Why video -- even in books with flexible LCD pages -- will not eliminate stills

[TheHoff]

(in the next decade or two...)

The simple reason -- it is much easier to make people, the bride, the groom, and their guests -- look better in a still image than it is in a video. It takes more of a crew, onsite make-up, etc, to make the bride look perfect in a video rather than touching up a few frames for the large prints. People look awkward when they are standing around, jumping in mid-air, or eating... a still frame eliminates that awkwardness that most people who aren't professional models have when on video.

And (my own personal reason)... video is boring unless it is edited by a real professional. The average wedding photographer, nevermind wedding videographer, does not have the skills to direct and edit a catchy video.

[gjl711]

I don’t ever see stills going away. Stills and video are two completely separate art forms and I’m not even looking at the different skill set needed to maximize the potential of both, but just the way they are viewed. Video is a much more passive type of experience while stills are more interactive. With video, it’s the medium that tells the story, with stills the pictures enhance the individuals ability to tell a story while the audience gets to see what they are talking about.

[shutterfiend]

I'm talking about full length features. But brief clips interspaced with stills. I'm sure there will be issues. Lighting, editing and to a great degree shotting st6yle would have to be relearned. But I bet people had those trepidations about TTDs. And now it's almost main-stream. I can see clients falling in love with "photos that move" all over again.

[Fingertip]

I totally agree with TheHoff, and I have been a pro wedding videographer for over 10 years.
Hopefully I will be ready to do photography in a couple of years. Here are some of my reasons.

In order to make a video look like a major motion picture (that people are used to seeing) you would need over $100,000 worth of gear and a crew of at least 4 or 5 people. This would completely ruin the atmosphere at most weddings. If you have the talent and experience, you could produce photos that could rival any magazine spread for under $20k in gear, and not turn the wedding into a circus in the process.

From personal experience, I almost NEVER watch even my own family videos. I am constantly seeing pictures on the wall or around the house though. I have run into people who love my work and tell me they watch thier video every year. Well, I bet they see their stills a whole lot more often than that!

Another problem with video is that you are locked into watching it for a fixed period of time. So even if it is displayed on a wall hanging LCD monitor being played continuously, most people will not want to have to stand there for however long the video is. A picture however can be glanced at while passing by, or it can be studied and admired for as long someone feels like it.

Oh, by the way, anyone out there want to buy 3 videocameras. I really need the money to buy a few more L's.:lol:

[jcolman]

I've been producing tv shows, documentaries and videos for 30 years. It's my day job. I've shot exactly one wedding video. Never again.

I love shooting wedding photos....just not wedding videos.

[cr44]

I've been producing tv shows, documentaries and videos for 30 years. It's my day job. I've shot exactly one wedding video. Never again.

I love shooting wedding photos....just not wedding videos.

I shot and edited my friend's wedding and that will be the last one! I'd much prefer to be second shooter at a wedding to learn for a while, then video another one.

[bieber]

I've done some work for a local film studio, and it's just a totally different world. Obviously, video is something that you can't look through nearly as quickly/casually as photos, and there's a lot more effort involved in production.

As artforms, there's no way photo can replace video, obviously, because video allows camera movements, subject motion, and audio. Sure, you can convey motion to a certain extent in a photo, but nothing like video. The other way around, there's a lot of things you can do with still that you can't with video. With a photo, you can put in hours of PP on a single frame, and not have to worry about the thousands of frames that come before and after it. And, of course, strobes. Ever tried overpowering the sun while shooting video? There's a reason that even in Hollywood films, you'll often see dark-ish subjects with bright backgrounds behind them...