Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Move over Stills  (Read 2132 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25155
Move over Stills
« on: August 01, 2025, 01:12:31 pm »

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2752
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Move over Stills
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2025, 02:13:34 pm »

Sorry, but I'd prefer to view the still photographer's shot of choice for 37 seconds, rather than spending 37 minutes of my life - which I'll never get back - viewing a recording consisting of over 50,000 edited down frames, the highlight of which anyway was a few selected still frames.

I'm a massive fan and consumer of films. A video recording does not a movie make.

;-)
« Last Edit: August 01, 2025, 02:50:12 pm by KLaban »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18209
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Move over Stills
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2025, 07:38:55 am »

I am with Keith on this one.

I rarely use the video feature of my cameras, and actually wish they'd make cameras without that distraction (not just for price, as it might even go up - less demand, but one less button, much less menu items).

Like Keith, I admire a great camera in movies. It helps to set the tone, the mood, the action (or inaction) in movies. Just not my goal when I have a camera in my hand. Movies/videos and still photography require almost completely different set of skills and different esthetic approach. I honed my still photography skills for many years... switching to video now would require completely new approach, like switching from tennis to ping-pong.

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2206
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Move over Stills
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2025, 11:37:28 am »

I rarely use the video feature of my cameras, and actually wish they'd make cameras without that distraction (not just for price, as it might even go up - less demand, but one less button, much less menu items).

Or just include a menu option that would disable video and make all the other video settings in the menu disappear.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25155
Re: Move over Stills
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2025, 12:56:27 pm »

Or just include a menu option that would disable video and make all the other video settings in the menu disappear.

+ 1000%!

Rob

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25155
Re: Move over Stills
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2025, 01:33:01 pm »

Slobodan and Keith,

No question, motion is an entirely different medium. In fact, it’s probably what underlines my attitude to the difference between stills of NY that I have seen, and that video. On my side of the argument, an entire advertising industry that uses motion as much as it can. Of course, it is financially more rewarding, but motion can demonstrate message more thoroughly and convincingly than do single images which, for starters, are inevitably short on context. Actually, in that video, the stills images, to me, feel anything but the peak of the material; they strike me as arbitrary and not particularly interesting; they also look too perfected when compared with the gritty movie.

As with you, Slobodan, I feel too far down the, for me, narrowing track to change direction now. I hold great respect for those photographers who were doing well a couple of decades ago, managed to read the writing on the commercial wall, and dived straight into motion; I found the step into digital disconcerting enough! I think it also demands a sense of plot: you have to have a story to tell. Street photographers love to talk about the ‘story’ behind their photos when, truth be told, there ain’t even a soupçon of such an animal on view in practically any of those pictures.

If you want story, off the top of my head I can come up with two photos, both by Winogrand: the mixed-race couple with the dressed apes; the group of girls, double-backlit, walking happily towards the camera, a disabled young man seated off to the left. It says volumes about his chances in life and in sex. Other than that, my mind feels blank, which admittedly could be my fault. Now, take away the importance, the weight of the human factor on a picture, and Saul Leiter’s colour work in the street does it for me in a massive manner. His black/white, on the other hand, not that much. I prefer his far more intimate b/w interiors. When you discover that some of the people in his street snaps were actually friends and relatives, the value diminishes to zero.

I have to say, he is author of one of the most delightfully sweet colour photographs of Jean Shrimpton that I have ever seen. Bailey has one somewhat similar… I sometimes wonder which came first.

Rob
« Last Edit: August 02, 2025, 01:39:42 pm by Rob C »
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2752
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Move over Stills
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2025, 05:12:20 pm »

Rob, if you'd have said Move over Photography I think we could of been in agreement.

Thankfully, Egon Schiele, Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud weren't led into temptation, but even they may have had their heads turned by that devil.

;-)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25155
Re: Move over Stills
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2025, 05:09:48 am »

Rob, if you'd have said Move over Photography I think we could of been in agreement.

Thankfully, Egon Schiele, Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud weren't led into temptation, but even they may have had their heads turned by that devil.

;-)

But, but... photography is stills!

Motion, last I looked, was a film and/or video production. If it moves it's a movie, a film. To the viewer, what does it matter the medium on which the image is captured? It's the same argument sometimes deployed by stills photographers, a film somehow being holier than a sensor. In some ways I have to agree, that, for some of us, film has a first love content, but for those who suckled at the tit of digital, later going to film is a retrogressive step: it's far more limited in what it can let you do. On top of that, it will bleed your bank balance dry - if you let it. If it has a positive side, it's that unless you are a Getty, it makes you more careful about what you shoot. That said, though I don't suffer from any love for Eggleston, as with him, digital has made me no less frugal in that it's usually just one shot of most subjects that are not about humans. The big difference is this: if it cost me the same to expose digital as film, I'd have no website beyond the "working years" stuff. Unpaid, non-commissioned photography simply fails to be worth the fiscal candle to me. I'd be as well just sitting on the verandah, reading a book and getting fat. It would have put me out of my misery years ago! ;-)

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2752
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Move over Stills
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2025, 05:34:36 am »

But, but... photography is stills!...

No argument there.

Splitting hairs perhaps, but I do make a distinction between a video and a film.
Pages: [1]   Go Up