I’m not sure I completely believe that but certainly my last post hints this. Today I see Barbara Ganley, who is one of my longtime blog heroines and thinkers refering to the post and of course takes the idea much further and further complicates and spins the idea of writing and imagery to new depths. (that’s a compliment by the way)
Then I grab this little gem from Garr Reynolds about Ken Burns:
When you think about it, often the photo really is more powerful than video at telling the story. The photo captures a moment in time allowing the viewer to slow down and think and wonder and reflect. Photos allow for greater emphasis and may have less distracting elements, giving the presenter or narrator/film maker more freedom to augment the photo (or the other way around). We can learn a lot from documentary film, especially the kind like those created by Burns which rely so heavily on still images. One tip is to avoid the usage of imagery as ornamentation. What you see in Burns’ films is a simple and powerful use of photos and other imagery that support the narrative and illuminate the story on a visceral level, thereby making the experience richer and stickier.
As someone who has been using video for a long time and is considers himself a better videographer than a photographer, I am becoming more appreciative of the still image. As Burns says in the video excerpt below, “video is simply a series of 24 still frames per second”.
You can think of stills as slow motion. As a sports enthusiast, the advent of slow motion has transformed the viewing of sports and allows us to gain an understanding of the intricacies of athletics in ways never before possible. We’ve had this for a long time with stills, it was simply hidden in plain sight at least for me.
but stills are more than just slow motion video – they are a single frame, often selected from a crop of several, or dozens, or hundreds, or more, to represent a decisive moment. Video can sometimes be nondiscriminatory – blasting away at 30fps and hoping to capture something important. Stills force selection of just the right moment, just the right angle, just the right perspective, in order to tell a story because the still can’t fall back on the previous and next frames of a sequence…
I must confess that in Google Reader I frequently skip embedded video clips but always pause for a still photo. Sometimes I spend more time contemplating a single image than it would take to view a clip. It’s easier for me to sift for meaning, think at my own speed, when content is stationery rather than in motion.
dianes last blog post..Kaleidoscope
D’Arcy
Agreed. But the idea of slow motion in video is more of an attempt to dissect video they way we can naturally dissect and examine a still. For me the learning here is about the power of a still to “think at your own speed” as diane says.
Photo image is more effective for me, when I’m online I go fast, video is just too slow. If I see a video playing I’m out of there. If I want to watch videos I go to utube…
“Video is simply a series of 24 still frames per second.”
Not quite.
Coming from Ken Burns, nonetheless, adds some credence – but he has forgotten about the audio that accompanies the video. Video, combined with audio and its associated timings, can do far more to move a viewer than video alone – with or without motion.
Don’t believe me? Watch any of Ken’s movies with the sound off. Tells an entirely different story.
Darren Drapers last blog post..Google Docs in Elementary Schools
Darren,
Good point. No doubt the title of this post is more of a hyperbole for effect as anything else. I agree that the complexity of video when done well is potentially the more impacting media. I guess I was impressed to revisit the power of images and the way our eyes naturally pan and zoom and pause and reflect.
Kia ora Dean!
I agree with much that is said here. But as far as effectiveness is concerned, I think each type of image (whether a still photo, and animation or a video) must be carefully considered on its merits in terms of what it brings to the observer.
From a journalistic point of view one has to ask if it’s the dramatic moment that’s important or the movement in action. From the educational point of view one asks, is it relevant to the objective. Used in training, a photograph of a golf swing, even selected at the optimum moment, may still not convey what can be shown in a series of stills or an animation (or both).
I believe we have to think of these devices (for that’s what they are) as tools of communication. A craftsman does not use any old tool any old way to achieve the best craftsmanship. So we must select these things according to their best and most effective application if they are to be used well.
Ka kite
from Middle-earth
Ken Allans last blog post..Procrastinating can tire the brain
Ken,
Certainly that’s true. I suppose I should retitle this, “In praise of still images”. It’s more about my growing passion and understanding of the photograph as a much more sophisticated and versatile medium than its often given credit for.
Kia ora Dean!
As one who cut his artistic teeth on 35mm B&W Ilford FP3 film, SLRs with non-return mirrors and dark-room enlargements in low and high key, I identify with your feelings here. Something went out of my life for about 30 years and now I see it’s coming back into vogue.
Thanks for this post!
Ka kite
from Middle-earth
Ken Allans last blog post..Procrastinating can tire the brain
With text and pictures, I’m in control of my consumption. I can skim to the part I like, then focus, and I can do this at any level – one article from my entire aggregator, one paragraph from an article, one phrase from a paragraph. Our brains are built this way — to ignore most things and focus on what’s important. Any way of consuming that puts the consumer in control results in better learning.
With audio and video, I’m not in control. I hit play, and I can rewind or fast forward or sometimes randomly access points throughout the media. But it’s simply not possible for me to skim past the parts I don’t need / already know and then focus on the things I do need. When attempts are made to allow for skim&focus, they can’t provide it at all levels with the same usability that text and still images provide.
This is why podcasts for learning are universally a horrible idea for long-term. They work well sometimes for two reasons:
1) learning that requires audio, such as language and music
2) they’re fun and new, so they sometimes hold students’ (or teachers’) attention for a brief time initially
[...] public links >> skim Comment on Still images more powerful than video by Dave Saved by fdalmoro on Sat 01-11-2008 Skim Fest 2008 Saved by brunotorres on Wed 29-10-2008 USA [...]