Now I have a couple years videography under my belt, but sometimes business gets a little slow. I have shot music videos, commercials, talent shows, conferences, etc...I decided to try my hand at photography on my off time. Since January I have been picking up photoshoots here and there. And I've actually grown much tighter to photography than originally expected. It truly is a different (though not quite as challenging) world. One thing that I can say is that stills posses their own science verses the moving image.

Since beginning photography, I have built my own studio (rather, converted my editing suite into a photography studio) and things turned out quite nice. But let me get to the point. When I go out to shoot a video, I have to load up my wide-angle, glidecam, letus, shoulder mount, tripod...I'm sure you see where this is going. Even when I just go out to shoot for fun, I still take at least my tripod and camera...and camera mounted light. But man, when I go out for a photoshoot, lights camera action! Just grab my 2lb camera, maybe an extra lens and flash...and I'm ready to work! Takes less than 5min to load up as opposed to 10 minutes of sweat and tears. Yes, I understand that the more involved the shoots become, the more equipment will start to build up. But for standard gigs, I'm pretty much set! And usually Photographers get just as much, if not more $$ than us video guys!

I go out and shoot a lot for fun, hey it's what I love to do. And sometimes when an event comes that I would usually catch footy of, I think to myself, "maybe I'll just get some great stills." I don't know if this makes me lazy, but man sometimes I don't feel like lugging my 6lb camcorder around. It's so much easier to strap a DSLR around my neck. This has only happened once so far. But I must admit it makes me feel kind of lazy, hehe. I still enjoy video more and love the fun, and the limitless creativity. Just thought I would share!!!

JS

Famous wedding quote: Videographer to Photographer "You shoot about one image per second, I shoot 30."

I don't know if I'd say it made me lazy, but it sure messed up my ability to concentrate on getting continuously good video footage.

I went from concentrating on capturing footage over a period of time with few screw ups in smooth zooming and panning in video to just trying to get a compelling shot in photography. I took more chances with photography because I was just looking for the great shot and could throw the bad ones out. The pro cameras are very good now. It's more about picking the best shot of what you got IMO than difficulty in getting good shots.

I'm having a hard time going back to concentrating on getting continuous good quality (relatively speaking) in my videoing now. I can't even get back to where I was, let alone improve.

I do both and you really have to "flip the switch" so to speak.

Video is fluid, photography is about capturing a moment.

I like them both and studying photography will make you a better videographer.

Video folks tend to lean towards a 'point the camera at it' mentality.

After learning more about still photography I think more about composition, background, subject posture, lens choice, DOF and even more about lighting.

Apply all of that to video and you have motion photography which is where we want to be.

I took more chances with photography...

that's the gold! Taking chances!

I'm having a hard time going back to concentrating on getting continuous good quality (relatively speaking) in my videoing now. I can't even get back to where I was, let alone improve.
Well that's the good thing about sticking to both when feasible...which leads to what Tim says...

I like them both and studying photography will make you a better videographer.


And that's the key. Learning and applying. Definitely a more serious statement compared to my sort of silly approach above. But yes photography is about composition, and so is video...but with the addition of motion. This leads to a whole new dimension (or rather the one that was there all along!) This is why my heart is in video, but shooting stills definitely broadens your knowledge, and helps respect each as a profession.

JS

I do both and you really have to "flip the switch" so to speak.

Video is fluid, photography is about capturing a moment.

I like them both and studying photography will make you a better videographer.

Video folks tend to lean towards a 'point the camera at it' mentality.

After learning more about still photography I think more about composition, background, subject posture, lens choice, DOF and even more about lighting.

Apply all of that to video and you have motion photography which is where we want to be.

This is a nice concise statement. The last sentence is certainly where I would love to be. Studying and learning about photography did help my video skills in the ways you mention. But I'm still a better photographer than videographer in my knowledge and technical ability. It's also the fluid part of capturing video I now have problems with more than I used to when I had a "point and shoot" mentality.

That said, I feel I have more vision and imagination in video whereas I sometimes feel like kind of a hack at photography now. I'm good at capturing action shots where I can anticipate what might happen and get a unique shot others might miss. Sometimes I can capture emotion in subjects really well. Otherwise, my photography can't compare with the unbelievable wave of talent that has emerged since digital has allowed so many new people to become involved.

I often wonder if my quest to gain technical knowledge in photography, along with the need to capture pictures that would actually sell, has squelched my creativity. I lag behind in technical knowledge about video but still feel more creative than in photography. I know the good people can do both. Maybe just not me. Seeing all of the beautiful pics and video on the internet and other places, I'm humbled to the extreme in both areas every day.

Sorry, this wasn't really what the thread was about. Just some ramblings before my second cup of coffee.

Does photography make you lazy? If all your talking about is taking snapshots, then yes.

High end or low end? Are you aspiring to be a professional photographer or a hack? Good photographers usually work non-stop and are as busy as I am (I am a videographer) while on the job. For weddings they usually spend more of the wedding day working than I do as they start earlier often times.

I was talking to one of my photographer friends who assured me it would be well over a year of learning before I would be ready to shoot a wedding and then my results would still be pretty basic.

If all you're taking is snapshots, yes I could see how you would get lazy. A 5 year old can turn a camera on and set it to auto or program mode and take snapshots. That type of photography is not of interest to me. Unfortunately I see much of it from so-called professionals, who are really part-timers who simply call themselves professional.

On the other hand, I have spent a couple of months playing with my Canon 40D and still am not even close to ready for paying gigs of any sort. There is a local class here that costs $1K and I'm not even ready for that class.

John if you puchased a camera recently as you say, and have already taken paying gigs, wow, I'm not sure what to say.

My video customers often give me their DVD of wedding photos from their photographer and while most of them are quite good, the bad ones are scary. The $500 to $1500 price range is where the hacks reside, though there are always exceptions. There are some talented photogs in the lower end, but very few.

As a videographer aspiring to do stills I watch the photographers closely.

The better (read more expensive) photographers work non-stop, rarely getting a chance to breathe. The low-end photographers often stand around and do nothing when they should be working.

The better photographers often have two cameras hanging from there neck, and a third one for back up.

John, the very first thing a professional photographer will tell is that you must have a back up camera and lenses.

Any videographer who does not understand basic composition is likely a hack. Any videographer who moves into photography and only then discovers the basics of good composition is likely on the low end of the pay scale, and at that end of the spectrum you can always find people who will only pay a few hundred dollars for some snapshots.

High-quality photography is demanding, expensive and requires constant education.

If you're looking to capture images like these:
StephCarson …my life as a photographer… (http://www.stephcarson.com/blog1/)

you need to take classes or work for someone.

If you are satisfied with taking snapshots than what does it matter?

...Video folks tend to lean towards a 'point the camera at it' mentality....

Can't really let that go without comment, Tim!

For me, the overriding difference between photography and videography are the TWO additional dimensions (that even the best photographers in the world never even think about):

(1) time (i.e. movement) - the development of a clip, the movement of the subjects in a frame, the re-framing, the grouping and breaking of compositions, the revelation and metamorphosis of a flowing image, etc., and how successive clips will work together, and

(2) sound - and how it contributes or adds to what is being recorded.

When I work with photographers (whom I greatly respect) I often reflect on how they are BLIND to both these aspects (and in discussions with them: they agree!)

Those "video folks" who just "point a camera at it" aren't exactly masters of their art, eh, Tim?

I am coming to video from photography; i.e., I started with stills but my job prompted me to learn video as well. My heavy background in still capture has significantly coloured my video work, as many of you have already mentioned. I think in terms of static shots with fixed cameras, and I have difficulty remembering to check my sound levels. Photography has given me a great foundation in focal lengths, perspective, depth of field, lighting, and composition, but I have a long ways yet to go in my endeavour to learn sound, pacing and timing, and moving camera techniques.

Great thread here.

No, the folks that just point any type of camera at a subject are not masters of their art, but that was not really my point.

Video has so many other technical things going on that it is easy to push the photography side down the on the totem pole. Maybe the statement was overly broad, but it comes from my experience of whom I have met and seen along the way.

As somebody who does both, video takes way more to deliver the goods than photography does.

It is easy to to get wrapped up in the formats, editing setup & equipment, camera settings, sound, support, teleprompters etc...

I know when I am shooting video my thoughts have a way more technical slant than when I am shooting stills. There is just less to keep track of with photography and I am including studio shoots with 5-point lighting.

I am constanly trying to capture the creative thinking mode that I am in when shooting stills and try to get past all of the tech stuff in video and get to the same place.

But with HD, that can of worms is quite large!

As somebody who does both, video takes way more to deliver the goods than photography does.

<smile>

I abandoned photography for movies way back. Post shoot (I was a medium format guy), I enjoyed the immediacy of video compared to the messy, smelly, technically fiddly job of processing film - although I did enjoy printing. Albeit using resin coated multigrade rather than standard bromide. And don't get me started about mounting wretched slides.

Ooooh-err, it's all coming back now. The Polariods. The couriers. Joes Basement. That horrible, horrible E6 processor in the toilet, usually waiting for it to warm up at 3:00 AM. Nurse! Nurse!

Good point. I guess the statement only applies to Digital Photography.

And the statement does not refer to talent etc...

Video is fluid, photography is about capturing a moment.
I respectfully disagree. Both are story telling. One through moving images and sound. Second through capturing this important and outstanding/decisive moment. But both are about telling the story.


After learning more about still photography I think more about composition, background, subject posture, lens choice, DOF and even more about lighting.

Tools of the craft.

Sounds like we are in agreement to me...

Both are about story telling, true, but I believe my quote has been taken out of context a bit.

I was speaking more to the process not the goal.

I have started doing both, and find the stress of photography way higher than video.
I did find that being able to go out with only ONE bag as opposed to several for video was quite liberating.
I think part of the reason for the stress was that I have been able to work with some of the better photographers in my area, so I am not comparing myself to other hacks, but to the real pros. Another thing is that with video you are not directing the show, so to speak (and if you are, I would argue that you are not a good wedding videographer, but thats for another post!) The photographer has the traditional role of direction a lot of the action. As a videographer I could sit back and wait for the photographer to take the lead.
I did a wedding a few weeks ago where they did not hire a photographer. There were literally people with cell phones taking pictures. It was very chaotic and a difficult atmosphere to work in. A good photographer makes my life much easier. I have only done stills at a few weddings, but I will know that I have arrived when I am the lead photographer and there is a videographer following me around waiting for the action.

Well said Mark.

High-quality photography is demanding, expensive and requires constant education.

If you're looking to capture images like these:
StephCarson …my life as a photographer… (http://www.stephcarson.com/blog1/)


A very telling difference between photo and video is encompassed in this small bit of copy on this website right under a series of photos of a bride.

Here are a few of the other tried and true lighting techniques I also used. This session with the bride took less than 5 minutes from start to finish.

The images he's referring to are varied and each looks unique. To do the same thing with video would have easily taken me three times as long.

But do you do the same things with video? I don't. You might. I allow the photographer to direct things, and I simply piggy back off of his/her work, jumping in to get a shot or two here or there as I need. Rarely do I get time with a bride as the photographer gets. If you shoot high end video Ethan (I don't I shoot in the $1500 range) you might spend more time with your clients than I do.

I can only say I shoot about 40-50 weddings per year with video and I've just put together my first photography kit. My first shoot is Sunday.

The learning curve with photography is unbelievable. Do you use zoom lenses or primes? Flash or no? Boucer or diffuser or card?

The five minutes spent by a photographer getting great shots are crammed with directing the client, changing lenses, adjusting flash, etc..

No debate here, it is really apples to oranges, IMO.

Also, I can miss some things at a wedding. For example it has happened where I was forced to miss the guys or even the girls getting ready before the ceremony, but with photography there is no choice, you must get it all.

Photographers often have worked hours before I even show up.

At any rate, we can all agree that neither video or photography done well is easy!

Jeff - I'm the video guy who shows up hours before the photographers. To do good work with video just takes longer so I tend to suck it up and show up a few hours earlier than the photog. I wish I was getting paid high end prices but sadly this isn't the case. My average booking is around $2000 or so.

When I said it would take me 3 times as long I'm referring to directing the girl, coming up with some sort of movement she can do and having her do it right, move right and look in the right spot while I flub the stedicam shot a couple times or bobble the move on the tripod at the end have have to re-do it and this is without having the added bonus of being able to have lights like the photographer. They can set up the shot, move a flash in the right spot, direct and shoot in seconds. If I were to try the same thing with proper lighting forget it, 10-30 minutes a shot easy.

My wife and I have been playing with photo lately and have been building up some gear with the thought of maybe making a run at paid photo gigs in the next year if we can get up to speed with it. I'm interested to hear what gear you've gone with. We went Nikon since we already had some stuff from our old D70. We've gotten some lenses and flashes and a D90 body in the last 6 months or so.

I'd love to go 5D but that would require a whole different set of lenses, flashes and whatnot. Being the cheapskate I am I guess I'm locked into Nikon for the time being. I'm still hoping for a Nikon answer to the 5D. Please.

I'm shooting with a Canon 40D (small frame) and I'm using two nice primes (30 f/1.4 & 85 f/1.8) and a crappy 70-135 f/3.5 zoom lens. I've yet to order the 70-200 that seems to be a standard lens for virtually all photographers. It costs about $2K and I just don't have the funds yet, but then I don't plan on shooting another event after sunday for a long time.

I will run use a second camera but haven't chosen one yet, probably a 1D, but that is a long way off a this point.

I don't start as early as you do unless my brides get the $2195 package which I sell very little of. I offer it only as a marketing tool. I actually don't like selling it, most of my brides choose the $1495 or $1795 for 7 or 8 hours, that's all I like to shoot because I hate editing 12-15 hours of footage. Been there done that, hated it.

Man I have been missing out!! Great discussion in this thread, I'm going to try and catch up.

Are you aspiring to be a professional photographer or a hack?

Aspiring Professional! Wasn't the original plan, but it seems anything I do, I do it full speed. So naturally this is what happened when I discovered the beauty of the still image.


I was talking to one of my photographer friends who assured me it would be well over a year of learning before I would be ready to shoot a wedding and then my results would still be pretty basic.


Well that really depends on level of exposure, and natural calling, right?


If all you're taking is snapshots...Unfortunately I see much of it from so-called professionals, who are really part-timers who simply call themselves professional.

Unfortunately I have seen that to. This is bad for Photographers as a whole, but good for those of us that learn from other's mistakes.


John if you puchased a camera recently as you say, and have already taken paying gigs, wow, I'm not sure what to say.


Well I was taking snapshots for about a year...then purchase my DSLR back in December 08. I've had maybe 25% of my gigs paid. So far I have had great feedback. Even when I don't charge, people still offer me money. I don't believe I am Derek Blanks, but then again I don't get Derek Blanks $$. I get maybe 25% of what a "professional" would get.


John, the very first thing a professional photographer will tell is that you must have a back up camera and lenses.


100% true. I am slowly building my kit.


Any videographer who moves into photography and only then discovers the basics of good composition is likely on the low end of the pay scale


That's where I am, the low-end (experience wise). But the overall goal is to have happy clients, right?


If you're looking to capture images like these:
StephCarson …my life as a photographer… (http://www.stephcarson.com/blog1/)

you need to take classes or work for someone.


What's better than field experience? This is why so many people start off doing free gigs. To develop a strong portolio.

JS

Video has so many other technical things going on that it is easy to push the photography side down the on the totem pole.

I know this post was directed elswhere, but just wanted to mention that even though I believe Video is a more developed skill, I would never "push it [photography] down the totem pole." I have a great deal of respect for Photographers. Even more so that I now have a little experience.


There is just less to keep track of with photography...

yep, that pretty much sums it up.

I think the important thing is going in with a plan. Are you going in with an artistic approach? Documentary? etc...? I believe if you go in knowing exactly what needs to be done, ie. will I be focusing manually, which preset, any preset? then it's much easier when in the field. Of course you need to be familiar with the tools you use, or the technical aspect will limit you greatly.

JS

Are you going primes or zooms or both John?

...but I will know that I have arrived when I am the lead photographer and there is a videographer following me around waiting for the action.

Lol does he get is own leash and water bowl?

Only kidding...somewhat. But staying in context, it is (usually) the Videographer's job to stay out of sight right? To duck off in the background, catching all the good stuff...all the memories...telling the story. Sure sometimes we walk around with steadicams, but that's big bucks anyway and should be expected at a big budget wedding. Kind of adds to the moment if you ask me. Everyone expects to see a Photograher waltzing around. But Video is still less common for weddings. You're right, we are not there to direct (unless it's that music video/wedding post from a couple weeks ago...hmmm, where is that link).

JS

Are you going primes or zooms or both John?

right now I have a 50mm prime, and 18-55mm zoom. Would like to have more but I'm saving for the L glass I hear everyone raving about. Eventually I plan to have all primes, and one nice zoom.

BTW haven't had a chance to check out that link yet.

At any rate, we can all agree that neither video or photography done well is easy!

I'm with you on that Jeff. The thing you have to remember is that you are not there to enjoy the event, but to capture the event. I am just now getting to that point, and I've been doing video for 2+ years. These days I find myself at an event, and I won't even remember what happened...but I will get some great footage!

BTW congrats on 50 weddings a year, I'm workin on it!

JS

I used to shoot wedding stills on 35mm film back in the old days, plus "art" photography for many decades before moving to video about two years back. I continue to do still photography, but digital these days.

What I found when moving to video was that my decades (yes, DECADES) of still photography gave me a leg up on the other videographers. First off, I knew how the eye would perceive a photographed or video image versus real life, and how to properly compose a shot for the correct look. Secondly, I knew about backgrounds, and how they can destroy or enhance the mood of the shot you want. Thirdly, I also knew about the pitfalls of using existing light, and how to work through and around issues like strong backlight and wide lighting ranges.

Probably the most important thing I learned from still photography (especially with film) is to be economical with my shots. This came from realizing that every time I pressed the shutter (with film), I was tossing anywhere from a dollar (for slides) to four dollars (for prints) into the wind. Even in digital, where theoretically the only cost is a few cents worth of electricity per hundred images, I tend to plan out the shots in my head before releasing the shutter or pressing the record button. I'm probably the only digital SLR photographer that carries (and uses) a Pentax Spotmeter V and a Sekonic L exposure meter.

What I didn't learn from still photography was proper pans and zooms. I knew about sound, but that's because I did sound work aside from still photography.

I don't do the wedding videographer thing, even though I've been asked to on several occasions. Part of it is a control issue -- you just can't be sure what's going to happen and be in proper position to get the shot. I like scripted work. The second part is the emotional aspect of the event: you just can't expect the client to behave rationally concerning their wedding. Even the most rational brides, grooms, and mothers of B&G's tend to go loco somewhere at the event. I had a mother of the bride whom I've known for years go on full meltdown mode and start yelling at me because I had the nerve to take a short bathroom break about ten minutes before the ceremony. Photographers can cover certain lapses by reshooting, while the video can't in most circumstances.

The videographer's burden has been covered in the previous posts -- tons of gear, the fact that the event has to be covered continuously, has to include decent sound, plus the videographer has to be invisible at the event. Throw in the post-production requirements, and it just isn't worth the money for me to mess with it. Aside from arranging the albums and taking print orders, the photographer's job is finished when the limo pulls away from the curb.

Short answer: still photographers make better videographers. Videographers going still for the first time suddenly realize that video's a cast iron pain in the butt.

Martin

All my experience has been in photojournalism, (primarily as a war/conflict photographer) and I find this an interesting thread because I've been concerned that shooting VIDEO is making me more lazy. With the video cam in hand, I have a tendency to just "let it run" to capture what I need instead of composing, and waiting for the moment. And since, I'm either locked down on a tripod or encumbered with using a shoulder mount, mics, etc., I'm less likely to work all the angles I normally would with a still camera. Maybe it's just part of the learning curve, but I also feel I'm distracted from my subjects because so much concentration is giving over to the technical aspects of videography. With my still camera, I was more capable of maintaining focus on my subjects and their stories, and the camera work just came...naturally. Maybe as I get more practice with video, the camera will just "get out of the way," as it does in my still photography, but there seems to be a lot more to think about than the still days where my only technical concerns were aperture, shutter speed, iso & focal length.

I started with black and white still photography and came to video only later. I like them both, but for different reasons.

Every once in a while, when I'm feeling creatively blocked with video, I dust off my old Pentax K-1000, slap a 28mm lens on it, and shoot a roll of Plus-X. It's a nice break. I don't have to worry about color balance, audio levels, smooth panning technique, frame rate, or making sure I capture all the action. I can really focus on composition, lighting, framing, selective focus and depth-of-field. It's a good refresher that I find carries over to, and improves, my video work. Plus, it feels like a good discipline to shoot without immediate feedback and have to wait for the film to get back from the lab.

On the other hand, I feel much more comfortable approaching someone in a crowd with a video camera and asking them for an interview. When I did candid street photography, I always felt a bit sneaky, like I was spying on people or something. With a video camera, I can give people an opportunity to visibly consent to the interview, explain themselves, tell their own story and put themselves into context... basically just to have a conversation.

One of the things I am looking forward to with the new crop of video-capable DSLRs is to combine both of these aspects, so I don't have to pick which one I'm doing that day. That, and the opportunity to re-use some of my old favorite manual-focus SLR lenses.