Is Video replacing the Photographer?

[artofheadshots]

What about video? People are more interested in Video, now of days than Headshots? How important is a video presence for a professional business owner vs having a headshot image?<br>

Post your comments, I want to hear from you.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Carlos Taylhardat</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Personally, I don't see it happening. But who knows? </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

These are not mutually exclusive media.

[SCL]

<p>50 years ago 8mm movie cams were quite popular, but never really supplanted still photography.<br>

Maybe this time.</p>

[stp]

<p>It's hard to hang a video on a wall. Even if I could, I'm just walking by and only want to glance; would I now have to stop?</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Most people are more interested in videos than stills. I think that has been the case since a long time...It's just that video is more accessible now.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p>With the web being the primary viewing method for anything, I find video has become very significant given the widespread availability of high speed broadband. It's definitely impacted my commercial business - I used to sell stills of fights to a lot of outlets, but if you can see a video online, why would you look through twenty photos? This is true of a lot of sports.<br>

<br />In addition, I am now asked to shoot both still and video for (non-sports) assignments. Instead, I have to give up half the pay to get someone with a video camera out. Maybe I will pick up a camera with video and learn to shoot it, but for now, it halves my hourly take on assignments.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's hard to hang a video on a wall</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

Well most people I know average 10 new videos a day. They hang a photo on the wall at most once a year.<br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's just that video is more accessible now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

That's it in a nutshell.</p>

[eric friedemann]

Whether Video is replacing the Photographer is uncertain, but we do know that Video Killed the Radio Star:

 

 

[Sanford]

<p>Editors can never have enough photos to chose from. Video is a natural extension of that. Personally, I'm not going down that road but if you are a young person looking to make a living in photojournalism or wedding/event photography, you better learn how to shoot video.</p>

[juro1]

<p>The video is going to replace photography in the same way as movie replaced novels.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>And the same way the still photography replaced painting.</p>

 

[wood]

<p>Video is replacing photography the same way apples are replacing oranges.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

I agree with Juraj, how many people read a novel last year vs. how many movie goers were there? I think still photos are mainly for the photograpers own enjoyment.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>People who are idle, may have the time and patience to watch online videos. I don't know many such people. Most educated people are busy working and they need the information they are looking for in seconds, rather than minutes it takes to watch a video. The idea of the internet is that it's interactive and you get to decide what you see. Video follows a completely different paradigm of feeding the viewer ready-digested content which doesn't leave the viewer the control of the pace at which they view the content. It's great when there is a crew of a thousand people that spend one year of their working lives making the film into a masterpiece to be watched in a theatre - but it's not that great for day-to-day communication of news content etc. The typically available online video content falls so far short of the expectations of quality set by theatrical movies that even a short clip of shaky online footage of some news event is too long. Usually when more time is given by the user to view it, the end result is a sigh and disappointment. I think the produces of the content will also feel the same when they view how many clicks their content got.</p>

<p>Spectacular catastrophes, sports etc. are different as there the nature of the content is very much in line with the medium. But then I don't have time to watch sports, either - the only time I have for sports is when I do it myself, because that's the only type that has any beneficial effects (on the person's health). </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>The video is going to replace photography in the same way as movie replaced novels.</p>

<p>I agree with Juraj, how many people read a novel last year vs. how many movie goers were there?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I teach students aged 10-13, and I can say with certainty that the movie has in no way "replaced" the novel for them; <em>supplemented</em>, yes, but replaced, definitely not. In fact, when children comparatively assess novels next to their movie adaptations (in cases where such adaptaions exist), it's the movies that come up short.</p>

<p>And speaking of adults, my wife and I, along with the majority of our friends, read a lot more than we watch (in fact, most of us don't have TV's, and seldom go to the cinema).</p>

<p>Perhaps Juraj and Charles have abandoned novel reading for movie watching, but to claim that movies have replaced novels is pure hyperbole.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Here's some youtube stats.</p>

<p>Over 3 billion videos are viewed every day. </p>

<p>Over 48 hours of video content is uploaded every minute.</p>

<p>150 years of youtube content is viewed just on Facebook every day.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter who you know or who your friends are, those don't indicate trends.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>I usually just pass over anything that is video for one simple reason: you need to watch it. I would rather just see a picture or series of pictures, or read it when it's textual. Watching is a completely different usage of time than a picture or text are. I control my looking and reading, but with video, you either watch it all or not. It's not skimmable, fast readable, or return-to-able like pictures or text are.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>This wasn't about what people here do, that's irrelevant to the question as I said before. It's about whether it's affecting photographers. A couple people here have no influence on what the public and photography clients consume. And there are some trends there.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>It's hard to hang a video on a wall</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see flatscreens on walls playing video very frequently and gaining in frequency. Some in spots where prints, signs & posters used to "hang". Apparently its not THAT hard.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>People who are idle, may have the time and patience to watch online videos. I don't know many such people. Most educated people are busy working and they need the information they are looking for in seconds, rather than minutes it takes to watch a video.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its curious how you had adequate time to provide an in depth analysis of how educated people don't have adequate time on their hands. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't have time to watch sports, either - the only time I have for sports is when I do it myself, because that's the only type that has any beneficial effects (on the person's health).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its even more curious now. What beneficial effects were derived by the time spent drafting this less than scientific survey of the content reviewing habits of the well educated?</p>

 

[David_Cavan]

<p>Before we declare still photography dead by ignoring it in the statistics about videos, we should consider the internet's impact - over 20million photos uploaded very day - and that's just to Facebook. Both mediums are heavily used. It's not about one over the other.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>If the subject is specifically online, then videos are more important because one can always pull a web size still from the video, however, both stills and videos increased dramatically in our media saturated, obsessed modern society...</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"How important is a video presence for a professional business owner vs having a headshot image?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photographer's opinions may be limited. They may discern trends for this type of usage but they are not necessarily privy to the trends videographers see or those who perform both crafts. They may know only what they do which is only part of the picture.</p>

<p>Perhaps it is best to ask business owners. After all, your question asks what THEY think.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Even though video has been around for some time now, I feel short video production is still in it's infancy in how it's utilized, and consumed. The internet and less expensive equipment are bridging gaps, no doubt. Clients (and the general public) are definitely interested/ fascinated with video, but I often wonder how satisfied they are with what they end up with compared to what they anticipated. (Akin to comparing a hollywood production to a decent home movie). Maybe high end quality doesn't matter all that much in a high consumption, disposable society?<br>

That said, I've always been drawn to the integrated medium, where high impact stills are placed within a video production. How much better would a run of the mill fight video be if it were enhanced with Jeff's very dramatic, peak action stills and story shots? For that matter, any genre of pure video could be enhanced-Weddings, PJ, sports etc etc. While these types of productions might not be feasible for the 30-60 second crowd, there certainly is room ito evolve n the commercial market. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>It doesn't matter who you know or who your friends are, those don't indicate trends.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, Jeff, but your stats indicate nothing unless you compare them to stats on reading. And even then, much of the viewing could be being done by people who wouldn't have read anyway; so the claim that movies have <em>replaced</em> novels would still be unsupported even with comparative stats.</p>