So is it a Photo? Or is it Video?

[ngjere]

Ok, just by the title I think you can see where I'm going. But, I've been struggling with this one for a while now. And I want everyone to know right away that my point is to have a dialog and share opinions, not to flog one method over another...

First a little background:

I've been in the technical end of Television for over thirty years now. And in that period of time, I've held every position there is in both the creative production side, and the Broadcast side of the business.

The evolution of Video of the past ten years has surpassed the first 30 years of television video. Period. The sensors used to capture video have gone from tube based 525 line resolution to chips that have stratospheric resolution and detail.

I also am a photographer. Again, same story there: Cameras with detail abilities never before accomplished, Along with lens design that support these sensors.

Plus the digital ability to manipulate sensor output of both to the nth degree...

So much so that one can look astoundingly like the other.

And because of that, it really comes down to one crucial element:

Technique.

And here's where my question comes into form:

Do you feel it's fair to call something a "photograph" that's basically a still video image captured from a group of images that were shot at 30FPS? Where much of the recording process is automatic? Basically, you captured a moment of time by shooting multiple images at a very fast frame rate and then select the best of those images?

Or do you feel that a "photograph" is one captured at a single frame rate, Where proper lens selection, shutter speed, sensor sensitivity, depth of field, determine the outcome of the photo? Yes, I understand that automatics come into play as well with DSLR's but there are many manual adjustments that can co-exist with automatics to derive an acceptable image.

My own personal opinion is it seems a bit disingenuous to call a frame of video, a photo. Take lightning photography as an example, It's fairly trivial to put out an HD camcorder, aim it toward a cell, and grab what comes down from the cloud. Grab a frame, manipulate it to your liking, done.

The DSLR photographer however, spends a lot more time, ability, and experience, in obtaining the very same shot with timing being a key component. Very different skillsets at work.

Anyway, think about it. Share your opinions. I realize this may come down to nothing more than a measure of semantics but I'm interested in your thoughts.

Regards,

Neil

 

[Jason Foster]

And here's where my question comes into form:

Do you feel it's fair to call something a "photograph" that's basically a still video image captured from a group of images that were shot at 30FPS?

It will always be a "Vid Cap" to me. The actions of taking video and taking photographs may be co-located on the same piece of equipment, but as long as the action is two distinct processes (continuous images video vs. single image) than I will always speak of them in the true terms (photos vs. video/vidcap).

 

[Jason Boggs]

Video is just a bunch of still frames put together to make the image appear to move, so yes I would say it's a photograph. Old school cartoonists put a bunch of drawings in sequence to create motion, but it's just a drawing when it's all said and done. Same principle applies with video.

 

[Jim Tang]

I agree more or less Neil. A photo is a photo, a still video image is a still video image. One does not shoot video to get photos, one shoots video to capture things in motion. Whereas one takes a photo to capture a moment in time. Two very distinct things with two very different purposes/intentions.

 

[Mark Ellinwood]

I always distinguish between photos and video stills. It's not just about the moment, but how the moment was captured. I tend to factor in difficulty/luck in images when I critique them, so to me there is sometimes a significant difference between the two.

 

[James Langford]

Didn't we already have this discussion when we went over processed vs non-processed images? ;-)

My personal opinion is use whatever works for you. Whether you are using a still camera or a video camera, it still requires skill to properly compose and capture the scene. A video camera shooting 30fps can still capture a crappy image of lightning if the exposure and framing suck. I use an intervalometer remote to capture lightning by repeatedly and rapidly shooting the scene over and over again (similar to a vid cam). However, I still have to compose the scene, set the focus, etc etc to make it work.

I pulled the following frames from my hv20 vid camera a few days back. It took me probably 20 hours to finally learn how to convert my video into Progressive scan to remove the interlacing, as well as to find the 3 or 4 frames with good lightning in them out of 10,000+ video frames. I then processed them just like I would any other photograph. Definitely not easy. I had my Canon 30D firing away while I was videoing, but unfortunately didn't capture these bolts with it.

Original is 1920x1080 in size

Original is 1920x1080 in size.

Anyway, I think people get too hung up in the weeds over this stuff. Use what works and what helps you get the best end result you are looking for, and be happy with it.

James

 

[swilson]

I call it a photo but I state it was taking from video as its not as nice as it could have been had I been even able to get a photo of it. (thats my camera's limitation moreover at night!).

I'm glad this was brought up as next year this is the route I want to take. That is to get a very high quality video cam that can get me great still shots at the same time or from the video itself. I've noticed myself using video more and more these days as I can get every little detail captured

 

[ngjere]

Interesting replies.

I think one of the things that is clear after talking to many on both sides of the video/photo debate, is that the convergence is really going to affect the business side of both. To those that sell their video, will you be differentiating what your video can be used for? i.e. no posting a frame of extraordinary video on a website of a client that bought say :30 seconds of video for the evening newscast? When the possibility of selling that frame to another client later on with very different contractual terms may be possible?

or will photographers be shut out all together because clients will be able to "pull" a frame of video for purposes that would otherwise be supplied by a photo shooter or stock provider?

To those who have made comments about video/photo differentiation being a quality issue? trust me, while that situation exists now, it will not be in the very near future...