They say a picture is worth a thousand words. If TV and film are a series moving pictures,
how many words is that? Is it a thousand
words for every frame, plus the additional words from the audio portion? In addition, photography can only show one
moment in time, whereas film can show a period of time with the addition of the
sounds that is going on around this period of time. Although it may seem that film and video are
superior to still photography and thus making photography almost irrelevant, I
believe it is still very much relevant in our society and in some instances
more powerful than film.
Photos without context can be misleading As I stated before, there are some obvious advantages to film over photography, the biggest being that film has an audio factor that photography does not. The addition of audio usually adds to the video in giving it context and sometimes explaining what is going on, whereas in a photo you may not know the context unless someone or something gives additional information. The other advantage is that it shows a larger instant in time than photography, allowing the viewer to see the entire event unfold. A picture might show two people standing next to a pool, whereas a video would show that one friend pushed the other one in the pool. The greatest example of this “not getting the entire picture” is evident in one of the most iconic pictures of WWII, shown to the right. Without any context, one might assume that the sailor and nurse were a couple. However, it has been learned that the sailor was kissing many women that day, and the picture happened to be taken while he was kissing this particular woman.
Photography’s lack of audio can make it more powerful
Even though photography lacks some of the advantages film and movies have, photography is a more powerful way to present media. In some ways, film thinks for the viewer. It describes the situation, tells a sequence of events, and has a finite ending. It leaves very little to the imagination of the viewer. Since a picture only shows one moment in time, it doesn’t constrict the viewer in the same way that film can sometimes do. Again referring to the WWII picture, without the context I gave earlier, this photo is very powerful emotionally in that it shows two lovers celebrating the end of the war. If this were a video or the fact that they weren’t lovers were shown, the picture might lose some of its appeal. The opposite can also be said that context may increase the emotional appeal of a photo. Photography’s lack of audio capabilities and fact that it only shows a single moment in time can also make it a more powerful form of media. A viewer can take more time to examine all elements of a photo in one viewing, whereas it may take multiple viewings of a film to see all aspects of it. Garr Reynolds, and internet blogger, references a documentary film maker named Ken Burns who uses still photography as a part of his documentaries instead of video. In his blog, Reynolds and I both agree that using the photos “allow for greater emphasis and may have less distracting elements.” Therefore, I believe that still photography is still relevant in today’s society because it is still an equally if not more effective way of presenting media to the masses.
Even though photography lacks some of the advantages film and movies have, photography is a more powerful way to present media. In some ways, film thinks for the viewer. It describes the situation, tells a sequence of events, and has a finite ending. It leaves very little to the imagination of the viewer. Since a picture only shows one moment in time, it doesn’t constrict the viewer in the same way that film can sometimes do. Again referring to the WWII picture, without the context I gave earlier, this photo is very powerful emotionally in that it shows two lovers celebrating the end of the war. If this were a video or the fact that they weren’t lovers were shown, the picture might lose some of its appeal. The opposite can also be said that context may increase the emotional appeal of a photo. Photography’s lack of audio capabilities and fact that it only shows a single moment in time can also make it a more powerful form of media. A viewer can take more time to examine all elements of a photo in one viewing, whereas it may take multiple viewings of a film to see all aspects of it. Garr Reynolds, and internet blogger, references a documentary film maker named Ken Burns who uses still photography as a part of his documentaries instead of video. In his blog, Reynolds and I both agree that using the photos “allow for greater emphasis and may have less distracting elements.” Therefore, I believe that still photography is still relevant in today’s society because it is still an equally if not more effective way of presenting media to the masses.
No comments:
Post a Comment