(Updated: corrected some layout errors; and a clarification - this isn't "new" to the world of photography. A/V is what it's been known as in the past (multi-media is just a catchy phrase used by suits and others who want to to appear trendy and cutting edge) but it is new to me. It's also, despite it's trendy title, still rare in local media...)
Apologies for the blog posts being very thin on the ground over the last few weeks. I know that all seven of you ;-) miss these words of wisdom (!!) but I tend to write if I have something to write about, rather than thinking “I must post” and looking for a subject. Perhaps that needs to change.
Apologies for the blog posts being very thin on the ground over the last few weeks. I know that all seven of you ;-) miss these words of wisdom (!!) but I tend to write if I have something to write about, rather than thinking “I must post” and looking for a subject. Perhaps that needs to change.
However, here’s a little something that’s been bubbling under for a while...
Those of us in the photographic section of the media know that there’s been much talk about the growth of video and other media in our job specifications. A growing on-line presence - necessary because of the decline in newsprint itself - means that the Powers That Be have latched onto the moving image because of the web’s ability to play such things.
There is evidence about which shows that things aren’t as simple as “shoot a video, people will watch it”, and I speak from personal experience when I say that I’m not a big web news-video watcher. It needs to be REALLY, REALLY eyecatching or a big story to make me hit “play”. It seems that still images can be assimilated quickly whereas, even with short video clips, the viewer is at the mercy of the shooter/editor for the length of time they must watch to get the gist of the information.
And of course, there are the local issues, such as how are the huge files generated by video actually sent around (if you don’t have one of the TV companies’ satellite vans), who is putting these together, who is posting them and who, given the local snapper is frequently covering many jobs a day, is actually shooting the footage? I personally believe that if I’m shooting video, I’m missing out on stills and vice-versa when my days are so busy. You end up covering neither base in a satisfactory manner.
I’m also not sure every stills photographer is a cinematographer, and every movie cameraman a stills snapper either - there are some similarities but many, many differences. I remain unconvinced that grabbing quick clips on an HDSLR will make the grade, quality wise, sufficiently to satisfy the viewer or the shooter too. Much more time needs to be devoted to lighting, for one thing.
But a SLIDESHOW, a multi-media blending of stills and sound (and maybe those short video clips)? Now, that might be worth trying...
More, including a very-much-Mark-One effort, after the break...
