Must we...

Oh Come on man....

Electric Guitars.
The Crossbow
Outboard motors
Pencils
Mini skirts..... etc ..etc ..etc

..... Nothing to loose just more things to gain :)
 
If they were my grand kids, I think I would have liked to have some stills of the trip besides videos.

I don't take that many videos myself opting to take more photos instead, but love watching my dad's 16mm home movies of us shot during the 1950's-70's on a small Revere movie camera which he still has (along with a 16mm Keystone projector and silver projection screen).

Love the experience sitting in a darkened room and hearing the sound of the projector. Still love the smells from that setup. :)
 
Each to their own. My birthfather was a news cameraman (motion). Got murdered in Balibo East Timor in 75 doing his job. But for me - I have enough trouble getting the one (stills) frame right....

If a picture tells a thousand words, do a thousand pictures tell a thousand thousand words? Depends who is on the other end of the light tight box....
 
To me, there is no conflict.
Short videos are fun, 100% for family stuff (and/or if I encounter an alien or Yeti) and my Android phone is more than sufficient for my needs.

Still-photography, is something that I really like to do because it gives me a sense of achievement and it's personally satisfying.

One rarely has to do with the other.
 
Gosh I hope not. I have a hard enough time holding still for a 1/15th of a second exposure, let along a few minutes.

My wife who did a bit of video work years ago gives me grief every time I do video that I should hold the camera steadier, pan slower, etc., etc. I did films for the JV Football team for a couple of years and never heard complaints.

While it may sound a bit too high and mighty the following is not meant that way.

It's hard to get a great picture that communicates all of the fun going on. Add yourself into the mix of folks having fun and it gets even harder. Videos IMHO address that as your frame of reference is a longer set of images and sound. It can potentially provide more information the the viewer with less chance for mis-communications.

I think it's something we need to add to our Bag-O-Tricks but I'm still having troubles with texting and context. I try to make jokes with my youngest and he rails on me about where did that come from. If I did the same via the phone it would have been no problem.

More to learn.

B2
 
pencil-paint-grafitti-film camera-digital camera-video clips- clay- what ever…… all feeds the needs to tell a story.
 
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. Now if OP is referring to earning a living in photography (cough not likely cough) -- then yes, one must also do motion -- and then you have in many cases to be competent with sound and also not mind sitting on your can editing for long periods of time. Of course there are exceptions. Just saw the Dawn of the Apes movie and thought it was awful, boring, cliche, predictable, awful acting, CGI -- but my 22 year old son liked it. Whatever.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have noted that many films of the past decade have incredibly incoherent plots. I would propose that where the author reigned supreme in the old days, today everything is a 'team effort', and even when there is a single writer on the script, they are besieged by outsiders with 'ideas'. The result is that most plots are not the product of a single imagination, but an ugly stew.

That said, I recently saw the movie 'Mud', which got limited run and attention, and thought it was one of the best plotted and acted movies I have seen in my entire life. So, it is still possible for excellent films to be made, but I bet few will see them.

There is also the question of sophistication of the audience. I was surprised at the negative reaction to Aronofsky's 'The Fountain'. Like it or hate it, what amazed me was that only a minority of critics understood what I thought was a pretty obvious (if unusual) plot device.

Randy
 
We're drifting off topic ("do we make amature video clips"), but don't hope for a solid storyline or script in any movie they dropped $50M+ to produce.
 
zauhar said:
Yes, I have noted that many films of the past decade have incredibly incoherent plots. I would propose that where the author reigned supreme in the old days, today everything is a 'team effort', and even when there is a single writer on the script, they are besieged by outsiders with 'ideas'. The result is that most plots are not the product of a single imagination, but an ugly stew.

That said, I recently saw the movie 'Mud', which got limited run and attention, and thought it was one of the best plotted and acted movies I have seen in my entire life. So, it is still possible for excellent films to be made, but I bet few will see them.

There is also the question of sophistication of the audience. I was surprised at the negative reaction to Aronofsky's 'The Fountain'. Like it or hate it, what amazed me was that only a minority of critics understood what I thought was a pretty obvious (if unusual) plot device.

Randy
Click to expand...
Randy- See a film named Ida. Based on your comments, you ail be very glad you did- the cinematography is incredible- to me it was just a series of long photographic images….
 
danielsterno said:
Randy- See a film named Ida. Based on your comments, you ail be very glad you did- the cinematography is incredible- to me it was just a series of long photographic images….
Click to expand...

Daniel, thanks for reminding me about that film - I read many good things about it. My film-school daughter may be interested in seeing as well.

Randy
 
It is one of the versions of telemessaging. Not alternative to photography, but to text messaging.
 
As well as taking still pictures, do we "have" to draw with pencil? With charcoal? Paint in oils?

Frame the question like that, and the answer is "of course not".

For me, video is about as relevant to my skills as stained glass or punk rock -- and about as closely related to still photography.

Cheers,

R.
 
Similar ideas are not new - first home movies, later came portable video cameras... They never killed photography, in part because not only are different skills and sensibilities involved in their creation vs the creation of stills, but they are also viewed in different ways. For photographers who want to use video in their work - fine. But we don't have to change and adapt just because it is out there. There will always be a place for still photography because the work of still vs video is different. The counter argument is, of course, that online sharing and increasing accessibility of the technology (we can even record on our phones, as posters have noted) has led to a proliferation of digital video. But this ignores that online sharing has equally led to a proliferation of sharing of stills that shows no signs of slowing down. There is space for both, just as there always has been...
 
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom