Stills or Video

Hi

I often wonder why there is a much larger interest in stills than video.

Is it because it's just allot simpler to take a pic than create something nice with video.

Our step into selling prints was a complete waste of time compared to the amount of Ningaloo DVD's sales we do.

Thoughts

For me there are two reasons:

1) I find taking stills a lot easier, especially from the lighting perspective and I suspect the equipment is a lot cheaper. Post processing would be simpler, too.

2) Viewing stills is easier as a JPEG file can be viewed in the browser. Video needs special software (or even hardware) to view.

Easier to share. Easier to e-mail. Easier to print and frame.

Convenience.

Editing requirements.

1. I think you can be a bit more creative with stills.

2. I don't have the time to mess with video editing.

3. Verticals.

On the other side, there are may times when it would be great to give the audience a better sense of motion, relative size and behavior and stills can't do that. Most divers are vacationers as well and they want something to remember the trip by. Video tells a story much easier and you can just pop it into the DVD player and show your friends your dive trip, so I'm not at all surprised you sell many more videos than stills.

Not everyone is concerned with profit. It's a legitimate point for those that are.

I do this for the enjoyment and challenge. Video presents some significant downsides in that regard. First, it's difficult to avoid telling the same story with video when you are vacation shooting. Second, you won't know your footage until you've shot it so you won't know if you gotten your glue shots until it's too late. Third, video has a tremendous amount of post that's critical to the presentation and occurs entirely after the dive or trip. Fourth, once your work is done it can be difficult for you to enjoy and difficult to share, plus many won't want to invest the time to see the results. Unlike a still, you can't choose to look at a video "real quick". Sharing video on the net is possible now but it's still more challenging than still. I used to post videos here when I shot video, but I don't think many people ever viewed a video I showed on Wetpixel. They'll look at an image of mine or yours because it doesn't demand five minutes of their time.

It all boils down to the fact that video stresses me out on a trip whereas still is just great fun. I respect that video is, in many ways, as hard or harder to do well than still. I consider video a format for others' enjoyment and still a format for me. If I were a pro I'd be into video.

I think in the context of what you may do, providing a momento of a vacation to an individual or family of their dive experience, a DVD / video can do this better than stills. So in that sense this is probably why you sell DVD's and not still photographs.

I went back and forth with this when I was considering what to start with. Now that we pack both still and video set-ups my first choice is stills.

I find stills more challenging, getting the settings right (no ttl), being at the right spot at the right moment to capture something special. Example, in Lembeh we had two giant frog fish together one did this MASSIVE yawn, I missed it because I was changing my settings, with video I probably would have caught it. If your goal is to try to tell a story with either I think it is much harder to do with stills.

Video is great and far better for showing motion and action. It is nice having the two for "slide shows". Video does take much more time to post process.

I often wonder why there is a much larger interest in stills than video.

Hi Wags,

I think it's because you can't hang a video on your wall in the office or the den. I'm not sure it's simpler to take a great still image. I sure as heck don't find it easy. I do think the two formats are clearly merging and in five years we may be in the position of having much different choices than we have today. The other thing was that there were very few places to show a video. In the good old days you'd come home from a trip with a VHS put together by the video guy on a live aboard and show it to your friends and maybe look at it once in a while. Today there are all kinds on new options; internet, e-mail, etc. Heck Flickr now accepts videos. My son has always wanted to get into video. I started him off with a still camera so he could learn the fundamentals. Video is clearly where he wants to be in the future. I think video is clearly on it's way up the curve. You just were ahead of your time.

Steve

In my case is because I get instant and direct "pleasure" when I "click" and see I have a good pic. Not needing to edit is another big reason why I don´t do video.

In the end is like asking people why they prefer baseball over basketball or the other way around.

All excellent comments folks...thanks.

Good video is hard, as lighting and editing are both difficult. Good still photography is also hard, but lighting with strobes is well-understood, and the performance of appropriately chosen lenses is outstanding. Editing for content occurs as the shutter is pressed, then you just throw away the images that don't work. I have yet to see any video, up to and including the work of the masters who shot the underwater sequences on the BBC's "Planet Earth" series, that matches the vibrancy of a still image shot at the perfect moment and framed against a good negative space. I think that the chances of art are greater with stills than with video.

As an example (purely my personal opinion) compare the excellent "Critters" video trilogy by John Boyle and Fionn Crowe Howieson with Constantinos Petrinos' "Realm of the Pygmy Seahorse": the book wins!

Tim

I's add that video post processing is a much more fun and creative process than stills - stills is basically turning the handle while waiting for the computer - spotting, sharpening etc. Where as video has a much more creative editing process.

I've been edited a film I made with a friend in the summer, over the last couple of weeks, and admittedly it is a long slow process, but it has been a fantastically enjoyable. OK, maybe that is because it is all new - so it is learning and being creative at the same time. But I have to say I'm looking forward to doing more. Sound editing is a bore!

Alex

I's add that video post processing is a much more fun and creative process than stills - stills is basically turning the handle while waiting for the computer - spotting, sharpening etc. Where as video has a much more creative editing process.

I've been edited a film I made with a friend in the summer, over the last couple of weeks, and admittedly it is a long slow process, but it has been a fantastically enjoyable. OK, maybe that is because it is all new - so it is learning and being creative at the same time. But I have to say I'm looking forward to doing more. Sound editing is a bore!

Alex

Uh oh... More bandwagon jumpers...

Dive safe

DeanB

This might not be the drive force for everyone, but to make a good UW-film it takes a lot of resources. Not just equipment – time, logistics ... and in most cases you need some sort of story. Not many have available what it takes. To be honest most of the UW-video you see from "semi-pros" are sleeping pills. With stills, you have at least a theorethical chance of taking a 'world class image' with fairly modest resources. That's what I like about stills.

cheers

To be honest most of the UW-video you see from "semi-pros" are sleeping pills.

cheers

You've seen my efforts then...

Dive safe

Dean(pillow talk)B

This might not be the drive force for everyone, but to make a good UW-film it takes a lot of resources. Not just equipment – time, logistics ... and in most cases you need some sort of story. Not many have available what it takes. To be honest most of the UW-video you see from "semi-pros" are sleeping pills. With stills, you have at least a theorethical chance of taking a 'world class image' with fairly modest resources. That's what I like about stills.

 

cheers

That is a absolutly true!

Thats why we need to have allot of respect for the filmmakers that make's movies where you not fall asleep :-)

You've seen my efforts then...

 

Dive safe

 

Dean(pillow talk)B

Hu no, i was sleeping

Every time I consider getting involved in video; the main deterrent is time! And who has enough time?

With stills, I can sort my selects in a minute or two, recognize if I have a great shot or two, do some edits in anywhere from a couple of minutes to half hour and I'm done.

How much production time on average would you video guys spend on say a 10 minute video, let's say the best you can do when submitting to a competition?

Interesting topic, that I have missed previously.

I would say that the formats have different difficulties. I am personally of the opinion that stills are more difficult than video. You have to catch that perfect moment.

Anyway, I have to admit that I have no real interest in the Video format. I get much more enjoyment and challenge out of stills.

Video is actually cheaper than Stills . If you count all the Domeports and lenses etc

/Erik

Interesting topic, that I have missed previously.

 

I would say that the formats have different difficulties. I am personally of the opinion that stills are more difficult than video. You have to catch that perfect moment.

 

Anyway, I have to admit that I have no real interest in the Video format. I get much more enjoyment and challenge out of stills.

 

Video is actually cheaper than Stills . If you count all the Domeports and lenses etc

 

 

/Erik

Video cheaper? I do not think so!

You are talking high end products for stills, so you need to do that also for video and then you can say that video is allot more expensiv!

I have also diffrent ports, etc.... My housing + all the extra's + camera cost more then 15000 euro, and then i am not even talking about edeting, to edit in HDV you need a good PC and good programs, then you like to have music on that? you have to pay rights for that or let make sombody the music for you etc......