Why Video is Not as Powerful as Photography
Tweetby Drake Fleege
Do a quick Google search on “photography DSLR video” and immediately countless links are returned on the subject. “How to” seminars, equipment, tips, technique and photographer web sites are all available for further exploration. The subject is well documented on the internet and supported by camera manufacturers. It would be easy for any reader to be convinced that video is the wave of the future and still photography will be relegated to the back shelf. To this end, I would offer a contrarian view.
Video clearly has a place within the realm of photography. Every household wouldn’t have a television if that were not the case. We see things moving across the screen with many actions occurring simultaneously. Unless the director isolates the event, we miss the details. Networks recognize this by providing television analysts. Sports utilize instant replay to illustrate the details of the game. News channels share analysts’ insights into the events of the day, dissecting small sections and replaying it for our benefit. Within our own homes, we can DVR any television program, playback only desired segments. In essence, we are effectively slowing down the video to comprehend what is presented before us.With the need for segmentation, analysts and instant replay, is it possible to suggest that video, by itself, does not have the same impact as still photography?
Consider key world events – what images come immediately to mind? World War II has many images that impact us, perhaps the most iconic from photographer Joe Rosenthal. High above Iwo Jima on Mount Suribachi, Joe captured the Marines raising the American flag, signaling to all that the island was now in the hands of the US forces.
Remember Tiananmen Square, with the student standing in front of the tank, as photographed by Jeff Widener of AP? Or how about the scenes from the Oklahoma bombing, the emotion of the day caught in the still image of firefighter Chris Fields carrying out the young child.
Although we’ve all seen the Trade Towers burning on September 11, 2001, isn’t it the still photography from Thomas Franklin of the Bergen Record that captures the resolve of the rescuers? Standing over the rubble, he caught the New York firefighters as they raised the American flag over Ground Zero.
Because we can shoot video with almost any camera, that begs the question – should we? Personal opinion only, if it doesn’t fit what I want to convey, then I’ll be passing on this photographic technology. While we may view a video and feel its impact at that time, it is the still image that allows us to internalize the forces of the event, without constraint of time. The association is made between us, the viewer, and the content of the image.
Book on video production
Its impact remains long after we’ve first experienced the image. I personally, do not feel the same association with video. Do you?
You can view Drakes website at Powder Hill Photography.
If you have any thoughts or ideas regarding video, please leave a comment.
If you are interested in wildlife film making there is a seminar at the NANPA Nature Photography Convention March 9th – 12th, 2011.
Related Posts: Seeing Through My Dogs Eyes, How John Denver Impacted My Photography
Debating whether one is more impactful than the other is like debating weather music is more impactful than dance, or whether blue is more impactful than green. As you have suggested, the world needs both still photos and motion video. But I think you’ve misplaced video as a subset of photography (“Video clearly has a place within the realm of photography”). Still photography and motion video are complimentary. Motion video includes information that still photographs do not. Still images invite our minds to pause and explore the image.
One of your examples comes from the Tianamen Square protests in 1989. I remember that. Most of all I remember the video; hands down, no contest. As the tank tried to move around the student, the student moved also, refusing to allow the tank to go around him. Yes, a sequence of still images can convey this movement, but it clearly is not the same thing.
“Because we can shoot video with almost any camera, that begs the question – should we?”
If my equipment can shoot both, and if the subject warrents it, and if it helps me to tell a story … I often choose to shoot both stills and video. However, my first inclination is to compose still images and sometimes forget that I can compose video also. I kick myself for making this mistake after climbing to the top of Mount Katahdin in Maine; I do wish that I had recorded some video in addition to the stills.