Video on pause

 

March 27, 2009. Was walking back to the office following a video shoot and decided to let the camera roll for a while. Here is a composition I made while strolling down an alley.

Members of the Indiana News Photographers Association recently voted overwhelmingly that video frames are “not photojournalistically equal” to still frames, and were therefore denied entry in this year’s annual contest. I’m still scratching my head on that one, wishing voters had been able to provide explanations as to why they felt that way. The best I can figure is this: Some people feel that video grabs have some sort of unfair advantage over images made with a still camera.

As someone who has to shoot video, I can say without a doubt that video frames are at a huge disadvantage to stills. High definition video has far less resolution and color space than that of still cameras. A smaller chip means the depth of field is harder to control. And for us Canon XH-A1 shooters, we have the added grief of shooting with one fairly slow variable aperture lens (and one lens is all you get). Don’t get me started on the noise at higher gains. Look Ma, no flash! Add to that the totally different styles in shooting – you shoot a LOT of “nothing” with video – and you’ve got a big ugly camera with major handicaps. The only thing HD video has going for it are the 30 frames per second. So I have to ask: If still cameras can fire off 8 frames per second, at what frame rate does shooting become “not photojournalistically equal?” Nine? Sixteen maybe? Casio is making hybrid cameras capable of shooting more than 1,000 frames per second. 

When 35mm film became popular in the 1960s, some photojournalists shooting larger formats surely thought that a roll of 36 frames was an unfair advantage. The 135 format, however, could not produce the detail enjoyed by, say, a 4×5 Pacemaker Crown Graphic. I think the current issue is similar, and time will tell how and when the lines blur between video and still cameras. A few years ago David Leeson, formerly of the Dallas Morning News and a big proponent of pulling stills from video, forecasted a day when a video frame wins the Pulitzer. While I don’t agree that photographers should use video cameras for gathering stills simply because they can, I think some day we will see a Pulitzer pulled from footage. When it comes down to it, getting the shot is getting the shot. Who cares where it comes from? Saying one method of photojournalism is superior to the other is nothing short of snobbery.

Oh yeah – and those digital stills you’ve been shooting since film went the way of the typewriter? Dudes, those are video frames. Where do you think CCD chips came from? Video cameras!

Don’t get me wrong – I hate trying to pull stills from video. Know what I hate more? Dumbass photographers.