Photographer or Videographer?
 

I have been (and still am) a professional photographer (stills) since 1987. About 7 years ago I added videography to my professional services. To me, I am a photographer no matter what camera I am making pictures with, still or video. This seems to be a bit of a gray area in our business, am I wrong in thinking we are all photographers? I have shot a lot of Beta and all of the Beta shooters I work with consider themselves photographers. The broadcast industry considers us photographers. When I am asked, “how do I become a video guy?” My one line reply is, learn photography. My second line should be “don’t call yourself a video guy, you are a photographer.” Am I wrong?

One more thought to fuel the fire of discussion:

Another observation of mine is that:

1. Technology has made still photography so easy that there are many still photographers charging for there work (pro-ams) and taking good pictures even though they don’t understand much of the technical teachings of the past. Why, because they learned the basics of still photography – how to take a beautiful picture.

2. In video the reverse seems to be true. I never cease to be amazed by the technical ability and knowledge of some video shooters. Sometimes I am just as amazed when the same person that can dazzle with technical knowledge comes back to me and hands me a reel that does not have a descent shot on it. It is devoid of the basics that make up good photography.

Thoughts on this?

Good observations. I think part of that might be due to the fact that it's much simpler to take a photo with the most expensive medium-format camera than it is to shoot a film with an Arri and a tripod. When you're taking a photo, you only have to concentrate on one frame, so people are naturally more attentive to what they're shooting, whereas the goal with a lot of amateur videographers seems to be "keep the subject somewhere in the viewfinder and you'll be fine." It's easy to get lost in the technical knowledge of your video camera and not know anything about shooting.

I think it would be a good idea teaching people photography first before giving them a video camera!

The main thing should be being able to compose without thinking; if your mind can compose a good picture 30 times every second, then you're set!

Alex - I agree about teaching good photography skills first. All of the technical knowledge in the world cannot fix a poorly composed shot. I read a lot here but rarely post because I don't want to sound arrogant or stupid, to be honest. I am usually overwhelmed by the knowledge and professionalism here.

I will offer this advise on the subject:

My video mentor said to me – As a still photographer you had to get one great frame for every shoot. This is video, now you must get 30 great frames a second (I’m still trying).

Steve

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.

I agree having good photography skills will make you a better cinema/videographer. I'm not professional but I consider myself a photographer first.

Having had this discussion before, I submit this to you, for debate:

It's all photography ... until you start learning how to use camera movement in your movies/videos effectively, then it becomes cinema/videography.

My reasoning is that up until you start moving the video camera it's all about composition - which is basically photography. It's only when you start moving the camera itself (crane/dolly, pans, pull focus etc) that you really start using the language of the cinema/video.

watcha think?

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.

Frank, sorry, I have to disagree with you on this one. It's not easier at all, to shoot great looking footage with a video/film camera since you have movement in it, and you have to light and/or compose for a full range of images. Also what you can do in post production is saving bad footage but not make it good or great. If you want real magic, you have to plan for it before shooting.

>If you want real magic, you have to plan for it before shooting.<

I couldn't agree with you more. However, sometimes near perfect planning is impossible. That's when one's skill and experience take over. The important thing is to trust oneself. If that fails, take it as a learning experience. Remember that bad portions can be cut out or fixed in post. What I do, is just cut them out.

Frank, I looked at from a narrative film perspective, then it's not as easy, but if you do other than that, then I agree with you.

<<<-- Originally posted by Akos Szemenyei :
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. -->>>

And some people do this as a carefully thought shooting style opposed to the fast and meaninglessly moving videography of today. Used together with a calm edit and long takes it might work like a charm.

I recall Shyamalan's "Signs" being shot at least a bit like this.

Jami, of course if you choose that style, and fits the movie or whatever, you can and should use it. I'm just talking about that no matter whether it fits the movie, music video, commercial or not, they tend to choose a more static approach, and forget even to pan or tilt the camera even though it looks "strange" without it.

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.

As already stated, a photgrapher is only interested in the one fraction of a second, when he captures that frame. A videographer has much more to deal with, as his subjects are in motion, and there is also sound to combine with what he is capturing. So no, they are not the same.

But what if you do both? What do you call yourself? How about "Artistic Imaging Consultant"?

"But what if you do both? What do you call yourself? How about "Artistic Imaging Consultant"

When you do both, you call yourself "Herb Ritts." Herb was a great fashion photographer of celebrities, and you have probably seen his work in books, Rolling Stone, fashion magazines, just about everywhere, including museum shows. He was incredibly well respected.

Herb Ritts also became a music video director as a natural adjunct from his still photography. He created stunning videos that were marked with gorgeous people, be they subjects like Janet Jackson or Madonna, or the fabulous "characters" that peopled the videos. I'm especially thinking of an early JJ video he did that featured a very tall sinuous, black male on the beach. That should be enough description to call it to mind.

Herb also did a video with Janet and Michael Jackson together, and they never looked better. That was his trademark; making people look good. And to that end, what Herb Ritts understood was, that its all about the light.

Herb Ritts was a major talent, and a nice human being, who will be sorely missed. You can find books by Herb Ritts at all good book stores. And if we are lucky, maybe one day they will release, "The Herb Ritts Collection" on video.

but what about Pornographers? *grinz*

I do both still photography and video. They are equally challenging and rewarding. But different in so many ways. The advantage to video is that the images and sound acquired on tape can be mixed in post to produce something of value (in most cases). The entire production doesn't have to be perfect to a "T".

Still film, on the other hand, requires that the photographer capture that slice in time and do it perfectly. If the shot is poorly composed, out of focus, or exposed improperly there isn't much you can do. Digital helps a little but each image must stand on it's own and be judged that way. Imagine what it would be like if each frame of video had to be perfect and no "fix it in post."

1. i agree... the differecnce however is taht post produciton work is probably 10% less than the video producer..
on top of that, clients are a lil more strict when it comes to video as its not as accepted as Still Photography...
Weddings for example.... video is waht actaulyl captures the activities of teh day, hwoever many people dont see it thsi way, as their conceptions of "video" is more akin to home video...
and finally, still photographers can charge exhuberant amounts of money while "videographers" can only stick within a certain bracket, else they lose teh client...
even though teh video producer is actualy doin ALOT more work and uses many more tools than the still photographer in the end the video producer misses out due to public acceptance...

One way to be accepted, is to have good footage and good editing. Having an IDEA of teh fundamentals of lighting, imagery, and production are of the utmost importance...


2. In video the reverse seems to be true. I never cease to be amazed by the technical ability and knowledge of some video shooters. Sometimes I am just as amazed when the same person that can dazzle with technical knowledge comes back to me and hands me a reel that does not have a descent shot on it. It is devoid of the basics that make up good photography.

((I totally agree.. i have had many potential clients shy away from my services as they beleive that by going to a big name Videographer with a big ugly camera would get them better results.. the end results however are far from impressive and they end up coming back requesting that i "re-do" their video.
its one thing to have tool, its another thing knowing how to use them.
Im afraid not many people do...

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.

<<<-- 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!