4 ms·

My advice? Never take a photo again. Only video. Video is so much more powerful for re-experiencing memories.

by qq66 2y ago

BeetleB 2y ago
I've been doing both for the last decade+ I have a daily cron job that shows me the entries for this day in past years (i.e. all Jan 27 entries). Yes, videos are more fun to look at. But people don't have the patience to watch more than a minute or two at a time. They can quickly scan 20-30 images and focus on the interesting one(s). But if they see 10 videos, they'll start a few, and after a number of seconds start "seeking" forward to see if there is something interesting. Or they'll watch the first 1-2 videos completely, and skip the rest. So take both types!
moolcool 2y ago
I strongly disagree. Photography can tell stories which videos can't (and vice versa). For example, compare at this image: https://i.imgur.com/pmfMUYc.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/pmfMUYc.jpeg To this video containing the same moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UdsVO7HaJg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UdsVO7HaJg Look at the player's emotion in the image. What he feels in that split-second, the look in his eyes, gets lost if you just see the video. Look at the out of focus area. The boys in the top-right hugging, the older couple in the older couple in the top-left who can't believe their eyes, the other players reacting to the home run. Look at the bat, suspended in mid-air with no motion-blur. The object which kicked off the celebration completely frozen in time. Everyone in the photo is looking at where the ball went, but the player is looking at the bat. TL;DR: Because it (generally) takes much longer to look at a photo than it does to actually create a photo, there's a time dilation that goes on. You can freeze a single moment, and then take the time later to absorb everything which goes on in it.
- qq66 2y ago
  I'm not talking about 1) professional journalism or 2) sports. I'm talking about casual family day-to-day stuff.

My advice? Never take a photo again. Only video. Video is so much more powerful for re-experiencing memories.

by qq66 2y ago

My advice? Never take a photo again. Only video. Video is so much more powerful for re-experiencing memories.

I've been doing both for the last decade+ I have a daily cron job that shows me the entries for this day in past years (i.e. all Jan 27 entries). Yes, videos are more fun to look at. But people don't have the patience to watch more than a minute or two at a time. They can quickly scan 20-30 images and focus on the interesting one(s). But if they see 10 videos, they'll start a few, and after a number of seconds start "seeking" forward to see if there is something interesting. Or they'll watch the first 1-2 videos completely, and skip the rest. So take both types!

moolcool 2y ago

I strongly disagree. Photography can tell stories which videos can't (and vice versa). For example, compare at this image: https://i.imgur.com/pmfMUYc.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/pmfMUYc.jpeg To this video containing the same moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UdsVO7HaJg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UdsVO7HaJg Look at the player's emotion in the image. What he feels in that split-second, the look in his eyes, gets lost if you just see the video. Look at the out of focus area. The boys in the top-right hugging, the older couple in the older couple in the top-left who can't believe their eyes, the other players reacting to the home run. Look at the bat, suspended in mid-air with no motion-blur. The object which kicked off the celebration completely frozen in time. Everyone in the photo is looking at where the ball went, but the player is looking at the bat. TL;DR: Because it (generally) takes much longer to look at a photo than it does to actually create a photo, there's a time dilation that goes on. You can freeze a single moment, and then take the time later to absorb everything which goes on in it.

qq66 2y ago
I'm not talking about 1) professional journalism or 2) sports. I'm talking about casual family day-to-day stuff.