Why do we still shoot stills?

[_larky]

Exactly. Although it's difficult to photograph somebody that has a nose on the side of their head.

Unless a horrific car crash was involved.

 

[valdas]

video "runs" and "ends". still is not. it is still.

 

[Ade-oh]

The brief answer is that photography isn't just about recording events, it's also about composition, visualisation, illustration and interpretation (and a host of other things). Video - or at least news video - has a different set of requirements. They aren't the same thing and the only place where they really overlap is on dead tree press websites.

 

[oftheherd]

Because a still photograph is more capable of making a lasting impression on ones mind while a video is fleeting. For an example here's the video of a thread I posted a few hours ago of photographer Matthew Lewis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsR8QAyMTvk&feature=player_embedded Clearly the still of the two girls swinging is much stronger than any video made of the same subject.

Thanks for that. I enjoyed it.

 

[oftheherd]

...

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.

...

Yes, your solution is more immediate, and there is a place for that. But when you want more than a sound bite, that is, background on why something is happening, newspapers are still the answer. At least for me.

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.

Lucky in most instances if there are two or three seconds. How many times have any people here hit the rewind and then the pause button on a video? Then looked at the still image? That is probably the decisive moment.

 

[Keith]

Not everyone may understand this but it's like listening to cricket commentary on the radio, which I still do religiously although the same match may be being telecast on TV. I find the 'audio only' triggers my imagination and causes me to visualise what may be physically happening.

A still image has the same effect on me ... I have to use my imagination to create a 'before' or 'after' for that frozen moment in time I'm being shown.

 

[italy74]

For me it is the same reason that I prefer to read the book before I see the movie. The old cliché "a picture is worth a thousand words" is true for me - and the thousand words are my own. There is imagination and a connection with a good still image. You can also stare at it and put yourself in it. I don't believe video has that feeling. I have never seen a Norman Rockwell moment captured in a news video.

Agree. A picture catalyzes lots of inner forces and emotions into a very precise shape. Kind of Zen. Video is something really different, as is its purpose. The first has mostly an artistic root, a "personal vision" about something, the second mostly documentaristic

 

[dave lackey]

Video is great. Still is more great.😛
One thing that has not been mentioned, if I was indeed paying attention 😛, is that for any event or moment, I can capture a still image that I am happy with, and it may be the only one that I need to remember that moment, much faster and with less effort than walking around continuously with a video cam and then having to find just the right image in the recording later.

In other words, I can anticipate and/or see a moment in time that I want to capture and it is done in less than 2 seconds with my still cameras. With the video, I would have to control the instrument far longer to get a similar image, and even that similar image would be the one most likely shared and/or printed and framed.

Still photography will always be around.🙂

 

[shimokita]

I believe there would be interest in an outlet with consistant, meaningful, quality video. On a regular basis I listen to the news on TV and only take a look if something sounds interesting - which turns out to be a very small portion of the newscast... a good soccer goal would be interesting to watch.

I always find the argument about being constantly informed to be interesting. If it's really importaint, it will be around for a day or two. As someone who reads a lot of non-fiction, the really good "stories" take a little time to come out - and normally only after different viewpoints are given time to develop.

My experience is that the book is always better than the movie... at the very least it's more rewarding.

Casey

 

[Steve M.]

For most things a video is unnecessary. A photo or two will be what's called for. If it's online, I too hate the videos in news articles. They take too long to load, often have commercials, and just aren't what I want to see.

 

[safira218]

And that's why "we're" a stupid generation! I despise facebook, twitter, myspace, and most news outlets in general. We were talking about this yesterday at the Philadelphia meetup, but it seems like every commercial on television or every ad for diapers, booze, insurance, or sports has some kind of "Visit us on: Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, etc". I don't even have a TV set and only watch what I want to watch, on my own time, at Hulu or Netflix.

I don't wish to be totally negative and unpleasant, but I have no interest in becoming a videographer. It's hard enough being a good still photographer and I am perfectly happy as I am.

 

[ottluuk]

I don't really enjoy internet news. The websites are crappy, laden with blinky ads, tend to break with ad blockers and the quality of content is getting worse by the day. When I do need some quick info on what's happening, I generally want to get over with it as quick as possible. Which comes to this:

Time required to assess the contents of a news photo: 3-5 sec.
Time required to assess the contents of a video clip: anywhere between 30 sec and 5 min.

Go on, produce the videos. I'm not going to click on them unless someone else watches them for me and tells me which ones are good. On Facebook. 😀 😀 😀

 

[bronney]

I heard long ago a still is more powerful to us because our memory works in stills. Try to remember your favorite movie. Picture it in your head, picture the best scene in that movie. Noticed as you do that there're many stills flying by? Notice you might remember the dialog but you don't actually see the actors mouth syncing?

Stills sticks. Playboy Magazine lives. 😀

 

[MinorTones]

I like the way a photograph captures one moment, rather than a video. I believe a still will draw you in to more introspection and reading the single decisive moment to me is more rewarding.

 

[codester80]

Shooting video and stills are two very different things. The approach to video is to simplify the shot. A photograph can have layers. More layers, more meaning, better storytelling. Also video is more intrusive than still photography so there is a loss of intimacy with video. Besides, who can appreciate an image that lasts a total of a 30th of a second on a screen?
Who remembers the video footage of the man in front of the tank from Tiananmen Square? Who remembers the still image of the tank stopped inches from the man? Who remembers the footage of survivors in the dust after the collapse of the World Trade Centre? How about the image of the ruin with the American flag flapping in the breeze?
Video is a fleeting moment. A photograph is for a lifetime.
I find it disheartening that still photographers think they are capable of shooting video and video guys think they can shoot stills. Yes, both are capable of doing a decent job but just a decent job. As the saying goes: a jack of all trades, master of none.

 

[codester80]

I'd also like to add that social media is not "real" news. All the images streaming from Libya, Japan, Bahrain, etc. are just that; streaming images. There is no context, no content. I have been digesting a lot of "news" coming from Libya and not a single story about what kind of leadership is found among the rebels. Who's in control? Can the rebels form a government if they are successful? Where are the bodies? Where are the images of Libyan soldiers fighting rebel soldiers? You won't get the answers from someone posting videos to Youtube or Twittering. You won't get informed analysis of the political situation from a citizen on the street who is only concerned about finding food, shelter and staying alive. There is more need of trained journalists than ever before. The events of the past two months have proven that in *****s.

 

[emraphoto]

I'd also like to add that social media is not "real" news. All the images streaming from Libya, Japan, Bahrain, etc. are just that; streaming images. There is no context, no content. I have been digesting a lot of "news" coming from Libya and not a single story about what kind of leadership is found among the rebels. Who's in control? Can the rebels form a government if they are successful? Where are the bodies? Where are the images of Libyan soldiers fighting rebel soldiers? You won't get the answers from someone posting videos to Youtube or Twittering. You won't get informed analysis of the political situation from a citizen on the street who is only concerned about finding food, shelter and staying alive. There is more need of trained journalists than ever before. The events of the past two months have proven that in *****s.

hear, hear!

 

[Shane]

I can only speak for myself, but here's why I shoot stills.

I am a very solitary person shooting photos is something I can pursue on my own. I have nothing to stop me. I enjoy the process of going out and shooting the photo, waiting for hours just to get one photo. I find that one still can be more powerful than an entire film.

 

[David_Manning]

For me,as a hobby, still photography is something I can do by myself...I don't have to wait for somebody else's schedule, I don't have to depend upon collaboration. It's truly from me.

As a viewer, I prefer seeing framed images on the wall, or images in a book. It's more contemplative. I like to consider the image. Video--especially with today's half-second jump cuts and hand-held "energy"--spoon feeds me to tell me how I should feel about a segment. I want to concentrate on one image (angle, etc), but I'm forced to shift my attention by the editor, director, etc.

I guess I like seeing it my way. Then again, for feature films, it's the filmmaker's "vision" and I can either take it or leave it.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Charlie Lemay]

With a still image, we each bring something of our selves to the narrative. With moving images, we can a attach meaning after the the complete experience, but the media itself is less pointed and multifaceted, so much of the narrative is supplied to us. For example, the famous Eddie Adams photograph of the execution of a captured Viet Cong combatant. The event was also captured on film and shown on the nightly news, from a greater distance, but the complete act. It had virtually no impact as a film, but the still image was a major factor in turning the hearts of many Americans away from war. Still images engage us more as participants after the fact. They don't always give us completion, allowing us each to define completion for ourselves.