Maybe it worked in that instance for the subject at hand, and I don't want to take that away from you.
Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel
But honestly, every time I see a still photographer's website and portfolio, and they've uploaded all their photos into some flash animation that just randomly pans and zooms in and out of their images, I instantly close it before my fist goes through my monitor. No. Bad. Ugly. Stop it. If you're a still photographer, show them still. I can't appreciate the detail and the beauty of the photo if it's moving all the time. If I wanted to see movies, I'd go look at a videographer's website. I'll be glad when this fad is over.
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
f/64 and be there.
I think youtube is a exceedingly awesome use for the Internet. To me, it beats Cable/Satellite TV for creativity, innovation, entertainment. I only use my TV for youtube and netflix, and youtube is 10x the creative realm that netflix is.
Recording video well is tougher than stills. Things like sound, holding the camera steady are the basics and harder than most people can handle and still pretty impractical with DSLRs and cell phones. It's easier to use a shoulder mounted VHS camcorder if it weren't for the quality digital video can do.
Like Croubie, I don't watch news videos much either. Annoying ads preceding the videos, disruptive in the workplace, etc.. I can pull up a photo and appreciate that though. Still photos will go away like text or paint or pencil as a medium. Not.
I love this movie!
Originally Posted by ic-racer
Fed 2, 5
Olympus OM-1N, OM-2N, OM-4, OM10
A bunch of Nikons
Done correctly, there are no random pans and zooms; it requires a great deal of planning to have the desired emotional impact. Note too that appropriate music is an important part of the emotional impact.
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
How true, once you introduce movement/sound the computations of getting what you want are a zillion +.
Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Unless it is a long wall!
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
Stills versus movies? Different means to different ends!
Until stop-action still photography was invented no one knew what moving things really looked like. Even the great old painters got breaking waves and galloping horses wrong.
Until long exposure still photography was invented no one knew what a moving image integrated over time looked like. The great landscape painters never painted a waterfall like a flow of cream.
Think of still photographs as physical facts.
Movies are narratives and narratives, at least sometimes, consist of a stream of successive facts.
Last edited by Maris; 06-24-2014 at 07:07 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
THANK YOU !
Originally Posted by Maris
These are two completely different media to me, movies compared to still photography.
I'm working with a filmmaker, who I'll hopefully be providing some stills for...
Part of a discussion we had... I told him I was never able to make movies and he felt he was unable to take stills...
He added... "not to compare myself talentwise at all, but approach wise, I am more of a Tarantino and less of a Kubrick"
So in that spirit I told him... "by the same token I am more an Adams than a Mortensen"...
Not at all. Both still photography and motion pictures are different crafts in many respects. One cannot compare one to the other; they are both unique forms of expression.
Originally Posted by cliveh
For example, consider how in still a single 'fine-art' image can draw many different ideas by the audience/viewers, and how in the motion-picture it is the director's* idea(s) being conveyed directly to the audience.
Now-a-days, all that is different is the ease of use for acquiring digital video upwards of 2K on the consumer/pro-sumer level. In short both will live on even on that day that we have Star Trek-type holodecks.
Last edited by yurisrey; 06-24-2014 at 07:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"The real work was thinking, just thinking." - Charles Chaplin