Video or Photograph?

<p>Had this in my mind for quite long.</p>

<p>By which you are more connected to and refer frequently for flashback. <strong>Video or photograph?</strong></p>

<p>My personal experience in that I hardly refer to video after seeing for once or may be twice. But feel some 'feelings' when I touch the photograph. In past years I have gone back to old albums many times but didn't feel that much urge to watch the videos.</p>

<p>What do you say?</p>

<p>Rizwan, I connect equally to both.</p>

<p>I think the degree of connection to videos is relative to two things: the story, and how well it's told. It can be just as interesting to watch over again, countless times, depending on how well crafted it is.</p>

<p>Odd, isn't it? I have a cabinet full of VHS tapes, mostly of family events in the 80s and 90s, that I rarely look at. Photo albums of shots from the same period, even the same events, get a lot more of my attention. Maybe it's because we prefer to look at a photo that captured a moment instead of a video that can drag the moment out for too long. Who knows?</p>

<p><strong>Odd, isn't it? I have a cabinet full of VHS tapes, mostly of family events in the 80s and 90s, that I rarely look at.</strong></p>

<p>That's because you sold your VHS recorder maybe? ;-)</p>

<p>Where would you find anybody who would <em>buy</em> a VHS player? People either keep them or give them away. A local charity auction had something like 20 of them for sale that had been donated. :|</p>

<p>"That's because you sold your VHS recorder maybe? ;-)"</p>

<p>No, we actually have two VCRs - mostly because of the aforementioned tapes, but also because we have a ton of old movies on VHS that we haven't replaced with DVDs yet. Come to think of it, we don't watch those very much, either...</p>

<p>I echo what Michael said above. Both have appeal.<br /> So. Are you talking about actual video clips that you made over the years? Or long sweeping pans of say a wedding..for a half hour?<br /> Me, I haven't begun to get back to real video for 20 years or so, when I used HI-8, and it was just too much for me to work it into a show. Every one here, well a lot, seem to say they are not seriously interested in video in the new products. <br /> I think we are just seeing the beginning of the beginning on amateur semi pro video. The buy in price is getting <em>much</em> lower.<br /> And if you ask your question just five years hence, a different story I bet.<br /> I can enjoy both and think video has been a tougher technical proposition, more disciplined I mean. Video, can be passingly"You Tubable" if it has a kind of ho hum aesthetic, and is on to a current thing. That is they are little more than passing little tidbits.. (How to capture certain events and recreate a memorable to be savored again and again experience? Why a 3-D movie clip would not be bad at all..put on those nifty glasses ... I could be wrong of course.</p>

<p>The main challenge to video is the same obstacle that tripped up photographers for decades in slide shows - editing.</p>

<p>Edited to an appropriate length and accompanied by cogent, coherent narrative, video and slide shows can be more enjoyable than most forms of still photography. But it's time consuming and takes a knack for conveying a narrative.</p>

<p>Many still photographers lack this awareness because they're inclined - by temperament or habit - to regarding each photograph as a separate and distinct entity that must stand on its own merits or be disregarded as useless. A documentary photographer or photojournalist is more likely than most still photographers to understand the value of a coherent narrative in video or multi-photo slide shows. Not that they're necessarily temperamentally inclined toward that form of visual narrative - tho' I believe there's some predisposition - but folks who've studied some aspects of journalism and documentary forms are aware of the distinct differences between single-photo still photography and multi-photo or video visual narratives.</p>

<p>I'm just as likely to view - more than once - a well edited slide show or video online as I am to view a collection of still photos. But it's heavily dependent on skillful presentation.</p>

<p>Very interesting commentary, Lex. In POW discussion,I notice this leaning to examine in a wider context of someone's work. Make an 'essay' of sorts, for extra credit, without 'knocking' the stand alone image that is.</p>

<p>I definately relate more to still photographs than video. Stills freeze a moment of time and allow you to spend as much time as you want looking at it. You can't do that with video. I have albums full of photos that I enjoy looking at over and over again.</p>

<p>Perhaps it's because a still photo will serve to reinforce our (assumingly) good memory of events gone by. While a video has a lot more potential to "ruin" a good memory by revealing the more-boring-than-thought truth of our past.<br>

That would be assuming the home videos you have are boring. 90% of mine certainly are ;)</p>

<p>...how about <a href="

<p>I like a photo myself.</p>