Why do we still shoot stills?

[kuzano]

I won't elaborate on my preference.....

I won't elaborate on my preference.....

Video is simply a waste of time.

Who looks at video twice?

 

[jsirevaag]

A Great Photograph...

A Great Photograph...

...freezes a "moment" and isolates a subject from the inevitable decay of time. The fleeting expression, the blur of motion, the play of light and shadow. A great photograph allows us to see a moment stronger than we could ever see it in real-time; a perfect visual memory of a fleeting personal experience. By removing time, circumstance, sound and the effects of our other senses, we are forced to interact with a still photograph and draw on deeper interpretive resources than we can with running film footage.

I've seen some amazing video in my time but I am still captivated more completely by a well captured "moment." It stimulates the mind to dig deeper, in my opinion.

 

[Steve M.]

Simple is better, so I go w/ a single photo.

I can not tell you how many times a web video related to a news article has either failed to load, taken forever to load, loaded but not played, played but had no audio, played but played erratically, or hounded me to download some form of crapwear to see the video (usually full of toolbars, spy programs, etc). Often, some of these videos may play on my computer but not the wife's, or vice verse. The technology is really worthless.

Besides, I'm a photographer. What other options do I have for my work? Hanging a bunch of monitors or TV's on the wall, each one running a different video? You know, it's not 1965 anymore. That idea often fizzled in art galleries, much less on a wall at home.

Let's not forget that a video cannot be trusted to truthfully portray an event. Too many cooks in the broth, too many opportunities for prejudicial editing or outright dishonest manipulation of the viewer. With a still photo, unless it's been overcooked in PS (and it's usually apparent when this happens), what you see is usually what was in front of the lens. Actually, I wouldn't even trust a still image that couldn't be verified by looking at the negative, which probably leaves out 99.9% of anything news related, web, print, or otherwise.

 

[Bill Clark]

Videos can be made right now by most anyone that wants to. However when I consider the important elements of quality still photography, what can be expected when these elements are variable because of movement?

I suggest, if you get the opportunity go and see what's involved in making movies. When you see a movie, a play, a photograph and it really represents reality, then a lot of work and talent goes into making these pieces of art.

Just my take.

 

[DtheG]

Because if getting just one decisive moment is hard, geting even a few seconds of video of similar expresive quality is very much harder. Video rather than stills, the spoken rather than the written word : both seem more immediate, but in practice making something seem natural is very difficult: ars est celare artem

[A few years ago I worked in a university when there was a fad for podcasts and even videos of lectures. But it very soon became obvious that simply recording the event did not work very well. What can seem like a smooth delivery heard live becomes a stuuterng mess heard in a raw recording. The time taken to edit the recording into something worth listening/watching to was just too much. ]

 

[kanzlr]

I hate video. I never watch them if somebody sends me a link or a file. I love photographs, but I cannot wrap my brain around video. It just always feels like time wasted, like a vision forced in my head. Well, I do not even have a TV, and no speakers attached to my computers....hm.

The only thing video is good for is video analysis in our fencing group 🙂

 

[paultreacy]

I love both stills and motion capture. Subject wise, my first love is street photography and video just cannot compete in this realm. Here the still image has a timeless, silent power. It speaks of humankind in a very powerful way. Of our interaction with the built environment, with each other and with our technology, etc. It speaks of the fashions and styles of the day and it does this better than any other art form or media, in my view, as it's not art directed or stage managed. It's just raw, documentary image making for the visual historical record.

It is up to the viewer how long to spend with the photo. How much to emotionally invest in it. With video, however, the time required of us as viewers is primarilly determined by the author of the work and for that reason alone, it must take second place to the still.

Paul Treacy
http://paultreacy.com
http://twitter.com/photohumourist

 

[Bill Clark]

Gosh, it's probably 10 years ago I did photography for a theater here in Minneapolis. One gent I got to know, asked me, "did you see the latest play?" I answered, "yes." He went on to say, "you know that was really a wonderful experience. Then he said, "you know I thought I was right in the room where the play took place! It looked so real & natural." I said, "then you know that talented people put this together, they practiced, practiced & practiced a lot more."

Rehearsals were about 4 weeks back then and a lot of work was put into preparation before rehearsals would start!

 

[JoeV]

I've recently found myself watching the Bill Cunningham slide show videos on the NYT website. As you might know, Cunningham is a long-standing photographer who specializes in a genre similar to street, but with a focus on fashion, and fashion accessories. I find the combination of the slide show of still images, combined with his audio narration, is a powerful combination, and a good hybrid form of media that, while possessing the advantage of a video's sound track, retains the advantages of the still image. Another example of this hybrid form are Ken Burns' documentaries, that predominate in still imagery.

-Joe

 

[TXForester]

videos tell the truth and photographs hold a bit more mystery as to what may have come before or after.

I don't buy that. You can still ask what came before and after the period of time the video covered. You can ask what was left out of the composition. You can ask what frames were edited from the video.

Neither is better. They just tell stories in different manners.

 

[maggieo]

Why aren't all painters animators?

Why are you a photographer and not a musician?

Why do you prefer soup to nuts?

 

[luuca]

videos are good, for porn.

stills are better for everything else.
too much redundance in videos, too much of my precious time wasted watching at them.

there are exceptions (ie the plains hitting the twin towers), but usually I find videos boring and I never look at them on the web (I'm not a youtube fan 😀 )

 

[seakayaker1]

Videos on the whole are boring to watch and are way to time consuming. Rarely ever watch any video on a news or social media site. Lots of ads and trash.

You can go to Vimeo or other video web sites if that is your interest.

I enjoy still pictures and the discussions around them. Just no interest at all in video on a camera or looking at other people's video creations.

. . . . . unless it includes one of my grandchildren. 😉

 

[Archiver]

I enjoy both media. 'Stills' vs 'video' covers such a broad range of possibilities that they ought to be defined.

Frankly, most stills are garbage. They are the detritus of the run and gun snapshot mentality, or the product of unschooled hands. Unless the shooter exercises some skill and/or has luck on their side, or the still has sentimental value, there isn't much to be gleaned from most photos.

A lot of video is garbage as well. Fuzzy cellphone videos with crazy shaking and jittering, or lame footage shot by inebriated and brainless college students. Again, most people wouldn't be interested if there wasn't a half-dressed girl, personal embarrassment, or both.

On the other hand, the growth of digital technology has lead to scores of well-made short videos on the internet. I often look at Vimeo for inspiration and to deconstruct technique. There's a lot of skill out there which is growing thanks to the ease of digital capture and editing. A decent short can be intriguing and present an issue or subject in any light that the maker desires.

 

[kanzlr]

videos are good, for porn.

+1 :angel: