Popularity of underwater video vs photo?

[shelbyrose]

Hi folks,

 

As I have started learning to shoot video underwater, it has become clear that it is far less popular than underwater photography (with the exception perhaps of shallow action cam footage). I have my own theories as to why this might be, but I'd be really interested to get your perspectives as well. I'm doing a PhD in film focused on marine animals, so this is something I am thinking about as part of my research generally and really appreciate any thoughts!

 

Thanks!

 

Shelby

[TimG]

Hey Shelby

 

You pose an interesting question. I’d suggest age has quite an impact. 
 

From my experience, Older divers tend, generalising, to use stills-based equipment with possibly a GoPro ad-on. A hangover from DSLR and compact days. 
 

Younger divers are far more likely to go with video systems of the GoPro variety or the 360-degree systems. 
 

Although income could be part of the picture , I’d suggest that the younger users are more SM savvy and want to post video. 
 

I’m on my way back from a Red Sea liveaboard trip and this trend was really noticeable. It left me wondering about the future of underwater stills photography and the impact for equipment manufacturers. 
 

The other noticeable trend is stills photography by using housed smart phones, such as the SeaLife for iPhones. Again though I thought this seemed to be the choice of the older diver. 

[RVBldr]

I'd also contend that the editing process for video is 10x that of stills if not more. Assuming you're not just throwing some individual clips on to SM, creating, editing, annotating, and publishing video is much more involved than some of our Lightroom workflows. 

[TimG]

9 minutes ago, RVBldr said:

I'd also contend that the editing process for video is 10x that of stills if not more. Assuming you're not just throwing some individual clips on to SM, creating, editing, annotating, and publishing video is much more involved than some of our Lightroom workflows. 

id agree with that. But even then I’ve seen folks pulling together superb video compilations very quickly using iMovie in between dives. 

[ChipBPhoto]

I’d agree with the solid comments already shared.  I actually started in uw video in the early 90s using an SVHS-C camera, bulky hot lights, and editing on a small tape-to-tape system.  (Yes, I’m old)  It was literally 1 hour of editing for each minute of basic usable footage.  There was no way to easily share video other than parking someone in front of a TV to watch it.  After a few years, I was burnt out and switched to stills.  Today I can connect my SD card to my iPhone or iPad and I have professionally edited images via LR mobile that I can share while still on the water.

 

Modern video has become almost that easy.  I believe the GoPro really changed the possibilities for anyone to make quality video.  Using the GoPro phone based editing software and cloud distribution, editing and sharing video has become basically as easy as stills.  And yes, I agree the younger crowd grew up with this on land, and has led the way taking it in the water. 
 

As far as high end video, our mirrorless cameras can definitely produce high quality results.  And yes, it is far easier to edit via iMovie on the more basic end, up to pro level Final Cut and Premier Pro.  With few exceptions, I still feel most (not all) mirrorless cameras are more photo centric.  
 

Correct lighting and white balance for smooth editing is also more challenging.  There are additional key skills required to make quality video such as smooth pans, following a subject in a logical manner, and telling a story.  In short, being the director, videographer, and editor by oneself.  I contend this is far more  challenging than lining up a still image with correct lighting.  

 

While we clearly live in a video world, stills remain the choice for most.  Is this changing?  Absolutely!  Every young diver has a GoPro, housed iPhone, or similar when they jump in.  The internal algorithms in these devices are making pretty good video straight from the camera.  Video is more and more the future, but quality video, like stills, will remain a creative art form.
 

Edited October 19 by ChipBPhoto

[humu9679]

3 hours ago, shelbyrose said:

Hi folks,

 

As I have started learning to shoot video underwater, it has become clear that it is far less popular than underwater photography (with the exception perhaps of shallow action cam footage). I have my own theories as to why this might be, but I'd be really interested to get your perspectives as well. I'm doing a PhD in film focused on marine animals, so this is something I am thinking about as part of my research generally and really appreciate any thoughts!

 

Thanks!

 

Shelby

I think @TimG @RVBldr and @ChipBPhoto are right on. I think for the majority of us it has been a question of convenience and ease-of-use as technology improved. Still images has moved from learning exposures, composition and focusing to pointing and shooting. Moving images lagged behind, having to learn all the above, plus editing and post production, and the cost of entry was likely more prohibitive than the $279 a Canon AE-1 cost in 1978. Both stills and video are light years easier to use. Video may surpass stills at some point but there's room for both.

 

Another thing, the process of creating a still image or a video seems quite different to me. "Seeing" a still image or moving images requires different neurons, and to be able to do both, at least for me, is very difficult. Sometimes a still can be taken from video, but too often it makes a meh still image. On the other hand, being able to to envision a still image is probably a good thing for video - good composition, lighting, plus movement.

 

As a newbie to videography, my most recent video shows a popular west Oahu dive/snorkeling area, but I think you can see that making a still image requires different "seeing." https://www.instagram.com/p/DBRbmrypc0s/

[bghazzal]

Very interesting subject Shelby.

One thing I’ve been thinking about is maybe making a distinction between video (moving-pictures) as a format and video as a medium.

 

As a format, we are clearly in a video centric world, a tendency which started as television sets became accessible and mainstream.

It would be difficult to quantify this, as we can’t say really quantify attention received by the print industry with that of television and cinema, but as a format, since the tap of television was fully opened and brought moving-pictures out of the cinema and into everyone's living-rooms, the balance with  written words, illustrations, still-pictures began to shift rapidly.

If we fast-forward to our current digital connected online-age, this is even clearer.

As technological advances (digital video compression, effective codecs and bandwith) made it possible, video - again as a format - quickly took over online (and spaces like this forum are just leftovers of an age gone-by, where the written word was still dominant online format...).

This includes streaming, youtube, vlogs, tiktok and all the rest...
It’s generational, but most people are now more likely to seek spoken / filmed information than written / printed data (whereas old farts like myself prefer skim reading  than listening to a talking head meandering about a subject 😁)
 

Yet when we come to video as an actual medium, things are a little less clear, especially in our field of underwater imaging.
 

Yes, video shooting is now accessible and somewhat easier, we have action cams, phones and even instant editing apps that can auto-edit, auto-colour correct – and all still cameras can shoot video to some extent - and yet anyone who does video can testify that beyond the short-clip, it's still a rather painful process to actually share video content online, and that the audiences reached with video content are also way more limited than with still picture distribution.
 

Instagram - the dominant image-sharing app -  has strict limitations on video length, and their platform format is really designed for phone uploads, which makes it near-impossible to work with for sharing anything more than a 0:59 second clip...
And even that is not easy, as you do need to upload (from a phone...) at some point, which is a really headache after editing on a computer, which is still unavoidable for most projects... And don't get me started on vertical vs. horizontal, portraits vs. landscape formats, bah, humbug!

 

And generally, our almighty algorithm overlords are quite finicky when it comes to video content...

Or take this beautiful forum: it has member galleries, and yet there is no way to upload videos (which would saturate servers), so they have to be shared from hosting platforms like Youtube and Vimeo (which is restricted / subscription based).
 

In the field of underwater imaging, still-pictures dominate. By far.

Again, just look at Waterpixels, out of the current member-base, how many of us focus exclusively – or primarily – on video? And this is not new, it was the same on Wetpixels and elsewhere…

Just take a look at any underwater imaging publication – other than the latest action-cam or latest glamorously unaffordable-for-most cinecam release info, what percentage of the discussion is actually dedicated to video as an underwater imaging medium?
 

And out of actual physical imaging devices made, other than action cams, what percentage of the products are actually primarily video-focused?
Do people mostly shoot stills or videos on their phones?
 

This does not mean that underwater videos aren't made of course.
But what I mean to highlight here is that few people are actually pursuing underwater videography as their medium of choice, and that these numbers are probably dropping.

To which people will like answer but what of the ubiquitous action cams and phones, which are the first imaging equipment bought by divers, think selfie-sticks, etc, etc.

And yes, it is certainly true a lot of divers will try to film their dives, especially when they start diving, but beyond the resulting memento footage to share on socials, how many among them actually keep at it after filming a few of their first dives ?
Yes, how many of these divers, after having action-cam'ed their first bubbles and turtles, actively continue underwater video making, spend time editing, look at other videos, try to build something in the medium, share content?

Most of the things I now see posted (Scubaboard, the 2 or 3 zombie UW video FB groups...) are now mostly such "film-my-dive" content, showcasing a dive, a divesite, a trip - some good, some bad - along with some "check-out-this-crazy-thing-I-saw" type clips.

Nothing wrong with this, I do slideshows myself, but the percentage of constructed pieces, or piece - showing something else is actually very very small.

And they are usually done by the same active shooters entering UW photo competitions in the UW video category, Alex B's Freediving under ice in Greenland at amazing icebergs to take a recent local example, for instance.

Other than that, you have the billion talking-head gear-reviews feeding the machine (Moloch whose factories dream and croak in the fog!) - and usually with very little underwater footage shown - along with promotional/commercial content (liveaboard, resort, tourism area with some diving), often done by semi-professionals hired for the job.
These productions,  fueled by commercial interests, occupy a slightly different sector in the world of underwater imaging (as a sidenote, other than people of consequent financial means, a lot of pro to semi-pro videographers started by working on such promo content for liveaboards or resorts for instance), with a set purpose, economy and ecosystem...

And lastly we have professional documentary productions which we all know.
Large productions with a budget, a dedicated film crew of sorts, or projects toeing the line, like local/scientific documentary projects (Underwater Italy  to give take another local example).
An underwater cameraman like Roger Munns would be a good example of inspiring work, but working in a professional environment which is disconnected from what most amateurs video enthusiast operate in.
These operators and productions are in a world of their own (though technical advances and the development of more flexible commercial distribution outlets such as streaming platforms are making the border between semi-profession and professional productions more porous - I'm thinking of Alex Del Olmo / Behind The Mask Netflix collaborations hinted at recently for instance).


So yes, action cam (and maybe, phone) clips are generally the first toe dipped in the sea of underwater imaging, but let's face it, for those that stick to UW imaging, they are also often a gateway to still-picture making...

 

Why? Well for one thing, there are multiple concrete advantages to still-images shooting:
 

•      - equipment is more accesible, and somewhat cheaper (strobes vs. video lights), or at least with a wider budget range
   
•       information is generally more readily available, in many forms
   
•           it's just easier to share still pictures, and there is more of a community of people will to engage in discussion, or just more shooters in general. Resorts, masterclasses etc are usually geared at still-shooters, not moving-picture weirdoes
   
•       video is much more time consuming (selecting clips, choosing music if any, editing, publishing, sharing) than stills, which are more compatible with a busy life and also with phones as a content sharing device (which is why a lot of video content now is merging with the written work, subtitled and captioned to be consumed in silence during transit for instance...)
   
•      -  stills are generally more gratifying. You can put your signature on the pictures (so they are not stolen by evil online copyright pirates, of course...), have your galleries on instagram, on a forum or flickr, publish in online and physical mags, and have access to a more dynamic competition environment for those that are interested in this
   
•       technically - I won't stir an outrage by paraphrasing Alex Del Olmo's recent provocative words in X-Ray mag stating that shooting stills is actually easier than shooting video - but underwater stability is certainly less of an issue when freezing a frame for seconds or less, as is whitebalancing / lighting, which are more straightforward with strobes, and still editing in lightroom is just not in the same timeframe as video editing, colour correcting – oh, and storage is actually easier... Video files are huge! (and require more computational power to edit...)
   
•       Macro, macro, macro... Shooting macro video is tricky (working distance, stability) and quite a few of the star-subjects of macro photography (nudibranchs for instance) are rather static and usually make rather poor macro video subject, and then need to be complemented by creative lighting and editing solution to not bore viewers too quickly (yes, I am thinking of Dustin Adamson's nudi snooting slideshows and of Fred Miri Schaschl's whacky edits here)
   
• Lastly stills are probably more “artistic” - a very broad and provocative statement I know, but what I mean by that is that for stills, there is more of a focus on the photographer’s eye, compositional creation and vision of the subject, whereas video is generally more "naturalistic", highlighting the subject's behaviour and movement, and/or "story-based" (YMMV, take Behind The Mask’s current dramatic, sometimes neo-MTV-clips approach to video making for instance, and the attention-grabbing speed ramping trend which is - thanksfully - finally going out of style somewhat - but drone shots are still everywhere...)
  
  Sure, a good picture also needs to tell a story, as stated in the opening chapter of most photography 101 books, and yet this is really more literal for video. In my opinion there is quite difference between the story told by a picture and the actual dramatisation (story telling) created by narrative editing, voice-overs (ever so popular in current UW videos...) or even BBC style over-dramatisation, with zanny foley tracks and all....

 
All in all, I think it’s something of a paradox  – as a format, moving pictures are everywhere, it’s never been easier to film underwater, and yet the medium of underwater videography is dying-out in a way (which is probably linked to the way content is consumed), at least when it comes to underwater imaging.
Or re-inventing itself, to say the least...

Recently, as I was looking for info on UR-Pro filters, I ended up drifting into ancient Wetpixel threads – it’s amazing how active the video section was around 2005-2010, with people actively exchanging and trying to figure things out within what was then a new medium of digital video.
Where are they now, and where are their successors? Other than a few exceptions, like Dustin Adamson who seem to compete in most UW video competitions, most moved on, passed-away, shoot stills, do talking-head gear reviews, you name it...
But this underwater videography boom is over, gone.
 

Just compare this lively 20-year-old scene with the of scene today, where 90% of video content is related to discussing recent action cams and their oh-so frustrating limitations (which lead most video makers to move to something else anyway...), and very little content actually shared.

In this, underwater video is currently a paradoxical medium - simultaneously more accessible, omnipresent, and yet in a state of flux, and more dead than alive, in its classical form at least.

Video-game inspired 360° immersive content might seem like the future, but this also doesn't seem to be catching-on too well, probably because once the technical novelty is gone, this format doesn't blend too well with the narrative aspects of videography.

Interestingly, we've been seeing a lot of super-slowmotion short clips recently, which probably works better on phones and instagram / soclal - but in slowing doing the movement to the extreme, is this not moving video clips closer to stills photography? (animated GIFs anyone?)

The same cannot really be said of still-photography, which is alive and well in its own aging underwater niche and dive tourism-based ecosystem (after all, imaging gives divers something to do, to actively engage with underwater).
Phones have also blown a new breath of life into photography, bringing a camera back into everyone's pockets.
How will  this translate for underwater still photography? The future will tell...
And let's not forget computational (AI) imaging content is also just around the corner, so we'll see where all this takes us...

cheers

ben



(disclaimer - it's 2024, so I'll add that I do not condone the actions of the Cousteau + Louis Malle team in this documentary or subsequent ones, and am simply posting this as a reminder that while there were others UW documentary productions before it, this 1956 documentary-fiction film was really one of the first underwater cinematographic endeavours to reach a wide, almost global audience...)
 

Edited October 19 by bghazzal

[humu9679]

@bghazzal Your pieces always so beautifully written and thought-provoking.

 

I'm not sure I agree that the videography boom is ending. It will change, surely, but the best part of what is novel will stick with videography - say the appropriate use of drone footage - along with good images, sound and story-telling. The death knell for videography may have something in common with journalism. Not dead, but quite different from what we've known.

 

Best,

Craig

[shelbyrose]

Many thanks to all of you for these interesting replies! And a special thanks to @bghazzal for the very thoughtful response. 

 

I wonder if this underwater video boom Ben describes might have declined because there are fewer compact options that allow for manual use, making it quite an expense and require significant skill acquisition to move on to the next stage from a GoPro (there just doesn't seem to be a video-focused option akin to the TG6, for example). Of course, smartphones have killed that market in recent years.... 

[Klaus]

From a real amateur perspective: (Land)Photography has been my hobby since teenage days in the mid-80s , so naturally when I took up diving 5 years ago I wanted to bring some pictures back up. I started out with a cheap go-pro knock-off and thought I’d be shooting stills. But then I discovered that I was so occupied with gear &staying at a constant (well…) depth that I would never press the button at the right moment. So I started shooting constantly I.e. recording video. Obviously this was no good for anything other than extracting a mediocre still. Since then I have changed the setup to a small mirrorless and while it certainly can record movies, I have almost never tried that again. Good video footage requires REALLY good diving skills I think, something that only (semi)-pros or early-retired self-made millionaires can reach in a reasonably short time.
But is there a market for the clips?
If you live off your diving+ filming, you need to sell the clips. There is an established market like gallery prints or magazines for stills, nonetheless few diving photographers are able to live from just that. But video? I feel that there is a huge gaping hole between instagram and the BBC productions. And that makes it very difficult to grow past waving a GoPro around for souvenirs.
I know that land-based videographers can make very good money by creating “reels” for influencers, but who will pay for the mating squids? In the absolutely stunning freediving iceberg movie by Alex B mentioned before, Anna being a professional perhaps this could be considered like filming an influencer. But I am not sure whether this is a for-profit production (they certainly deserve it) or barely recovering the costs of making it.
 

[RomiK]

On 10/18/2024 at 8:21 PM, humu9679 said:

Another thing, the process of creating a still image or a video seems quite different to me. "Seeing" a still image or moving images requires different neurons, and to be able to do both, at least for me, is very difficult. Sometimes a still can be taken from video, but too often it makes a meh still image. On the other hand, being able to to envision a still image is probably a good thing for video - good composition, lighting, plus movement.

 

 

This should be framed and put on the wall of every hybrid shooter. Myself I try to do both photo and video on a single dive and more and more I am finding myself with the idea of dedicated photo and video dives as my hybrid dives produce great pictures, great videos but rarely both... lighting, workflow, mindset, lens choice... all in play

[Nikolausz]

When I started underwater image making more than 20 years ago the choice was easy. Equipment to take high quality photos was relatively affordable that time, compared to professional video cameras. I could afford buying the same films used by David Doubilet, and similar quality lenses, but a good digital camera was way beyond my budget. My photos were crap not because of the equipment I used but the potential was there. I had some friends involved in videography but the image quality they produced was just bad and mainly due to technical limitations. Photos from the 80s were good, still keep up today's standard, but  if you check some films from that era the quality was really bad (even from big production companies). My hobby was a bit on ice during the digital transition, although I bought a Sony A100 with ikelite housing, due to my growing family I had not that much time for travelling. I wanted to further simplify my system, so I switched to Sony NEX-5 in a cheap housing, when I realized the red button to take videos. First I was not hooked. It actually happened when I got a GoPro as a present and started to use it in local lakes, mainly as camera trap. 

I think GoPro was very important milestone in underwater videography and it "democratized" underwater filmmaking. Such affordable camera with so much potential. Of course, most of the divers used these cameras completely wrong and tons of crap videos have been produced to torture other dive buddies, but the technology has improved (image stabilization, better WB, additional correction lenses etc.) and now it's easy to make OK small films. These cameras are still used by big TV production companies and many blue chips nature movies include footage from "cheap" action cameras.

So today, in my opinion, it's cheaper to buy a capable video camera than a photo camera. Another important technology improvement was the headway of LED technology in video lights, which made those lamps also affordable. Meanwhile the underwater strobes for photography have not improved that much.

I think, making good quality videos with story, narration, capturing behaviours etc. is still very challenging, while taking good photos is easier. I see many very good photos but not that many really good videos. 

Image making for profit is difficult for both photo and video but some say video is more profitable.

[ChipBPhoto]

29 minutes ago, Nikolausz said:

I think, making good quality videos with story, narration, capturing behaviours etc. is still very challenging, while taking good photos is easier. I see many very good photos but not that many really good videos. 

Image making for profit is difficult for both photo and video but some say video is more profitable.

I agree.  While relatively limited, I foresee a greater demand for delivered high quality video.  With that said, the cost of entry for this level of video production is higher and requires a greater skill set.  And no, that is not at all diminishing the skill, talent, and vision required to produce high quality still images.  There is simply ‘more’ of everything required for quality video production. 

[humu9679]

1 hour ago, Nikolausz said:

When I started underwater image making more than 20 years ago the choice was easy. Equipment to take high quality photos was relatively affordable that time, compared to professional video cameras. I could afford buying the same films used by David Doubilet, and similar quality lenses, but a good digital camera was way beyond my budget. My photos were crap not because of the equipment I used but the potential was there. I had some friends involved in videography but the image quality they produced was just bad and mainly due to technical limitations. Photos from the 80s were good, still keep up today's standard, but  if you check some films from that era the quality was really bad (even from big production companies). My hobby was a bit on ice during the digital transition, although I bought a Sony A100 with ikelite housing, due to my growing family I had not that much time for travelling. I wanted to further simplify my system, so I switched to Sony NEX-5 in a cheap housing, when I realized the red button to take videos. First I was not hooked. It actually happened when I got a GoPro as a present and started to use it in local lakes, mainly as camera trap. 

I think GoPro was very important milestone in underwater videography and it "democratized" underwater filmmaking. Such affordable camera with so much potential. Of course, most of the divers used these cameras completely wrong and tons of crap videos have been produced to torture other dive buddies, but the technology has improved (image stabilization, better WB, additional correction lenses etc.) and now it's easy to make OK small films. These cameras are still used by big TV production companies and many blue chips nature movies include footage from "cheap" action cameras.

So today, in my opinion, it's cheaper to buy a capable video camera than a photo camera. Another important technology improvement was the headway of LED technology in video lights, which made those lamps also affordable. Meanwhile the underwater strobes for photography have not improved that much.

I think, making good quality videos with story, narration, capturing behaviours etc. is still very challenging, while taking good photos is easier. I see many very good photos but not that many really good videos. 

Image making for profit is difficult for both photo and video but some say video is more profitable.

 

I, too, agree. And let's not forget video editiing software -  a bit easier than splicing and taping.

[humu9679]

3 hours ago, RomiK said:

 

This should be framed and put on the wall of every hybrid shooter. Myself I try to do both photo and video on a single dive and more and more I am finding myself with the idea of dedicated photo and video dives as my hybrid dives produce great pictures, great videos but rarely both... lighting, workflow, mindset, lens choice... all in play

Thanks @RomiK I thought of it myself. 😉

[Davide DB]

So @shelbyrose  what are your thoughts on this? 😉