# photography vs. videography



## cactus waltz

Comparing photography with videography, would you say there are any inherent strengths of either? 

A video captures many frames at once and it also gets motion and sound and from what I can tell, any photographic tool could also be used for a video camera. So what are the differences in need of skill, technique, etc?


----------



## Garbz

Huge. With a moving picture which has sound the method of which meaning can be conveyed becomes drastically different.

Look at Hitchcock films. Without the sound they wouldn't be at all scary. Photography has no sound just a single frame so a completely different method needs to be through up to convey the same meaning.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Video usually works at 25 fps.
And I would be interested to see how you could use a Sinar P2 as a video camera without major modifications.


----------



## Iron Flatline

Most great cinematographers are very good photographers. You still need to be able to compose a shot, and you need to master your gear if you want repeatable effects (as opposed to a lucky shot.) Because the elements are not static - and the camera doesn't need to be static either - there is a an additional layer of complexity. In return, you have the luxury of telling a story or eliciting an emotional response over a span of frames, rather than in a single exposure.


----------



## Mesoam

i think there are certain shots that work better as video and some better as stills...If you watch a well filmed movie you will see the use of stills (via video camera just holding the shot steady/focused).

I think the "Planet Earth" series really combines the best of video/stills as there could be a seamless transition between many of the video shots


----------



## Matthew Craggs

I do wedding videography, and in that field I have to say the major strength of photography is that you can hold the photos in your hand. Video is great, but how often do you watch the DVD after the wedding? A framed photo you can look at every day and enjoy, and I think that's the main reason why photo is essential and video is the first to go.

In a general sense, definitely sound, which goes a long way in creating a mood. Just think about how a sound can make you jump in a horror movie? Or how an upbeat song can pump you up during an opening credit sequence?


----------



## Helen B

I'm not sure what is meant by videography, but here are a few inconsequential, overgeneralized and oversimplified ramblings on a very big subject.

As already mentioned, cinematography is composing in time or as Tarkovsky described it, sculpting in time. Our compositions have to work in time - I call it dynamic composition and a lot of the time I spend in pre-production is contemplating exactly that.

People tend to view photographs at an effectively closer distance than they do video and television, so the composition must reflect that. Video also has less resolution, in general.

It varies a lot, but in general I find cinematography to be more demanding in terms of discipline and technical aspects. There has to be shot-to-shot consistency, even with changing angles and changing lighting. Two or three minutes of outdoor scene may take all day to shoot, and lighting conditions can change a lot. It should look the same, or nearly the same.

With exceptions, you are usually working with many more people when you are making a motion picture than when you are taking still photographs. It is much less about your personal style and more about providing what someone else wants, with your own slant on things. The cinematographer and the director must work very closely.

Oh, and there's the old saying "Theatre is life, film is art, and television is furniture."

Best,
Helen


----------



## Mesoam

with the coming of more and more wide spread HD filming that simply won't be the case for much longer, heck even a consumer can go out and pick up a HD-camera for a fair price



Helen B said:


> Video also has less resolution, in general.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Iron Flatline said:


> Most great cinematographers are very good photographers.



And some directors.
Stanley Kubrick started out as an Advertising photographer had had a large collection of magazines with his published work.


----------



## JerryPH

Mesoam said:


> with the coming of more and more wide spread HD filming that simply won't be the case for much longer, heck even a consumer can go out and pick up a HD-camera for a fair price


 
Sony makes some awesome HD handicams.  I own one and used it on my recent vacation.... quality is just awesome for a consumer product.  There are times when pictures speak, other times that one needs a moving picture with audio.  For me that ratio is about 8:1 in favor of stills.


----------



## Helen B

We must be comparing two different things. The HD I know, from cameras like the Sony F900, is 1920 x 1080. A Nikon D40 is 3008x2000. How is HD even close to a D40, never mind a high resolution still camera? I&#8217;ll stick to my comment that when you compose for still images you are composing for a higher resolution medium than video.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Hertz van Rental

And video can't match the quality of motion picture film either.
This is why most serious movies are still shot using Arriflex or Aaton or similar.
Try comparing a still video frame with a frame from a movie shot on 35mm. Most video is barely on a par with Super 8 film.


----------



## Mike_E

I like video for the way it captures movement. You get a better feeling for the personality of the individuals from the dialog shown by their body language.  The sound of someone's voice is also a unique memory trigger.

Having said that, I think that video is a poor substitute for a wedding album.  Before anyone gets in an uproar over that statement, video makes a great addition to the wedding package.

The reason is that I think that Photos are better is that they are more stable, durable and intimate.

Stable in that a photo should last a 100 years or so with minimum care but a DVD/CD may or may not work in 10 years.  The supporting hardware/software may not be around then or not be working and forgotten.

Durable in that you can bend a photo, tear a photo and very nearly burn a photo and still be able to use it.  Not so with a DVD/CD, they are unusable with just scratching.  Keep a backup?  Please, most people won't back up their tax info much less keep track of a DVD for the next 100 years as an heirloom of their house.

And intimate?  You can't hold a TV in your lap, a laptop yes but the CPU in one of those has an operating temperature of 126 degrees F. and is uncomfortable at best.  Being able to sit with your children or grand children and show them their family or that you were really young once.

You can also do a survey.  Ask 50 women who have been married at least 15 years if they or someone they knew had been in the process of deciding on a divorce and looked through their wedding album which caused them to rethink the divorce and subsequently decided against it.  You are likely to be amazed how many have or know someone (which I think may mean that they have and don't want to admit it) who has done just that.  (Again, not something that is done with a TV)

Friends and neighbors, I promise you that a wedding album is *much* cheaper than a divorce.    Tell that to someone who thinks that wedding photogs are over paid.  

m


----------



## skieur

Hertz van Rental said:


> Video usually works at 25 fps..


 
Actually 30 frames per second.

skieur


----------



## Helen B

25 or 30 fps, both correct - it depends on where you are.

Best,
Helen


----------



## jcolman

The biggest difference is the amount of gear you carry!!!  

This was a set up I had to do last week just to shoot a CEO talking to the camera.  This is my crew setting up the lights.



























The bell in the shot is important to the company.  It's not there for artistic reasons.


----------



## jcolman

Mesoam said:


> with the coming of more and more wide spread HD filming that simply won't be the case for much longer, heck even a consumer can go out and pick up a HD-camera for a fair price


  Have you ever tried to print a still image off a video tape or DVD??  Even HD isn't nearly as good for making still shots as a decent point and shoot.


----------

