Still Photographs, Video, or Both?

[Cameron Redwine]

Chasing preference: Still pictures, video, or both?

My first couple of years chasing, I used a 35mm SLR with Fuji Velvia (I still do) and a video camera. During the 6/29/99 chase in the Texas Panhandle, my video and tripod were knocked down by the RFD, destroying the camera (entertaining video though….you see the funnel touching down, then the tripod began to tip over, followed by a string of expletives before the video stops). I never replaced the video camera, and I’ve focused exclusively on still photography since that day. I love storm footage, but I can’t say that I regret the decision to not replace the video camera. I feel that I can get more, better still photos if that is my concentration. I know many people would much rather shoot video than stills, and that there are plenty of chasers who are very good at both. I am just curious to hear your preferences and why.

 

[Sean McMullen]

I really love still photography but if you're interesteed in making money, video is the way to go. The networks love the action shots and they either want to see damage being done or intense roation at the surface. I don't want to advocate getting really close and I don't advise it but thats the truth.

 

[Gerrit Gulden]

I use both for my storm events. I have a Canon Eos K2 Rebel SLR Film and kodak Easyshare camera along with a JVC camcorder DV. Upon opening this Topic I was thinking you were asking about Still Photography and video frame grabs and the comparrison between both. The Only High quality frame grabs Ive been able to achieve are from a Sony DSC-P100 Digital camera. Its amazing the quality I get from video grabbing from this camera. The quality is worthless with the Camcorder and Easyshare Video Files. Not sure what everybody else uses, maybe another topic to ask...

I personally dont sell my footage, was never in it for the money. Its all passion for myself and showing the photos off for fun. These days you really havta spend a good amount of money on equipment just to qualify for Income Considerations. For me, I'll leave it to the pro's.

-gerrit

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

I voted for both, two days ago I would have said just video but buying a new Rebel has altered my opinion; however when it comes down to it the video camera is going to be the first thing I reach for and the only one I reach for if time doesn't allow for both. Pictures are great to have around hang on the wall but they don't allow me to relive the event like watching the film does, video is also better for sharing with others friends and family as it allows them the oppurtunity to feel as if though they were there.

 

[Susan Strom]

Still photography; transparency film.

I only shoot video as an extra, particularly if something is wildly in motion, particularly in the Plains. Then I'll do both.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I really love still photography but if you're interesteed in making money, video is the way to go. The networks love the action shots and they either want to see damage being done or intense roation at the surface. I don't want to advocate getting really close and I don't advise it but thats the truth.

Oh, I wouldn't say that's entirely the case. I think you can make good money with photography. You couldn't LIVE off it, but I doubt you could live off of video, either. (Fair disclosure: I don't know if it compares to what you can make with video or not -- I've never done storm video .) With photography, I think you could maybe recover the cost of chasing and your equipment cost over time. From gleaning the lists and forums over the past couple years, it seems the video segment has really heated up -- to the point that chasers are seriously underbidding each other and driving down the market price of video. The thing about videography is that if the subject is interesting enough (a tornado exploding a barn while cows and ostriches orbit it), it doesn't really matter if the technique isn't entirely down -- shaky video of that kind of thing is still awesome to watch and I'm sure someone would pay for it. On the other hand, when you screw up photographic technique, you usually don't end up with anything that anyone would want to buy. Nobody wants that big smudge of a photo that you swear is a tornado exploding a barn with cows and ostriches orbiting it. So there's a kind of "filter" there for the photographers -- it's a lot harder to create an interesting photograph than it is to create an interesting video. I can probably count on two hands (with a few fingers to spare) the number of really good storm photographers out there that I know of. The demand for really good storm photography is strong enough that those people probably don't go home with empty pockets... and they have the added luxury of not needing to chase after the local media a half hour after the storm is over to get on the 11 o'clock news!

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I really love still photography but if you're interesteed in making money, video is the way to go. The networks love the action shots and they either want to see damage being done or intense roation at the surface. I don't want to advocate getting really close and I don't advise it but thats the truth.

Sean is correct, video is the way to go .

I personally do both, since it is really pretty simple.

 

[Mike Umscheid]

I used to do both, but have turned my focus to photography ever since I got the D70 two years ago. I think it's the artistic side in me... video for me is a lost art, and I have lost the passion for it. I actually made more money on the side licensing a few photos here and there than I ever have with video. Going this route also allows me to chase more "secondary targets" away from the hordes as well as more subtle chase setups in hopes for that unique shot

 

[Rob Satkus]

I went with both, but I personally prefer taking stills...I just get more satisfaction out of it. I am not anywhere near as good a photographer as some on the list, but there is just something about being able to freeze a moment in time that peaks my interest more than video. Having said that, I do enjoy going back and watching the video, especially when some of the smaller details have escaped my memories. Unfortunately, most of my chase partners over the years really lived for the moment, so a lot of the video we shot is collecting dust in closets. That's another reason I lean towards stills...I can grab any shot I took whenever I want and at least relive a brief moment in time as opposed to trying to track down an old tape that may not even exist anymore.

Rob

 

[Tarmo Tanilsoo]

I take stills whenever I can. But sometimes I make time-lapse animations.

 

[Terrence Cook]

both

I am in the state of mind that when you predict or assume a storm is going to tornado or atleast go severe, then it is worth documenting to it's fullest. Not so much just the action that we all live for (which offers the best photographic potential) but the birth of the storm and it's eventual maturity, for these beginning stages I prefer video. Video is AWESOME for timelapse work and pictures of the chase can be artistically edited into the video.

With my Panasonic miniDV and brand-new Kodak P-712, I will be doing both this upcoming season!

My youtube video shows some of my storm video and timelapse work synched with a friends song.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8hO2RR76b_I

 

[Laura Hedien]

Set up the video and let it run from when we stop until we load up again. I usually don't fool with it.
Then grab the camera and focus (ha ha) on the still photography.
Laura

 

[Paul Austin]

I love the beauty of a spectacular moment captured in a single photo. And I relish the challenge of capturing that moment well, not that I personally am good at it; I have a lot to learn. Getting into position for such a shot is a tremendous challenge. But the difficulty of actually getting a well done artistic photo in such a time-sensitive setting with all the adrenaline and changing conditions multiplies the challenge. I have the utmost respect for those of you who are truly gifted in this.

However, I answered "both" for two reasons:

1. I have the luxury of chasing with three other enthusiasts who shoot the video while I concentrate on photography (is this cheating for this pole?)

2. Stills do not always document clearly what is actually happening. Just because the storm's structure depicted in a still appears to be rotating or just because a lowering looks impressive does not mean it was a wall cloud/funnel/tornado. How many posts on this board have been started with a title something like "Is This A Tornado...What's Your Opinion?" Not to take anything away from those posts, but video that clearly displays said event is harder to argue with.

 

[Paul Austin]

In support of stills let me add this: When it comes to lightning, I prefer a nice clean still shot with those crisp channels, especially when the CG contact point is relatively nearby. I'll take one of those shots 90+% of the time over what is typically captured on video of the same event. High speed has its place, but most video I see is "soft" and often has that ghost imaging that occurs with strokes on some frames.

 

[Angie Norris]

I still shoot old fashioned SLR stills (I know I should upgrade to digital, but the cameras are a bit "technical" for my taste. One of these days, I'll probably make the change) and I tend to keep the vid going from the time I leave home until I get back (makes for one tedious editing job at times). The one thing I've got to remember...zoom in more.