Photography vs. Videography

[dittohead]

I still hold the position...it is all about the story...

And I have seen a couple funny ones about diving with dry suits...

Video is changing the way we communicate and view the world...and once our government allows the bandwith that asia has, video is even going to become a bigger influence...

Annie, your work is icredible, I have been doing photography for 22 years, and videography for 8. My work looks like a kids still, but most importantly, I have fun doing it. The last couple years I have been doing video primarily, but my biggest goal has been to do it with a complete setup for under $600.00. The reason I try to keep it under that price range was when I was making very low wages, that seemed to be the breaking point. One day I may get some real gear. I spent 5000 on my mountain bike, 20K on upgrades to my old 85 Jeep CJ, but for some reason, I am still using a std def vid camera, and my Shellicam housing, total price, $400. I agree with the story aspect of it. Stills are easy to put in a timeline, video can takes hours of editing for a minute of video. I do a lot of family video, pools, ocean, river rafting, snorkelling, and pictures just dont cut it for me most of the time

 

[ronscuba]

As a hobbyist, having fun is what it's all about for me. I hope people like my videos, but if they don't, it doesn't bother me. Professionals probably have a different point of view.

Watching many of the UW video contest winners out there, the judges definitely look for a storyline with narration, often a scientific documentary style. I tend to find that type of video boring.

A good story is important, but great footage, a good soundtrack and smooth editing is pretty enjoyable to watch too.

Here is a video by Howard Hall. No narration and no story.

Howard Hall Productions - High Definition Video Stock Library Sample

 

[Mr.X]

As a hobbyist, having fun is what it's all about for me. I hope people like my videos, but if they don't, it doesn't bother me. Professionals probably have a different point of view.

Watching many of the UW video contest winners out there, the judges definitely look for a storyline with narration, often a scientific documentary style. I tend to find that type of video boring.

A good story is important, but great footage, a good soundtrack and smooth editing is pretty enjoyable to watch too.

Here is a video by Howard Hall. No narration and no story.

Howard Hall Productions - High Definition Video Stock Library Sample

Thanks for posting the site. Just lovely images and soundtrack. I could almost see myself back in California sitting at the bottom of a kelp forest, or playing with sea lions!

 

[Empty V]

I agree with Annie all the way. I'm a hobbyist 100% but that doesn't mean that I have to lose the conecpt story telling. I also think that most dive videos SUCK because they're way too long. Who wants to sit through 30min of the same video? Maybe some do but those are usually the ones that shot the video, everyone else that says they do is most likely just being nice. You can't put a time limit on anything of course but realistically the shorter the better. If you don't have a story you're basically making a music video, how long can you watch a music video for?

Billy

Posted via Mobile Device

 

[stillhope]

I've thought a lot about this question (photo vs. video) over the years.

I've been making underwater movies for about 8 years now, yet an answer to that question only started taking shape for me recently when I started taking still photos too. Not just pointing the camera and shooting, but reading everything I could find on photography, composition, etc. and practicing lots of photography on land. I began to see just how different photo and video were in terms of composition, story telling, creating impact, reaching audiences, etc. It finally dawned on me that comparing video and photo was a lot like comparing prose and poetry. The latter two are both based on words, but they are very different animals. That's not a perfect simile, of course, just an impression.

I totally agree that story is very important, and we'd have more better underwater videos if their makers took more interest in creating a story. But I'd say the same of photos. There's a big difference between a photo that says basically, "here's a fish I saw" and a photo that was taken to convey something less cliché. Photos by Ansel Adams, for examples, say a little more than just "here's a mountain I saw."

 

[spt29970]

I agree with Annie that video is all about the story. However, I would argue that the same is true with stills. A good still image should tell a story, but the story is implied. I think the comparison between video and stills to prose and poetry is reasonable, but I would take the analogy further. A good still is more like a haiku than a poem. It is a little gem that stands on its own and implies more than it says.

Where I part with Annie is that I do not believe the Video is the next Photo. In our ever more frenzied society, people's attention spans have dropped to a few seconds, enough to take in a photo, but not enough to sit through most videos. Add to that the editing time in post to make something watchable, and I think photos are in no danger of going the way of the dodo.

 

[Annie Crawley]

Video is the next photo. Walk into any store and there are video screens all over. Our mobile devices, internet bandwith, etc. is all showing video...still cameras and cell phones are able to capture video. I am not saying photography is dead, I still love photography...and photography is all about the story as well...but with kids growing up today, it is all about motion. They are taking photographs at three years old. It is amazing. They know computers at 5. For us oldies, learning computers and computer editing has been challenging...when you begin learning this at 13, then the challenge in the editing suite is removed.

Sitting through videos is only a chore when you are not interested in the subject. When it is fascinating, video captivates...it is finding the style that you like. I don't own a television but watch lots of video on the internet.

Newspapers, magazines, media...all are requiring their journalists to not only write and take photographs, they require video too. It is just the direction we are going. And with more people using video cameras and telling stories, perhaps we will get the real point of views of our society rather than the skewed angles paid for by advertising dollars.

Thanks for opening this discussion. I had a conversation with Terry Maas last weekend who has become an avid cinematographer, he has a couple of books out about Silent Diving and is a Free Diving Expert and Blue Water Hunter...and he said, "Annie, I fear that our video may be all that is left of the ocean in another decade...we are historians right now."

Not to put a damper on the situation, but I believe that documenting and sharing whether it is photographs or video is imperative. Getting your work out into the public is important...

 

[Shaka Doug]

If I might chime it, I also agree on the two prohibiting factors that are keping video and photography separated. Cost and time (and cost of that time). I use a simple camera setup when I dive. A point and shoot that gets both video and still images. I never try to get stills from the videos because of the mentioned lower quality. I do try to take short story like clips to show the adventure as it unfolds. many times I mix my shooting so I get still images of the subjects that I video. When I assemble my slide show for my clients, I set it up so that the videos and pictures run in chronological order. That way when the viewer sees a video of a turtle, he will usually get a few stills of the turtle as the next 'slide'. The were swimming across the reef fo r ashort clip and that's followed up with a still image of the same scene. My clients all tell me they like this format. So now you see the action and but you also show the action captured in an instant.

Video can get pricey as you start to ask for higher quality. Combine that with the cost of your time in post production and you will see that it takes a certain amount of dedication for the really good results. Many people don't have the time, skills, or cash to get the results they really hope for and thus end up dissappointed with their results.

I have found a satisfactory medium (my P&S Canon S70 in waterproof housing) for my photo/video needs and I am happy with my results. I shoot within the limits of my cameras technology and use it to my advantage. I try to take full advantage of the photo and video capabilities and mix them together for a cool finished product. I get stuff that is fun and interesting to view but probably isn't ready for the discovery channel. Everyone has different needs. Video is certainly an important medium in todays fast paced, advertisement laden world we live in. It's been very enjoyable for me to shoot my dives and mix the two formats together as slide shows. It really helps bring back the memories of each dive I make. I only use native sound, never a soundtrack. Like someone else mentioned, a soundtrack leaves you open to more criticism. Sometimes the music works, sometimes it doesn't. It works best for me if I just leave it out.

 

[dittohead]

Great points all around. I do a lot of video for friends and family. I recently started tracking how much time it takes for me to make a video. 4 minutes of finished video will usually take me approximately 4 hours. I am no pro. A video like Annie Crawley does will probably take 10 times that. Photography takes a lot of time, but nothing like video. Transitions, music syncs, titles, menus, storyboarding, etc... I was amazed how much time it takes. I also get about 5 minutes of usable footage per hour of video. This is high, but I am not real picky. I am also not getting paid for my videos. Have fun, keep the videos short, unless you can keep the interest of the audience. Check out Annies videos to see near perfection. Check out my websites videos to see the true budget type productions.
Shellicam