Must we...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143659

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143659

NY_Dan said:
Well look at many old movies and compare the narrative structure with many new movies. What's the difference? To me, the older movies are much better -- better at telling stories, better at developing characters, and there is an organic almost sensual feel to the images that is lacking in many films today. So, there's nothing wrong with movies -- probably the people with the most dynamic talent have always and will always gravitate to movies over stills.

Right on Dan.

Add that one hears every word, not the stupid mumbling called dialogue.
Making a movie is an industry.
Home movies suck.
For the self importance section of the new ways, awesome!
Click to expand...
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143659

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143659

malland said:
Some people are more interested in cinema as an art form.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Do You Know What is Really Real?
Download link for PDF file of 15-shot portfolio
Click to expand...

meaning many people involved, seldom a solo creation..
true movies can be art, even blockbusters..
i have worked on "art" movies.
Some major and a few smaller, for the BBC and other TV..
The reason i stayed with still photography.
It was all me.
i don't like sharing my stuff,
i don't play well with others..
icon10.gif
 
I always wanted to do groundbreaking video documentaries, yet anything with motion I've ever done has been artsy short loops. And yeah, I use my iPod to shoot with; either that, or mash together a sequence of stills.

However, my (still) photography sucks a smidge less than does my video.

ps, the word 'still' used in water indicates the absence of bubbles. Is the short video a bubble? Unlike photography, there is not a simple way of viewing a vid that does not use an expensive piece of viewing hardware.
 
Well IMHO, I think the answer to the OP questions is yes (with many exceptions of course) and looking at it from an "earning an income from your camera point of view".

I know that I have just spent a rather large amount of my workplaces money to jump ship to a Nikon D810 + a few lenses, microphone etc. etc. because of the increasing demand for short 2-3 min video clips in 720/1080p to be shown mainly on the web.

I prefer stills personally, but have to acknowledge that demand is there and act accordingly, next step is to get people around me to accept that the workflow is different and it takes time to setup, record, edit, colorgrade and so on, when compared to the time it takes editing a few still images. However, I do feel that anything that forces me to think and see differently once in a while, will be beneficial in the long run.

Adapting and evolving is ok as long as you don't forget your "roots" I guess.

On another note, the D810 is one h.... of a camera though ;-)

Cheers,
/Meakin
 
Robin P said:
Amateurs should never have been allowed to buy machines capable of recording moving pictures - it's bad enough when they share their stills but videos waste so much of our time when we view them out of a sense of obligation.
Grrrrh...
Click to expand...
Dear Robin,

Quite. One can glance politely at a still picture and then adroitly change the subject, but with a video, you're trapped by the bloody thing.

The same is true of 99% of instructional videos, which are mind-rottingly plodding and ill-structured.

Cheers,

R.
 
Well .... there is always the fast forward or even the stop button, isn't it ? ;).
If something is stupid, I'm not gonna waste time of my life on it.
 
icebear said:
Well .... there is always the fast forward or even the stop button, isn't it ? ;).
If something is stupid, I'm not gonna waste time of my life on it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. What I'm complaining about is the amount of time I have to waste just to watch enough of a video to be sure that it's rubbish. As videos almost invariably are rubbish I now cut out the middleman and don't bother to watch any of them.

Cheers,

R.
 
La Jetee by Chris Marker is a Movie that uses Still shots so one doesn't exclude the other. Many good photographers also shoot film and many good filmpersons shoot stills. There is also a Book about the art of Cinematography which is titled every Frame a Rembrandt. Nearly every Frame shot by a Cinematography Master or a Genius director also works as a good still shot.
I shoot both film (digital Video and Film) and still and feel that those arts are very much interconnected.

As for today's movies the plot is often weak and this is not a result of stupid audiences but greed good development takes time and costs, the Shooting style is very different and that is a result of MTV and Commercials. Both have their place the slow pace of yesteryears and the modern style of cutting. Personally I love the pace of late 1960's and 1970's movies they are a good mix of faster pace and great character development.
 
Hey guys, "boring" was here long long before amature video clips were.
Remember having to watch (and adore !!) other peoples' vacation slides at parties way back when ???
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Robin,

Quite. One can glance politely at a still picture and then adroitly change the subject, but with a video, you're trapped by the bloody thing.

The same is true of 99% of instructional videos, which are mind-rottingly plodding and ill-structured.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Just to defend the professionals making them a bit (not that you assigned any blame in your comment), I have a relative who is quite successful making all sorts of nonfiction videos that don't end up on TV or in cinemas...instructional videos, promotional videos for various industries, record videos for "posterity" for big foundations, court-mandated safety videos after major accidents, etc. A lot of the plodding nature and poor structure is a consequence of low budget and poor vision from those who pay the bills, and sometimes they don't even care about the final product, just checking off on a list that it was accomplished. He just shoots what they ask for, and edits according to requests, adding artistry and development if they are paying for the extra work.

What's much more fun are the outtakes, which he shows only to family and close friends for obvious reasons relating to wanting to continue to find work, and he edits those much more tightly. I've seen rich, famous, and powerful people hilariously stumbling over lines, picking their noses after a shot, and making off-color jokes.
 
On the "Must we..." question, as some others have expressed, I feel no obligation to make any videos as an amateur. I don't enjoy making them, and I don't know anyone who really likes seeing them from things like vacations. If I were looking to become a photojournalist, I might reconsider. Sometimes it seems like a lot of news sites have an obligatory video accompaniment with each story these days.
 
I've done video professionally for most of my life and shot stills for me for even longer. Even though I often shoot stills cinematically I have a hard time taking still photos on a video shoot. For me the mental processes are too different. You have to focus on the task at hand.
 
Different strokes for different folks.

My X-Pro1 and X100 both have video capability but I couldn't care less as it doesn't interest me - probably as I don't have any family to shoot in the way mentioned in the thread. I don't see myself as the next Steven Spielberg and I am only really interested in still photography.

If, however, the fancy takes me at some future stage, I'll look upon the additional functionality as a bonus. For now, it might as well not exist.
 
KansanTim said:
Just to defend the professionals making them a bit (not that you assigned any blame in your comment), I have a relative who is quite successful making all sorts of nonfiction videos that don't end up on TV or in cinemas....
Click to expand...
Dear Tim,

Admittedly I'm hypercritical, as I used to make the same sort of thing as your relative, again professionally, in the days of slide-tape and "teaching machines" (remember those?). I was quite good at it: enough so that after I left the company, a customer posed as a friend of mine in order to get hold of me and ask me to make one last programme for them.

The advantage of still shots was that you had to think really hard about what you were trying to illustrate; to keep each shot simple; and to have it on the screen for long enough to register, but not for so long it got boring. Also you could change angle and distance with impunity. This is all a lot harder with video, and from all I have seen, hard enough that very few people actually master it.

Cheers,

R.
 
My nephew, who is in college and is actually getting paid to shoot stills, is equally adept at shooting video. He learned it in school and is comfortable with either. He finds most clients (newspapers, magazines, record companies) are looking for both, not either/or, and that demand is driven by the Web.

Don't know what this means for the newspapers that are sacking their photo staffs and telling their writers to provide visuals (still and video) with their iThings. It can only end in tears...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom