Once upon a time photography and videography rarely crossed paths. In virtually all markets for visual communication (commercial, editorial, corporate, documentary, events) photography and videography were provided by completely separate individuals or crews, the fees came from different budgets and the client base rarely overlapped.
But that era is rapidly fading. Until recently, the primary venue for still photography was print material of some sort such as magazines, books, brochures and albums. Video was primarily experienced over broadcast or cable channels or distributed to consumers and corporate customers on tape or DVD.
Publishing and Broadcasting Converging
The Web is now the default vehicle for reaching audiences and publishing to mobile devices is rapidly on the rise. From the publishers’ perspective, the technical separation between still photography and video is rapidly disappearing. More importantly, the cost of delivering video to an audience declined significantly in just the past few years. Not long ago, the barrier to entry for getting video in front of an audience was extremely high. Getting a magazine, brochure or even a book was typically much less expensive. Today, there’s little distinction between publishers and broadcasters.
There are distinct differences in the way each of these media types conveys information and affects the user experience. Still images have an instant impact that videos, due to their temporal nature, can’t match. Video, on the other hand, can tell a more complex and nuanced story (when done well) than can a photograph. Photographs also require less of a commitment on the part of the visitor than the 30 seconds or longer it takes to watch a video. In most cases it doesn’t require a click to see a photograph on a Web site but it does to watch a video. This might sounds trivial but getting people to click things on a Web site is one of key challenges faced by Web publishers.
[Read more →]
If you find this post useful, subscribe to our RSS feed!