"gpsman" <gpsman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:b459d04f-fe76-4ea4-80a3-6f024aa27994@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 17, 2:21 pm, Vance <Vance.L...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> Besides the technical aspects already mentioned, shooting stills is a
>> very different discipline artistically (using the term loosely). A
>> completely different type of visualization is involved because a still
>> has to carry more implicit information than a video and the
>> photographer is involved in a different imagining process.
>
> "Completely different" seems excessive for things which are so
> similar.
>
>> It
>> happens, but it is rare, that a still from a video has the emotional
>> or aesthetic impact that a specifically shot still can have.
>
> Well, image quality wise, of course. But "art" doesn't have nearly as
> much to do with the tool or process as does the artist or "beholder".
>
> Two mediums, both with their strengths and weaknesses, but you can
> shoot still video (as opposed to a video still), but still photographs
> are somewhat limited in capturing motion.
>
>> Videos have their effect on a viewer as a result of being a captured
>> segment of time and reducing that segment to a singular moment of time
>> usually results in a snapshot. Very occassionaly, I have worked with
>> a very talented and award winning videographer and I wouldn't try and
>> do what he does any more than he wants to try and do what I do. Give
>> me his video equipment and I come up with imaginative home movies. A
>> still camera in his hands results in very good, but somewhat sterile
>> images that just barely get beyond being snapshots.
>
> Beholder, etc.
>
>> You aren't the first to think of this and there are very good reasons
>> that pros, either from the videography or photography side, haven't
>> jumped on the idea.
>
> Tough to argue with that. And the OP is obviously exploring the idea
> from a rather raw state of ignorance.
>
> Just "going into" the "wedding memory" business without basic
> knowledge of the technologies is fraught with perils. Most often, I
> think, the photographer/videographer comes first, then they venture
> into trying to make money from their craft, slash art, slash hobby.
>
> And they can be great, but a lack of business acumen can leave them
> broke.
> -----
>
> - gpsman
As far as I can see, the photography business is just that ...
a business with a bunch of ratinalizations for charging a
bunch of money for illusory benefits that the customer and
probably 101% of other people can't see. Maybe there are
some really dedicated wedding photographers out there but
the ones I've seen and interacted with at a limited number
of weddings are pretty poor and provided nothing special.
Video is different, imo opinion because they have to deal
with sound which is complicated and very important. But
to talk about the art of having two people smile in their
wedding gear is about as much art the mass produced oil
paintings on sale on weekends at the flea market.
Now lighting is an art and I'm sure there are a bunch of
subtleties and I don't know if I ever will know as much as
you guys may and a friend of mine who is a real photographer
can take better and more flattering photos than I ever will
be able to but most of the so called wedding and portrait
photographers are a sham.
|
