I have been photographing professionally for over 30 years, I have a photographer friend that constantly tells me video is the future, if I don't move that direction my business will shrink. Today I was at a camera store and I got the same talk from a sales associate there. I have the D4 so I can do video, (although I know the camera is just skimming all that is needed for video) I just have very little interest . I am wondering of the pros here how many have gone to video and how many are staying with stills? Dave

I'm staying with stills for a while longer. At least until I perfect something like this and there are 30x40 digital wall frames to run them in.

https://vimeo.com/11239413

I think it is a buzz word due to the popularity of You Tube. I do some video as promotion because I understand the SEO power of it. Getting clients to do video is a lot more work than photos. Few like to be on camera so they must hire out. Even if they are OK with being recorded talking is a lot more complicated than you might think. It all adds up to higher cost and a lot more time than doing stills.
Stills have a lot more use for a long time to come. My clients want high quality stills.

To go along with jeffries1, the same level of professional quality in video requires a much more extensive effort than it takes in video.

Working alone, I can equal (at least on occasion) the very best work anyone is doing in still portraiture.

To equal the very best work anyone is doing in video requires a crew and a heck of lot more than than a plain DSLR.

A video will never replace a photo.

end of story.

theres just something about a photograph that kind of unites people, video is a completely different animal.

BenV wrote:
A video will never replace a photo.

end of story.

theres just something about a photograph that kind of unites people, video is a completely different animal.

Yes they are two different things, and a photo won't replace a video or film...

This is the Internet, there ain't no "end of story"

For commercial clients, video will be far more important than still. Even the renowned retouching house Box Studios is doing more video work.

https://vimeo.com/37017258

I've tried my best to avoid getting much into the video side for a few reasons...

1) Every time I do anything with video, I find it sucks up an enormous quantity of time, which is already quite limited with what I am already doing in photography

2) It requires the investment in dedicated video equipment and I am already spending WAY too much on photo gear

3) I'm just not that good at it right now, and I don't want to be delivering amateur quality products to my clients

Regardless of all of that, I am still getting sucked into it. I just booked a day-long arts festival shoot and now have to pick up a decent video tripod/head, a stabilizing rigs, extra cards and more. I'm even looking into focusing rigs and external monitors to pull off the focusing. It's for a valuable client that I now have a very solid photo relationship with, so I'm willing to put myself out there for the video. I explained my apprehension to them, but they wanted to move forward anyway. At the end of the day, I'll make it happen and will deliver something decent, but it's a substantial investment in time and new technology that I remain reluctant to make.

My generation grew up on National Geographic, Sports Illustrated and Playboy. My daughters's generation is growing up on YouTube, Vimeo, and multiple other video sites. For her generation, a still photo means the video is buffering.

The pros I know who have even 75% of the work they did ten years ago have it because video now makes up in some cases over 50% of their work. I believe we have to stay ahead of what our clients can do themselves and pro video is just that.

I dunno. I just showed my Net Gen daughter this thread and she disagrees. She's not envisioning her fashion and beauty mags being replaced by YouTube--the image is the thing, not all the time-wasting blather. The intrusion of commercials is especially off-putting.

The Net Generation is very concerned about wasting time getting the information they want, and if you'll notice, there are still a heck of a lot of magazines on the rack in certain categories.

Micky Bill wrote:
BenV wrote:
A video will never replace a photo.

end of story.

theres just something about a photograph that kind of unites people, video is a completely different animal.

Yes they are two different things, and a photo won't replace a video or film...

This is the Internet, there ain't no "end of story"

I sure hope not, I'd hate to go to the movies and pay $20 to see a picture of Avatar.

BenV wrote:
Micky Bill wrote:
BenV wrote:
A video will never replace a photo.

end of story.

theres just something about a photograph that kind of unites people, video is a completely different animal.

Yes they are two different things, and a photo won't replace a video or film...

This is the Internet, there ain't no "end of story"

I sure hope not, I'd hate to go to the movies and pay $20 to see a picture of Avatar.

there are people paying more to enter galleries :-)

but i agree, for weddings video will never replace photo, for simple reason: moments are nicer then reality in average.

Video will definitely help, but it'll never replace a photo. At my newspaper photo department that I string for there are two full time video guys, along with several staff photogs that just do stills, but the director and asst. director of photography say it's definitely a skill to work on for the future.

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

Kittyk wrote:
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.

I do more in video these days than stills.
Much more of a learning curve than you would expect.
Also the cost of good audio equipment to go with your video will easily run you thousands of dollars.

Just like TV didn't kill the radio, video is not going to kill the photograph.

And people are still getting their portraits painted.

Ive been debating with this as well. I go back and forth mostly because it requires investing more time in learning how to do it the "right way" and up to the level I approve up in my mind.

I believe it is definitely a skill to attain/acquire for the future.

Like all of you, I believe in the power of the slices of life. With that said, video takes slices at roughly 24/30 frames a second. There is some power there as well. It is something to be said when some of these high end video cameras are now being used in place of still cameras in order to get "the shot." Just something to think about as well. Nothing new, but again something to think about.

Like all of you, I believe in the power of the slices of life. With that said, video takes slices at roughly 24/30 frames a second. There is some power there as well. It is something to be said when some of these high end video cameras are now being used in place of still cameras in order to get "the shot." Just something to think about as well. Nothing new, but again something to think about.

Even if you use the same hardware, the conceptualization, logistics, and execution of video is completely different from that of capturing a still. You would have to have one in mind or the other to do either justice.

RDKirk wrote:
Like all of you, I believe in the power of the slices of life. With that said, video takes slices at roughly 24/30 frames a second. There is some power there as well. It is something to be said when some of these high end video cameras are now being used in place of still cameras in order to get "the shot." Just something to think about as well. Nothing new, but again something to think about.

Even if you use the same hardware, the conceptualization, logistics, and execution of video is completely different from that of capturing a still. You would have to have one in mind or the other to do either justice.

And that is why I have stayed away from video. I have played around with it but really nothing serious. Here lately, I feel like I need to get a little more serious with it though.