Video VS Still Images

I have been thinking about this for a couple of years.

My background is over ten years of still photography experience and only a couple in video/multimedia.

After seeing all the assorted multimedia applications with so many bells and whistles, this "kid with the camera", who had never put it down, did just that.  I moved from Tennessee to Maine and enrolled in a video/multimedia production Associates program because I felt behind and limited in technologies, which I was. Began an internship with a CBS affiliate two weeks into it. Was hired after my first semester. Hardly touched a still camera in Maine. Very odd for me. Was like shedding part of my identity.

I remember being out on a news shoot, one of my mentors out there was introducing me to another news shooter and the topic of stills VS video came up. He was also a still shooter who went to video. He said "it's just like stills, but with sound".

Did not say anything at the time, but I disagree. That would be like saying a dressmaker and a shoe maker are almost the same. They are two different crafts. Telling a thousand words in a stream of moving video clips and  telling a thousand words with one still 120th of a second are NOT the same.

One would think that using video and sound and text together, even making some of it *interactive* of all things, that MUST be more powerful and take more talent than a click of a solitary cannon EOS or 20D, right? 

I'm not so sure.

In a general media production class, our instructor had one of the best video shooters in Maine come and speak and show some of his award winning work. The "kids"(most were much younger than me) sorta listened, but were chatting and looking around at each other. Not really interested.

Then, the teacher started talking about still photography images. He showed some classics of war and news and life. Not a sound from those kids. They stopped and stared, entranced in what was being shown. REALLY taking in what they saw and patiently waited in anticipation for the teacher to get to the next image. They were far more moved by single fragments of time than a hundreds or thousands of frames with nat, VO, and captions.

The stills were more powerful. At least they were when the images are some of the classics by people with talent who honed their eye and craft and studied their discipline of still photography for years.

Fast forward, I am now the Production Coordinator for a corporate media production department and work in about 15 design applications on three operating systems.

I started this post because I was just on the MSN radio page, where they show images of featured musicians. There are photos of The Meat Puppets and assorted other current artists, and of Ella Fitzgerald. Who has the better images? Guess? It made me think about stills again.

We have so many more images, of such poor design quality now. What passes for imagery in magazines, print ads, and mainstream web is apauling for us who know the difference. What will the classic images be in 50 years? Will they be as beautiful and telling and composed by someone who knows light and how to capture expression as well as aesthetic? Or will it be the image from the writer sent out to a big interview with a pocket digital camera, or from the cell phone camera of the person who happened to be there when the bomb went off or the celebrity passed out?

Aside from denegration of imagery...What about this stills VS video comparison? Do I have it wrong? Are they just tools we choose, and not necessarilly at odds? I bet the new recruits to media production schools don't even give this a second thought. They probably think of stills vs video the same as they think of AE vs 3D Studio. Just tools at our disposal.

I've been thinking about producing some documentaries and commercials with sound (VO, interviews, music, and nat) and STILLS. Not as a compromise because I don't have the skill to use video, but because I'd like to explore in more depth, the power of stills.

Check out this kickass example of incorporating stills...yeah...That's what I meant!

https://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/site/c.jhKPIXPCIoE/b.4202517/apps/ka/sd/d...

www.southernjewishprincess.com
www.funnynotslutty.com

Mike, what do I mean, stills vs video? That is a very good question. I suppose I mean it on at least two levels.

First, with the exception of national magazines and movie posters, no one seems to care if stills are professional or of high quality. But they are more likely to hire pros to shoot video. The craft is not being practiced to it's potential because more emphasis is being put on newer media. We have all these tools for adding interactivity and sound and MOVING pictures. That's gotta be a step above what we could do with a 20D or EOS. Right?

Secondly, it is an internal struggle I have with myself. I thought for over ten years that I'd be a still photographer my whole life. What should I concentrate on? We can't do everything. And still photography is just not lucrative for most of us any more. I was maybe one of 20 people in my hometown who made a living with it. If I had stayed there, I would have been darn lucky to have ended up one of the 3 or 4 who are making it shooting stills there now.

Lisa, thank you for mentioning the importance of content over medium. I think that is a great point. I have worked largely on corporate projects over the last year. Not knocking the work, but maybe I forgot how satisfying it is to create meaningful editorial content?

I am starting to come to the conclusion that maybe I need to pick up that 20D I've hardly used and get going with it. But I can still build my own non-linear editing system and contnue training in Flash...

Not sure what you mean by video VS still images. Could you explain that?

Unfortunately video students are not often taught still photography, whereas film students are often required to shoot stills before motion picture film.

Mike