Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AndrewCCM Interesting... I shot video for years before transitioning to still photography. Perhaps one day I'll regain my interest in video. I burned out bigtime. If in it for money, it was way hard to turn a decent profit vs. the time it took...and expenses were very high too. Especially, the transition to HD, which was the catalyst for me getting out of the biz. Didn't want to retool. In the wedding biz, it's actually sad how little video is valued to the masses...usually the last vendor hired and maybe 1 in 20 had a videographer at all (those that did paid the photog twice as much...while I spent 40+ hrs producing the video after the fact.. I realize that has nothing to do with photojournalism.. I am just off on a tangent. LOL Perhaps you weren't even posting on the video angle.
Interesting article. Thank you for sharing. |
Was showing the fusion of the still image and the moving. In a net based world, the photojournalist must not just take pictures and write captions and tags but be prepared to build a visual sequence with video. Now the tech has reached a point one device is doing both. What was most interesting was the mention of audio. Back in the dark ages of the Vietnam war, film guys always worked with a sound guy. Now, the technology combined with the marketplaces is putting the 'photojournalist' in the role of both still photographer, video and sound man.
I wonder just how well this will work as film and still photography have very different visual grammars (see Barth's
Camera Lucida and Arijon's
Grammar of the Film)