hate selfies and people who feel the need to snap or have their picture snapped constantly. Jeez people, get over yourself. And get off of my lawn!
 
David W. Richardson said:
I'm not sure I agree. People talk about movies they've seen a lot more than about photographs they've seen. Photos can be great for capturing the emotion of a moment, but only video allows you to hear the vows being said. To hear the words of the officiant when he or she says "I now pronounce you..." To hear the music. When the groom chokes up from emotion during his vows, the still camera cannot capture that -- but the video camera can.

Photos help people remember their weddings -- a good wedding video helps them re-LIVE it. And that's how we have to pitch it to the bride and her mother. :-)
Click to expand...

A friend of mine told me she was getting married a year ago, I told her I did a little video if she wanted.... offered to do it for free. She just laughed and said who wants to watch a video of their wedding. I agree. The only photo I have in my house is a photo of my wife and I when we got. Arrived in Thailand. I made a video of the wedding with 9 Buddhist Monks and the whole village, but have never watched again after I edited it. Would much rather look at the photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top