video vs still image ?

In this day and age - when life moves so fast and we have a generation of techno savy teenagers - how do we sell the

still photographic image as a tool to capture their experiences over and above the video camera?

We don't. People still like pictures.

I don't know a lot about it, but I've heard that these days, some newspaper work is done with HD video cameras. A good frame is selected from however many minutes were shot, and that's the image you see in the paper.

Interesting question, Julie. While Emre's take is accurate; people will always like pictures, young people these days are more sophisticated and have better tools at their disposal, so they will choose whichever tool that is most suited to their need. Take a teen male skateboarding. A picture will say "I skateboard", while a video clip can say much more, from instructional to risk-taking. Viewers are also more forgiving of lower quality videos than they are of stills so even data size is not necessarily an issue. Video can also contain high quality audio. <br><br>

I think the difference is how captive we want to be - we can rapidly scan hundreds of images by scrolling thumbnails, but a video is mostly viewed at feature length and takes away viewer control. Many dabbling in one will discover limitations and gravitate toward the other as an enhancement, so maybe the answer to your question is that they will discover it if so inclined, or have no interest at all.

You can look at a still image as little or as long as you like.<BR>

If its any good it catches your attention and holds it.<BR>

Its instant, its always on, you don't need an electronic device to see it.<BR>

You have to spend time on watching a video, no choice about it, you probably have to spend some time, just to see if its worth watching any more<BR>

Video can be extremely useful, and is certainly a tool in education and research now.<BR>

It can be fun, it can be entertaining, but it can be very time wasting<BR>

A lot of people find it easier to watch a video than to read a book or article, but often get less for the time spent.<BR><BR>

I don't think sophisticated is anywhere near the right word for young people today. Confused or misled would be more accurate, swamped with information overload, they need to be taught how to find real information in all the noise.<BR><BR>

Life moves so fast ? We still have teenagers hanging around getting into trouble because they're bored, and haven't got anything to do. Life seems to go faster to me, because I'm getting older. Some young people seem to be dashing around in an awful hurry, for the same reason. But it took 20 years to get from my first computer to one that did what I wanted. Admittedly, it only took about 8 years from the first digital camera I saw, to having one that did what I wanted, but thats quite a long time really, especially to a younger person.<BR>

So, I think there are some popular assumptions here that I don't quite accept.<BR>

Things change, but not always the way that seems most obvious<BR>

"A picture will say "I skateboard", while a video clip can say much more, from instructional to risk-taking."

 

Video can also say quite clearly "I suck". ;)

 

"You have to spend time on watching a video, no choice about it, you probably have to spend some time, just to see if its worth watching any more"

 

Good or even mediocre video editing and shooting is not easy. Some people at least want to learn how to use their still camera properly but very few seem interested in learning video. If digital still photography is instant then video is super-instant, just click it on and let it roll, point it somewhere, you'll record something for sure. After you press "rec" it seems that any ability to control the process is lost. A bit harsh but normal home videos are usually huge waste of time.

It's a moment vs. continous thing. We all remember important (funny or sad or...) moments but usually not all that glutter in between. When you look at a still photo you remember the moment and if it's a good picture it may convey some of that feeling to other people. Very nice, very compact. Video on the other hand records too much and people edit too little, it gets boring very quickly. Add shaky camera, changing exposure, poor framing and zooming during shooting and you're done.

 

Think of travel photos. You can take a couple of very high res stills of an old temple or you can shoot 3min video clip which is low res and contains some "yep, here it is. ... looks stony.... yep." in the background.

 

Dressing up / Halloween / etc. Most people are not professional models. You can take stunning stills of a normal person but on video he/she may look like a lost lamb tottering around.

 

Moments are important, rest is noise.

 

(Video certainly has its uses but in context of teenagers and average people it's not working yet.)

Imagine putting a video of your family on your office desk. Imagine videos hanging on your wall at your home. You open a magazine or a newspaper and all you see is a whole bunch of videos running at the same time. You go visit an art museum more videos. Videos have their place, but let's not get out of hand with this new technology.

Nothing has changed, though we may have different technology, we always had still and motion pictures. One doesn't eliminate the other, never has, never will. Two different things....

Sorry if I'm bumping up an old thread but this is a fascinating topic for me.

 

I'm currently in the process of deciding if I want to invest my time and energy (and money) into learning video production.

 

I've dabbled with it in the past and like others have mentioned, to create a quality video is very time consuming. Especially since sound is such in integral part and in most cases the standard mics are horrible.

 

The only reason I'm considering this is because there have been times where I wished I captured the memory on video---to remember the movement, sound, and action of that moment.

 

And recently, I've been having these thoughts more often...(I'm in my late-20s and a lot of moments like weddings, kids growing up, parents getting older, etc... seem to fit better on video).

 

Obviously the best solution would be to do both, but I feel that juggling these two would make me focus on "capturing the memory" instead of actually experiencing it!

JJ, I know just what you mean. There are occasions when I'm so busy multitasking at events that it all seemed

like a blur, until I pull up the pictures and videos that lets me to relive the experience in a different way,

but more importantly, it lets others to reinforce their memories and experiences. <br><br>

The part of photography and videography that I do for myself, I do alone as personal projects. For group and

family events, I do it solely for the benefit and enjoyment of others. Yes, I may miss the experience to some

degree, but it's more than made up by the joy and repeated viewing of my work by others. It's worth the effort.

<br><br>

New cameras also make the job much easier, such as the new <a

href="http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/High_Speed_EXILIM/EX-FH20/" >Casio EX-FH20</a> capable of HD video,

40 frames per second full resolution photos, and high speed video up to 1,000 frames per second at an affordable

price. Memories fade over time, and years from now, all you have remaining will be photos and videos. It's a lot

of work, but I find inspiration from occasional visits to <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=614297"

>Gene M.'s </a> page on <a href="http://westfordcomp.com/updated/found.htm" >Found Camera and Lost Film</a>.

<p>In my short experience it looks like video of the photos itself catch much more attention that the photos, than we can drag the viewer to come and see full photos. Maybe. Posted short 1 min video on Facebook, got 1000 views in 3 hours where average album post gets 300</p>

<p>The web has evolved significantly since this thread began in 2008. Almost every digital camera now features at least some video capability. Smart phones with video dominate the market. Not only have micro videos become popular on social networking, but animated GIFs have seen an unexpected revival and are even featured on mainstream news sites.</p>

<p>None of which is a threat to still photography, which seems to remain as popular a niche form of communication as ever.</p>

<p>Video is by far the most efficient way to deliver content whether it's a 60 minute documentary or a 6 second Vine clip. I don't even know how you'd substitute a 6 second Vine clip with words and photos to achieve the same objective. </p>

<p>By my observation, it's also becoming the preferred method of consuming content, and probably for good reason. Hundreds of of still photos of the military cargo plane crash in Afghanistan can't reveal as much as the 10 second video of its climb and crash, and that's because photos and printed words are incomplete and always subject to interpretation whereas videos just show the facts. </p>