Photography vs Videography

Sponsored Links

1 Nov 2006 - 8:39 PM

• Options

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Carabosse (e2 Member)

9

1 Nov 2006 - 9:30 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

If forced to choose - video. Why?

- Movement
- Sound

When you turn on the 10 o'clock news, or go to the cinema, would you be satisfied with a slideshow of stills without any sound?

However stills are much more "accessible" - at the moment anyway. But with YouTube and the like even that is changing.

park my ferret

8

2 Nov 2006 - 7:21 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I did my degree in video, but ended up doing more photography when I left uni ... although saying that, we are almost two years into the making of our film ... and I've only got to film one scene so far!!

nikon5700ite

8

2 Nov 2006 - 8:14 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I trained as a photographer becuase in my ignorance I thought it would help to get a job 'in film'. I then worked as a still tog for years before getting a job in TV as editor and occasionally film cameraman shooting mute.

I shot stills of numerous weddings and a few with just a mute camera. Then I worked for TV for 26 years and on retirement bought a Hi-8 camera and S-VHS tape machine. Made a doco along the lines of an extended newsclip which I had been used to editing. Basic ENG, Laying an audio track , interview, and adding 'mute' shots with sound effects on a second sound track. Limit of my gear. Minimal voice over because I don't like the sound of my voice

Even with such a basic approach the difference to stills is tremendous and I learnt a lot. Some time afterward I met one of the cameramen I had been somewhat critical of as an editor and we had a fun session of telling each other our ideas had been right ... both of us, he an independant producer following our redundancy, and me shooting sound for the first time had learnt some more of each others craft which we didn't know when we worked for TV

Really stills and video can't be compared. Stills can be displayed on the mantlepiece, video needs a monitor and smacks of home movies and slide shows and demands a period of attention unlike the brief fond glimpse of the still.

If I had to choose I would pick stills becuase I wonder how often I would bother to watch a video despite it likely to be so much better provided the cameraman did a good job. When I made my doco I was shooting in sort of competition with a "professional wedding videoguy" shooting on VHS ... even allowing for our equipment difference his work was pathetic until he started to notice and copy what I was doing. Swanning around telling his wife what to shoot like a hollywood director While I was just an amateur shooting a video and kept out of his way.

nikon5700ite

8

2 Nov 2006 - 8:45 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

A few grains of wheat amongst the chaff ... some more chaff.... recently I went to see a film made by a professional company around the time I left photo school and I realised that me hoping for a job in the industry and making my own films had very similar problems back in the 50's to the pro in my country.

There was no 'lip-sync' and all was each character making their thoughts as 'voice-over' with scene setting voice-over. Following it were current shorts all made with 'full crews'and Governmental part funding .. a very unfair comparision.

Now almost anybody can buy a image and audio recording machine with gadgets for simple in-camera tricks, plus computer programmes to edit with ... how I loved ENG and dubb-editing, so could re-do my mistakes without the world seeing the repair splices which always jumped in the projector gate.... even the good ones jumped :-(

The drawback is that the competition is greater