Motion Picture vs. Still Image
Ok so the trend in our industry is to use DSLR cameras to capture video. Just so you know if we are going to shoot your wedding we will not have any video camcorders:) but not to worry, this has become the trend only because of the remarkable boost in quality they provide. They out perform their video counterparts in low light and expand the creative pallet allowing for cinematic movements and looks that are just not possible with conventional video equipment.
Oh yeah and they also take great still photographs :)
But even though we will be armed with multiple cameras capable of taking great pictures… we will likely not take any. Why?
Well the short answer is… because we will be too busy taking video:) But seriously, it is no small thing to change your artistic eye away from thinking in the language of filmmaking into the language of the still image.
The Language of Filmmaking
Filmmaking in all its forms, from the most scripted to the most avaunt guard is about flow and layering. It is about putting things next to and with each other to create context and add meaning. And doing all of this in a way that flows in time. We play with pacing and rhythm and repetition of themes.
While this is possible to a lesser extent with layout in a photo montage other aspects of Filmmaking are alien if not opposite to photography.
For example a huge part of filmmaking is the movement of the camera. Where photography shares framing and composition, only film can add the 3rd dimension of movement. This movement can add a whole new feel and meaning to the content.
Focus is also something that can change over time and add or change meaning. the photographer can make this decision once for any shot, but the filmmaker is constantly making this decision as the action unfolds.
There are technical differences as well from flashes vs. constant light, to tripods and support but in my mind the real difference is that the photographer aims to capture a moment by stopping time and the filmmaker lets the time flow in a myriad of ways.
Which is Better
Oh no, no young grasshopper, that is not the right question:) We love great photography, there is a beauty to the moment frozen in time that is unlike any other art. One does not ask if sculpting is better than panting, or if live theater is better than movies. They are different arts, wonderful in their own way if done well.
We are filmmakers and we realize that to do wedding photography we would either need to have some people on our team just do that or bring in more people to focus on photography. They are so different in philosophy that we believe it is not a good idea for us to try and do both at the same time.
This is why we love to recommend our great photographer friends. They have a passion to speak the language of the still image.
[...] Because gear is only one aspect of the craft…Both a house painter and a portrait painter use paint and brushes but it is the application of that tool for the purpose that is important. For us, we have fallen in love with telling stories. We add motion and cuts so that there is a flow and a layering of meaning. We have decided to keep our craft focused. I would not necessarily say that a business could not do both well but I would recommend that a client see finished work from the artists that will be working on their wedding in both film and photography. We talk more on this subject here. [...]