Photographer or Videographer?

Richard Alvarez · May 26th, 2003, 10:49 AM

I'd just like to point out that the title in Filmmaking is still;

"Director of Photography"

He's the DP whether he's shooting 35, 16, HD or whatever.

Steven Digges · May 26th, 2003, 08:12 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : I find video easier to shoot than pictures, however, there's always room for improvement (video and stills). Video is more forgiving I think, plus a lot of its magic is done on a computer. -->>>

Steve - Very true – video is easier to shoot than stills. Motion hides mistakes. The motion also cases the brain to keep moving on to what comes next, no one is lingering on a single shot.

<<<-- Originally posted by Akos Szemenyei : From what I have seen and experienced so far, if the person has photography background they have a really hard time to stop thinking in a "single frame" way.

What I mean is that they set up the camera, compose a great slick looking frame and then let the action play out in front of lens, but moving the camera and actually use it, is a rarity. Of course there are people who can do both without a problem.

Steve – I have to disagree. For a still photographer to learn moving camera shots he is just adding arrows to his quiver. It is a new skill that can flow from the experience one already has.

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Forman : There are similarities between photography and video. You need to use framing, composition, and lighting to enhance your subject. As a photographer, you learn exposure, and what it does to the image you capture, just like the videographer. But, that is where it ends.

Steve – All photography encompasses much more than framing, composition and lighting.

<<<-- Originally posted by Richard Alvarez : I'd just like to point out that the title in Filmmaking is still;

"Director of Photography"

He's the DP whether he's shooting 35, 16, HD or whatever. -->>>

Steve – I wish I could be that succinct.

It is true that still shooters command a higher rate, why – because it is harder to do. A single frame that tells a dramatic story is harder to create. You are all video shooters, how many still photographers can you name from memory. The average person that reads People or watches TV can usualy name a few. How many DPs can you name. Most people don’t even now what a DP is. Food for thought, maybe we need to put more photography into video? I am not knocking video - I am a video shooter. Thank you to all who responded, I am enjoying this.

Steve

Akos Szemenyei · May 26th, 2003, 08:25 PM

Richard, it's so true, on the other hand if you are a DP you are a director as well not just a photographer.

Steve, I agree that it's just adding "arrows" to the still shots, the thing is that most people don't.

Garret Ambrosio · June 11th, 2003, 02:30 PM

I think you guys may have forgotten one more important aspect to videography vs photography. Not only do you have to frame and compse at 30 fps, but you will also have to worry about audio. The make it or break it part of a good production (IMO) , as I was once told my camera is a sound recorder that happens to record moving pictures.

Gary Chavez · June 12th, 2003, 10:33 AM

i learned the hard way that networks demand great audio and great pictures but will take poor pictures as long as the audio is good and rarely the other way around. unless its a huge spot news story with no chance of re-shooting the video.

over on b-roll.net they are having a discussion about what to call TV news photogs: cameramen, photo-journalist or photographers.
i always answered to any of them.

Yow Cheong Hoe · June 12th, 2003, 08:04 PM

I learn that photographers have minimal post-production as most labs today are capable of good photo prints will minimal human interaction. On the other hand, videographers spend more time in post-production, which is where the 'magic' of video is realised.

Having a photography background will help the videographer with framing, but sound, motion and video effects are certainly additional concerns.

For example, the starlight (cross) filter is used in still photography to get starlight from spotlights or candles. In video, I can rotate the filter to rotate the cross, certainly an interesting effect! :-)

In still photography, to capture wide landscape, I stand far back and use wide angle lenses, but in video, a pan is as good.

What I find strange is that in still photography, you have features to capture 'motion' like multi-burst exposure. And on video, you have a 'still' feature... hahaha.

Dan Uneken · June 14th, 2003, 06:57 AM

I have started out as a stills photographer and thought it was a piece of cake taking up a video camera, thinking (as one videographer said to me) moving the camera is just making a smooth move from one great still image to the next.

It is not like that at all! First of all: keeping focus, exposure, zoom and framing in optimum condition during a shot required ages of practise (and expensive equipment). Then, indeed, being a stills photographer has conditioned me in an adverse way with regards to camera movement. The impact of changing the subject / background relation by moving the camera during the shot, the infinite increase of possibilities of shooting a scene in video compared to stills is staggering and more than once I have been frozen into indecision by it.
A challenge indeed!

May 26th, 2003, 08:12 PM	#17
Steven Digges Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,828	<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : I find video easier to shoot than pictures, however, there's always room for improvement (video and stills). Video is more forgiving I think, plus a lot of its magic is done on a computer. -->>> Steve - Very true – video is easier to shoot than stills. Motion hides mistakes. The motion also cases the brain to keep moving on to what comes next, no one is lingering on a single shot. <<<-- Originally posted by Akos Szemenyei : From what I have seen and experienced so far, if the person has photography background they have a really hard time to stop thinking in a "single frame" way. What I mean is that they set up the camera, compose a great slick looking frame and then let the action play out in front of lens, but moving the camera and actually use it, is a rarity. Of course there are people who can do both without a problem. Steve – I have to disagree. For a still photographer to learn moving camera shots he is just adding arrows to his quiver. It is a new skill that can flow from the experience one already has. <<<-- Originally posted by Keith Forman : There are similarities between photography and video. You need to use framing, composition, and lighting to enhance your subject. As a photographer, you learn exposure, and what it does to the image you capture, just like the videographer. But, that is where it ends. Steve – All photography encompasses much more than framing, composition and lighting. <<<-- Originally posted by Richard Alvarez : I'd just like to point out that the title in Filmmaking is still; "Director of Photography" He's the DP whether he's shooting 35, 16, HD or whatever. -->>> Steve – I wish I could be that succinct. It is true that still shooters command a higher rate, why – because it is harder to do. A single frame that tells a dramatic story is harder to create. You are all video shooters, how many still photographers can you name from memory. The average person that reads People or watches TV can usualy name a few. How many DPs can you name. Most people don’t even now what a DP is. Food for thought, maybe we need to put more photography into video? I am not knocking video - I am a video shooter. Thank you to all who responded, I am enjoying this. Steve __________________ www.CorporateShow.com Been at this so long I'm rounding my years of experience down...not up!

June 11th, 2003, 02:30 PM	#19
Garret Ambrosio Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Vallejo, CA Posts: 263	I think you guys may have forgotten one more important aspect to videography vs photography. Not only do you have to frame and compse at 30 fps, but you will also have to worry about audio. The make it or break it part of a good production (IMO) , as I was once told my camera is a sound recorder that happens to record moving pictures. __________________ "USA Today has come out with a new survey - apparently, three out of every four people make up 75% of the population." -David Letterman

June 12th, 2003, 08:04 PM	#21
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	I learn that photographers have minimal post-production as most labs today are capable of good photo prints will minimal human interaction. On the other hand, videographers spend more time in post-production, which is where the 'magic' of video is realised. Having a photography background will help the videographer with framing, but sound, motion and video effects are certainly additional concerns. For example, the starlight (cross) filter is used in still photography to get starlight from spotlights or candles. In video, I can rotate the filter to rotate the cross, certainly an interesting effect! :-) In still photography, to capture wide landscape, I stand far back and use wide angle lenses, but in video, a pan is as good. What I find strange is that in still photography, you have features to capture 'motion' like multi-burst exposure. And on video, you have a 'still' feature... hahaha. __________________ Cam: Panasonic MX350EN, SOLD my MX8EN Mac: G3 400MHz PowerBook, 256 MB, OS 9 PC: Pentium 4 2800MHz, 512 MB, WindowsXP SW: iMovie, Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, Ulead Video Studio, various little utilities

June 14th, 2003, 06:57 AM	#22
Dan Uneken Major Player Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Andalucia, Spain Posts: 301	I have started out as a stills photographer and thought it was a piece of cake taking up a video camera, thinking (as one videographer said to me) moving the camera is just making a smooth move from one great still image to the next. It is not like that at all! First of all: keeping focus, exposure, zoom and framing in optimum condition during a shot required ages of practise (and expensive equipment). Then, indeed, being a stills photographer has conditioned me in an adverse way with regards to camera movement. The impact of changing the subject / background relation by moving the camera during the shot, the infinite increase of possibilities of shooting a scene in video compared to stills is staggering and more than once I have been frozen into indecision by it. A challenge indeed! __________________ Film & TV locations & production Spain http://www.fotofilmvideo.com/

May 26th, 2003, 10:49 AM	#16
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	I'd just like to point out that the title in Filmmaking is still; "Director of Photography" He's the DP whether he's shooting 35, 16, HD or whatever.

May 26th, 2003, 08:25 PM	#18
Akos Szemenyei Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Saitama, Japan Posts: 111	Richard, it's so true, on the other hand if you are a DP you are a director as well not just a photographer. Steve, I agree that it's just adding "arrows" to the still shots, the thing is that most people don't.

June 12th, 2003, 10:33 AM	#20
Gary Chavez Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Antonio Posts: 355	i learned the hard way that networks demand great audio and great pictures but will take poor pictures as long as the audio is good and rarely the other way around. unless its a huge spot news story with no chance of re-shooting the video. over on b-roll.net they are having a discussion about what to call TV news photogs: cameramen, photo-journalist or photographers. i always answered to any of them.