Upload & Sell: Off
We shoot a LOT of video and would say that video will never replace photo, just like photo slide shows can never replace videos. They are not the same thing.
Photographs capture a fractional moment in time and freeze it forever whereas video requires skilful capturing, editing and attention to detail, not just for picture continuity but also for audio too.
Video captures stories, emotions and events in a way that photographs cannot do, and some say they do not want to do. Video is a linear medium where the skill of the editor controls how you view the story, and in what order. Photographs are much more random access, allowing the viewer's eyes to fall where they want, skipping over some, staying for a while on others. Also, audio is more than 50% of video, yet plays no part in photography at all!
We are in some interesting times. Almost everyone now carries a device capable of being used to take both photos and video (the mobile phone!). That being the case, why do they still hire professional photographers and videographers at all?
The difference is not just the quality of the pixels. There is much more to it than that.
To take great video of an event and provide the kind of flowing coverage that people are used to on TV and in the movies requires more than a lone videographer. You need a small crew and a LOT of equipment. I'm not saying lone videographers can't make good films, clearly they can, but at live events with no retakes it does take something extra if you want to be able to provide the full flow of the day.
A single DSLR is not going to be anywhere near enough! Rarely do we need less than 3 cameras, usually more, and rarely do we need less than 3 or 4 audio sources to mix in the the editing stage.
Photography and Video are different disciplines, not just in the shooting but also in the post production. There is nothing about photography that guarantees you'll be a great videographer, and certainly not a great editor. There is nothing about videography that will make you a great photographer. They are different. Yes there are people blurring the lines, but generally you find you lean heavily one way or the other, and I am fine with that
There are also lots of markets for photography that simply don't exists for video, such as family portrait sessions. No one has yet asked me if I'd sit their family down in a studio and take some video so they can watch it on TV
but i agree, for weddings video will never replace photo, for simple reason: moments are nicer then reality in average.
I agree, 'some' moments are nicer than 'some' reality, but while an awesome photograph can be displayed on a wall, in an album, on your desk, in your wallet, they rarely bring people to tears quite as much as watching and hearing the groom place the ring on the bride's finger (read: high quality stable footage with clear audio, not some random cheesy amateur zoom and terrible audio!), the first kiss or the walk out of church as a married couple.
Photographs can be truly awesome, they can be really engaging, they can be fantastic conversation starters and for sure are likely to be viewed more often than a video, simply because you can enjoy conversations and chat about the moments when viewing with friends. Video requires more viewer attention and concentration, but in itself has it's own unique rewards.
To summarise, I would say don't worry about not being on the video bandwagon. If you are good at photography then nothing will be replacing you any time soon. Just like TV didn't kill the radio, video is not going to kill the photograph.