RE: [Leica] Video vs still

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Allow me to disagree a little - what else?

Words and pictures have a real advantage over video, and that is that they
stick around. You can open a magazine, read the article, look at the photos,
put it down, and return to it later. A video, by and large, is here today,
gone today.

I realize that there are, of course, exceptions to this generality, as there
are to all generalities. But to site an example that has been kicked around
on the LUG, think about Eddie Adams photo of the Saigon street execution.
There was at least one network crew present - CBS I believe, and they
captured the incident on film. And it was shown on T.V. But the still photo
had the lasting impact, because it lasts, because it freezes a moment in
time, rather than capturing a sequence of moments, only one of which is
dramatic.

And as to what photos can do for the written word....During one of the awful
African famines of the late 80s, Sudan? Biafra? Newsday sent a team of two
reporters and one photographer, Ozier Mohammed, who now shoots for The
Times. When it came contest time, the paper, rather than entering the print
package, and entering Ozier separately in the photo categories, very
consciously, and unusually, entered the two reporters and photographer
TOGETHER for foreign reporting - and they won a Pulitzer. The written
coverage was good. But spectacular or really unusual? Probably not. But
because the paper entered the three together, they could make up big display
prints of the stunning photos of starving kids, and set the type around
them - and they correctly bet that the images would have an enormous impact
on the judges, who were probably voting for the photos when they gave the
award....



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Gib
> Robinson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:55 PM
> To: Leica List
> Subject: [Leica] Video vs still
>
>
> Thoughtful and well said, Rob.
>
> You're right. The combination of video and words is much better
> at conveying
> a stories and complex information. But I think there is a
> somewhat different
> role for still photos, partly because photos stay around and shape our
> feelings over time. Yes, they create "atmosphere"; but they also convey
> information and shape emotional responses, attitudes,
> relationships, points
> of view. In many ways, I don't think of photos as "hammering" at
> us as much
> as reminding us who we are, what we do, how we relate, and what's
> around us.
> For example, still "nature" photography -- including Hubble images, space
> missions, medicine and science -- are a powerful shaping influence. In
> general, I suspect still images from environments outside our immediate
> experience (big, small, or in between) act on us like a "mantra" -- slowly
> urging us to shift our understanding and attention.  That, I think is the
> strength of photos on the web and in various forms of print media --
> newspapers, magazines, brochures, flyers, etc. that continue to
> flow through
> our lives on paper and electronically. Their power explains why I suspect
> more people today are making money on still images of all sorts,
> not just PJ
> or people.
>
> --Gib
>
> [You wrote]
> Gib - That would be good news for anyone trying to make a living with
> images. It's my feeling, though, that while pictures are terrific
> conveyors
> of atmosphere, so to speak, they're not very good on information. They
> really only show you how things look. Plus, there are strong
> limitations to
> what they can show.
> Example: a month or so ago I was commissioned to shoot a story about
> prostitution here in Modena. The story was quite complex, about
> trafficking
> in underage girls and the international structures that support the trade.
> But how do you photograph this? It's just not possible. At most you can
> photograph a few pimps, some girls, clients trawling past, etc. Even that
> is close to impossible - or was in this particular situation. But my point
> is, the pictures cannot tell the story. They can only illustrate it.
> Since so much of the oppression operating in the world is structural, that
> is, embedded in the structures of everyday life, and doesn't focus into
> significant moments which can be photographed, I think photography's
> potential for being a language even for dealing with this range
> of subjects
> is pretty limited.
> I do love photography and believe in its potential for telling
> stories, but
> I'm more and more aware of its limitations. I think still photography can
> potentially produce images which literally hammer into your retina so you
> can't look away or forget them. That's its strength. But words/video are
> essential complements to deliver the "whole" story.
> Oh well, it's late and I'm going on again!
> Ciao,
> Rob.
> Robert Appleby and Sue Darlow
> Via Bellentani 36
> 41100 Modena
> Italy
> Tel/fax [39] 059 303436
>
>