The difference between still pictures and moving pictures?

[Bollygum]

There has traditionally been a gulf between still and moving pictures. Last century this was partly due to the need for for a crew to produce a moving picture and still pictures could be managed by an individual. Moving pictures were also more difficult to construct in that they (ideally) had to have a coherent story, whereas a still picture could squeeze by with none.

Now, with the technology becoming so good, some can make a decent still or moving picture with a phone camera. Of course, even more can make lousy pictures, but we needn't go into that. Also, the media has changed from long format films and TV programs to anything from a 5 sec grab on Youtube up.

How do you see this developing? Do you see the young of today (and in future) just taking still or just taking moving pictures? Or do you think the areas will tend to merge, with people using both depending on the circumstances?

Our modern prosumer still cameras take excellent video, but they still take a lot of skill to realise their potential. Most of the users of the video capability seem to be pros who want to be able to use video on occasion, for example sports photographers who want that perfect still for the magazines and that moving footage for TV or internet use. Where do you see that going?

I think that far more people will use moving pictures in the future, what do you think?

 

[viewfromthenorth]

My 8 year old daughter is always making videos of her and her friends on the IPad or an old compact camera I gave her. In fairness they are crap, but the point is that she's comfortable with the technology and concept. If she's anything to go by then I can see video being a huge think going forwards, especially with better broadband, video calls over skype, etc and the likes of youtube.

I've only just started using the video capabilities on my cameras, and I'm hugely aware of the fact that to produce something of an equivalent standard to my photographs will require a paradigm shift in my thinking. On my last holiday the other week I mixed it up with video and stills, and they complement each other. Sometime its easier and more interesting to show someone a video of something as photographs cannot properly do justice - for example we went seal watching and it was a nightmare to photograph them as they just kept popping their heads out of the water for a few seconds and then disappearing again. I had neither the focal range nor timing to get decent photographs so I videoed the scene, and it's much more effective in telling the story. I can see myself using video more without a doubt.

 

[Bollygum]

I agree that some things are almost impossible to capture with a still photo but become possible with a moving picture. Some stories are very hard to tell without a time sequence. I think that the current trend in camera club comps to discourage long titles on still photos is unfortunate as it pushes people away from the story telling aspect of photos and the story aspect is critical with moving pictures. Also, the best forums for moving pictures are Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, etc, which many still photographers seem to hate with a passion. It's as if we old timers are withdrawing to a better world where only great still pictures are shown, like those forgettable slide nights in the 60s and 70s that I can remember with extreme boredom (or the home movies, which were even worse). The world has moved on, and who has not watched one of those cute videos of a cat or a dog doing cute or bizarre things. I don't think that most people will be good at making moving pictures, but some will. Just as most people aren't very good at taking still photos, but some are. I do think professional photography is moving to combine the two areas and I suspect that there will be few pro photographers in future who do not take moving pics as well as stills.