Defining Yourself By Your Vision – Not The Camera
[by Gail Mooney]
I’ve been giving quite a few presentations lately for ASMP – “Should I Be Thinking About Video”. One thing I’m finding is that there are always a couple of people in the audience who think that buying a DSLR hybrid camera will get them in the business of video production. Part of that perception comes from the way camera manufacturers are marketing these “HD” cameras and part of that comes from photographers wanting to believe that these hybrids will allow them to compete in the world of commercial video production.
The simple fact is – these DSLR’s have lowered the bar on the entry level into video production – and you may find yourself competing with every other still photographer (pro or amateur) that has $2800 to spend. People tend to lose sight of the fact that shooting video is not the same mind set as shooting still images. I think differently when I shoot video. I see differently and I communicate the message or story through this motion medium using the best tool toward that end. While I too love that shallow depth of field that you get when shooting with a DLSR, the image is just one part of the video production process. You are also defining your vision through sound and the art of editing.
The problem is if we define ours by our tools – then we are diminishing the value of our creativity or our vision in the process. We aren’t placing the value on what is unique in all of us – our vision. At the same time we’re placing too much value on the tool – in this case the camera. As technology accelerates the production of more sophisticated cameras that are cheaper and easier to use – and we’ve placed our value on being the technician – we’re in big trouble. Because ultimately anyone with a vision who has the “ability” to realize that vision, can put together a crew of technicians to facilitate their vision or idea – and do it cheaper these days because of technology. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
Professional photographers get defensive when a potential client places no value on what is unique about them (their vision) and approaches them with the attitude that if you won’t work for the prices they dictate – they will just find another photographer. But what they are really saying is that they feel that they can “just” find another camera operator. The problem is that these photographers haven’t presented their vision and because of that they are perceived as being interchangeable. That’s not a good place to be and never will be. And for that reason when a professional still photographer comes to me and says that they are interested in getting into video and asks the question “What video camera should I buy?” I gently tell them – well sometimes not so gently tell them – it’s not about the camera.
How does one define what they are? Great question that has a lot of answers, as it should. Technology is amazing – but it’s the human part of the process that excites me because we’re all so different in how we see.
9 Responses to 'Defining Yourself By Your Vision – Not The Camera'
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Defining Yourself By Your Vision – Not The Camera'.
imo, still photographers have no business getting into video , period.
Like you said, it’s a different mind set and a craft unto itself. I say, let the video pros handle motion, I’ll stick to crafting images one by one.
I can’t help but think that if video cameras could capture 25-megapixel 16-bit still images, causing video shooters to suddenly think they were still photographers and inspiring them to go after large swaths of our business, we’d be united in our mockery of their naivete. Yet we somehow think that because our cameras have some cool new features we’ve transformed somehow into fully capable videographers and producers? Am I the only one who finds this a bit laughable? Maybe even ironic?
Bill,
Have you ever heard of the RED camera? Well video producers are going after the still market and using frame grabs from cameras like this. And I’ve heard from more than one art director that they like picking out “the moment” from the quicktime file they are handed by the production company.
The irony is that some clients are hiring the video crew and using the frame grabs for their still needs. June 09 cover of Esquire magazine was shot with a frame grab from the video camera.
Art,
The photographers I talk to who have expanded their businesses by also offering to produce video – usually in a collaborative effort – were prompted by their existing clients asking “do you shoot video”? They are meeting their clients’ needs by collaborating with others who already do know the “craft” of shooting motion.
>> causing video shooters to suddenly think they were still photographers and inspiring them to go after large swaths of our business…
What about those magazine covers and promo stills taken with RED (video!) cameras? It’s a matter of cutting out a single frame. I don’t see any active discussions (or any, for that matter) about how they’re taking away photographer’s biz.
While they used to need both a video and a photo guy on the set, they may do with just the video now. I think it may be a threat for some segments of photography.
I don’t disagree that the RED and other high-res video options are in encroaching on our business. But don’t we believe that pulling a still from a video is inherently a compromise? Wouldn’t we as photographers do our best to convince our clients that to pull a still from a motion shoot isn’t ultimately in their best interests?
I guess I’m wondering if asking photographers to shoot video is a lot like asking a video crew to bring along still cameras and shoot the print too. I tend to prefer the specialist approach, and so I worry that we’re watering down our worth if we generalize too much.
By all means, do whatever you can to serve your client. My company has provided photography and video side by side for years–but it’s divided into two separate departments because we understand the skills needed to do one are not the same skills needed to do the other. Not better or worse, just different.
I don’t claim to have the answer, I just worry that we’re putting the cart before the horse. Then again, maybe I’m just resistant to having to personally learn video and it’s clouding my judgment. I just know that whenever I see “how to sell video too” aimed at photographers, I can’t help but think about how I’d feel if it was “how to sell stills” aimed at video shooters. And I just wonder if other folks are concerned about this too?
By the way, I don’t think my stance/opinion/question about this contradicts Gail’s original post–which says that what is special about you is your vision and that “defining yourself by your tools” is dangerous territory. Maybe that’s exactly what I’m asking: aren’t we in danger of defining ourselves by what our cameras are capable of?
[...] Gail also talks about how placing our value on being the “technician” is dangerous. Read the rest of the article, Defining Yourself By Your Vision – Not The Camera [...]
Starting from a position of concern with earnings clouds the issue here. Subtract money from the dialog, in order to clarify the fundamental. Still photography and film photography differ substantially while having much in common (lighting, point of view, composition, and so on). They function as separate mediums of human expression, yet of course they may compliment one another. The example of grabbing one frame from a set of film frames, and then presenting it for use as a still photograph, rests on a presumption that this image may stand alone, just as a still photograph does. In any case, this image has left the film behind. But this one still photograph lacks the vital element of the intent of its creator at that precise instant. One could argue, however, that an overall intent blanketed the film frames from beginning to end, and that this intent gained more point from an editing process that removed frames, by which this intent reached everything on the final piece of film. Then a movie came into being. No moviegoer, however, picks out one frame from the thousands of frames for capturing the overall intent, although this one frame may signal the mood of the movie. A string of frames educes the intent. Finally, that one grabbed frame, even if useful and representative, almost assuredly must undergo further development as a still photograph by another with a more or less clear intent, to make that one frame serve as a standalone photograph, whatever its purpose. As such, it will succeed in large part for the intention it conveys to a viewer.
Excellent post!
The camera does not define me or my pics – it’s just a tool – unless it’s one of those expensive big things – good to prep up one’s wilting ego.
Yet, I disagree – IMO stuff like this is the future of publishing: http://bit.ly/hcwl2 The line between stills and motion is gone forever and will only get more blurred as the tools are getting cheaper and easier to use for everybody.
This is exactly where the army of ambitious aspiring amateurs enter the game. And where the second disagreement comes from: It’s not just the price point – I’m keen, have ambition to succeed on a 1-off chance, lack attitude, I’m not constricted by old notions and done ways…
To the client it’s flexibility for less, albeit with a risk of sub-par results. It may be a calculated risk/trade-off, it’s not always dim wits on the side of the client! From the “camera operators’” view it’s foot-in-the door, exciting weekend project, not doom and gloom – quite the opposite – exciting times from where I am standing.
The point is:
I’ll never be able to ‘steal’ a client from an open minded Web-2.0-ready photog with unique vision/ideas over quoting a lower price – I don’t even get asked for a quote on those jobs. I am competing with generic old-fashioned shooters, who are weighted down by a huge gear bag and often the arrogance to match.
Please don’t flame me – I’m just saying it looks different from the “camera operator’s” POV.