Why do we still shoot stills?

GSNfan said:
For news, I visit one of the major news orgs website, read the news titles, and watch the video clips.
Click to expand...

I'm too impatient to watch the news clips on the BBC,CNN etc. especially if they are preceded by a 20s advert :bang:
or if they take more than a couple of seconds to start streaming. :mad:
I would rather read the headlines and follow a link to a text report. Still images also win as attention grabbers in that context.

If I'm at home, I'm happy to be spoon fed the TV news.
 
here's an angle for you,

my mom has a framed picture of me on her bookshelf; it's reasonably prominent, she can see it from everywhere... now imagine this were a 60-second video clip in an LCD frame
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Doesn't video actually tell a story better? What continues to be so appealing to me about still photos?
Click to expand...

A story (or narrative), by definition, requires the passage of time. It is a series of related events. So movies, videos and language (spoken or written) are obviously more suitable for telling stories.
Still images do something different. They describe something of the look of things, frozen in time and removed from their original context. They represent and document the look of something, but at the same time change it. The best photos, to me, always seem to elaborate somehow on that. A photo may evoke some story in a viewer, but that isn't really telling a story, is it?

Cheers,
Gary
 
If I'm on a site with embedded video, that begins running without my initiating it, I leave the site at once. I don't want unwanted data loaded on my box.

Also, if it's news, i want it quickly. I'll decide what content I want in depth. Sites with a lot of active content take time to load. I'll look elsewhere.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
GSNfan, that's why our newspaper has a website. Our surveys show that the majority of folks in our county under 30 years old no longer buy newspapers and get the majority of their news from video online. I'm a print newspaper shooter from way back, but I also understand that dead tree newspapers, with the kind of demographic our surveys show, don't have a long future.

I don't particularly enjoy shooting and editing video. But I do enjoy the news game, and want to keep doing it. :)
Click to expand...

Many current stats reveal that a lot of those under 30 can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map or globe. If it's not a story about pop culture, many aren't interested. Maybe they need movement to attract their attention ?
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Young people consume video and sound bites like I consume written words.
Click to expand...

Well, a large proportion might, many do not. I personally prefer written words and stills.

To me videos (at least news ones, I have to make an exception for some of my favourite films) are clunky, noisy, and all the information is forced down your throat at a timing decided by someone else. An article can be digested in your own time, thoroughly dissected or quickly skimmed at will, in your own head, in your own voice. The same applies to stills, which for me tend to do a better job of conveying emotion than a video might.

I do get my news online, through various rss feeds, as articles (I cannot get the paper out in the country where I am) but these also afford me the luxury of deciding what kinds of news I want to receive.
 
Last edited:
Photography is a very limited art medium: no sound, no narration, no motion, and no space.

It's as much about what it doesn't say as about what it does.
 
PKR said:
Many current stats reveal that a lot of those under 30 can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map or globe. If it's not a story about pop culture, many aren't interested. Maybe they need movement to attract their attention ?
Click to expand...
yeah flashing lights help too :D
 
will-i_am said:
yeah flashing lights help too :D
Click to expand...

Well, William, you don't fit the pattern. But I'll bet you know a few that do. Actually, I've found the younger (20 year olds) kids a bit more "adjusted" to the High Tech. BS. Most that I'm in contact with, that are over their heads in all the social media stuff are in their mid 20s to early 40s. The younger kids seem to have figured out that if the power goes out, the social media goes out too. If someone tweets them in the middle of a job (ADs), everything comes to a stop. They are the center of the universe.
 
In this topic: old farts and luddites deride change ;)
Television supplanted radio as the main media source of the average home. The internet is quickly doing that to television. Ebooks are doing it to print.
As far as newspapers go, why would you want to read one? What you're reading is ancient history. Call social media and online news evil, but if you want info on what is happening NOW, it's the only way to go.
I maintain a fairly substantial physical library, but do most of my reading via my tablet. My smartphone is always by my side- I'm piped in 24/7/365 to all the weather, news and contact with friends that I can handle. At any given moment, I have more information 3 seconds away than the bloody Library of Congress.
 
Easier to remember. Even where we remember a moving image, be it news or a coup de cinéma it's normally two or three seconds at most: often, effectively, a single frame.

Also, GOOD video is MUCH more difficult. Most amateurs can master still photography almost instinctively. How much good amateur video/ciné footage have you ever seen?

In fact, in three words, 'the decisive moment'.

Cheers,

R.
 
I am moved by still images whether they be paint, silver or paper and glue. The video clip is fleeting and personally I can look at a still for a good while looking at it up and down side to side taking in all the subtleties it has to offer. Though it could be said I could play a video over and over, it tends to get boring as the commentary appears more repetitive and the feeling that it does not have much to offer. I do exempt some great films but as others have said the book mostly offers a lot lot more. Also I don't want a moving image hanging on my wall it creates a visual irritant.
 
I can much more easily create a 'finished' photo than I can a 'finished' video product. Sure, we can tape something on our iPhones and upload it to Youtube, etc., but a video product in finished form requires a lot more pre production, production, and post production work than a photo does. At least in my opinion. Just in post, you need to edit the video, edit and mix the audio, color correct the footage, etc. Same goes for the other stages of video/film making.

There's something to be said for a medium that has no audio and no movement. It let's the creator and the audience concentrate on the single visual aspect, frozen in time.

That being said, I love doing video/film work too. It's just a LOT more time consuming in my mind when it comes time to push a final version out.
 
It's much faster to look at a picture for 5 seconds than to watch a video for 5 minutes. There are only so many hours in the day, I'm not going to spend them watching vids!

For example, take a look at "The Big Picture" blog.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/02/new_york_fashion_week_behind_t.html

This article has 36 pictures. You can skim that in a few minutes. If they expanded that to video form, it would be an hour long documentary. Who has the time???
 
I prefer stills and words

I prefer stills and words

The great majority of personal videos (to me) are pathetically boring or stupid. The majority of "news" and "info" videos are mostly wasted frames of chatter or irelevant points.

Text in print lets me reread sentences, slow down and think if this or that makes sense or has credibility, and a (good) still image with it helps me visualize the important points.

If I were to oversimplify, I'd say that videos are flash-by-fast entertainment, text and stills are for the serious exchange of information and ideas.
 
Unlike 'stills', video never interested me. It seems like kitsch in comparison with 'stills'. Or like peanut butter, you know how it smears off the knife when you make a peanut butter sandwich?

Like that.
 
Right now, the big news is Libya, but there are not a single foreign correspondent there. The only news is coming from amateur video footage and witness reports. BBC is running a live update page on their website and Aljazeera has a live video feed with commentary and interviews on their website...

In other words, the idea of a next-day newspaper, and still images never felt more outdated and even absurd than ever.
 
I don't shoot video simply because I prefer to shoot stills. I have the opportunity to shoot video as much as I want, but I just don't like doing it. I do it for work when I have to, but otherwise I think one great photo can say more than any amount of video footage.

Take any Nachtwey picture for example, you'll not find any video that touches me as much.

But this is simply my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom