Digital photography Vs. Digital Videography!

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

aboalreem

Contributor
Scuba Instructor
Messages
388
Reaction score
1
Location
Chicago
# of dives
500 - 999
I am trying to decide to go for UW Photography or Videography. what is your experience, I tried both underwater and still can not decide, which way to go, since I need to buy the equipment.
What are the advantages of one over the other. Which one is easier to work with, and which one is more rewarding.
Thanks
 
easy answer: VIDEO....

unless you can afford a true SLR - you will end up with 90% of your pictures being nothing but fish 'butts' because of the inherent digital delay in your 'regular' digital cameras. ever notice how most pictures of things that DON'T move? now you know why.

on a trip to FIJI 2 years ago, we were 10 folks, 7 taking pictures, thousands and thousands of pictures. (http://piddlefish.servepics.com/SCUBA/photo.html. i was the only one taking video. a few months later when we got together to reminisce more than 1 person said that the video's where what they watched to 'really' remember.

video is so much better at conveying the excitement, grandeur, etc etc etc of the underwater experience.

caveat: unless you enjoy 'working' on your video to produce the 5~10 minute movie of your adventure... go for photography. you can spend 'hours' colour correcting photos as well, but you will HAVE to edit your video to produce something that folks will want to watch.
 
LOL ask this in the video section and you'll get lots of VIDEO! Ask in the Photo section and you'll get STILLS!

As I shoot both I'll tell you what I think about each (very briefly).

Video - love it. Show the action really well. It's pretty easy to get reasonable footage and as your skills develop you can start shooting tougher shots. I have hours and hours of video. I've never watched most of it. Probably won't. Friends and family don't want to sit through long video sessions, so keep them short.

Stills - love it. Captures moments in time, personalities, beauty. I have to vehemently disagree with meekal above...you do not need a dslr to get more than fish butts. Most of the compact digitals will do a great job - you just need to work within their limitations. Friends/family love to see an image here or there - again, keep it short and select your best ones.

To get the best out of either, you're going to have to edit. I find editing video footage a little tedious after a while, but some love to do it. I don't spend much time editing my stills - I get them as close as possible in camera.

No matter what system you buy, still or video, low end or top of the line, you will need to learn what your camera will do and get in their and practice. It isn't the tool, it's the artist.

If you aren't quite sure, you might want to consider renting some gear for a few more dives or look at a compact digital that does both. This will let you explore video for relatively little cost - it's not exactly the same as shooting with a dedicated rig, but if you are unsure it's a great way to narrow your interests down. And you are likely to use your compact digital on land, too, so it won't sit on shelf when you aren't underwater.

Whichever you choose you'll have a great time!
 
I guess my answer has to be, what story do you want to tell? Video does a superb job of telling a story about things that are in motion (whether the item or the camera) -- stills tell a great story about the moment.

I like the newer digital cameras that also have decent (Nope, not great!) video capabilities. Most of my story telling of my underwater world is about "the moment" which means stills -- but there are also those moments that need video and with a twist of a button, I can get it.

You can see some of my stories at:

Video Story

This story would just not make it as a still (and yes, the video could be a LOT better had it been done with a "real" video camera but this was made with an inexpensive digital).

Stills Story

I hope not too many "fish butts" in these -- and of course, if I had used "slide show" software, there would be naration, music and motion giving the impression of movement too.

Again, what story do you want to tell?
 
alcina:
......
If you aren't quite sure, you might want to consider renting some gear for a few more dives or look at a compact digital that does both. This will let you explore video for relatively little cost - it's not exactly the same as shooting with a dedicated rig, but if you are unsure it's a great way to narrow your interests down. And you are likely to use your compact digital on land, too, so it won't sit on shelf when you aren't underwater.

Whichever you choose you'll have a great time!

Great idea Alcina. You can get a camera that does video or a camcorder that does stills. Obviously it will perform better at what it was intended for.

Here's a question. How good are you on the computer ? A good video involves a decent amount of time on the computer.

I am a little surprised though. When viewing good photos and videos, I always thought people at least "leaned" one way or the other.
 
Video is a lot more work. The equipment is generally larger, more expensive, more time consuming in post and requires a bigger computer.

However, with right the video camera you can take very good stills or even just frame grabs from tape that are very good quality. Here is a sample frame grab from a dive this weekend. What's nice is you can choose from thousands of frames to grab. I didn't take pics in still mode though.
 
schweet pic! couple of questions though....

1. can we assume that it's coming from your HC1?
2. what kind of 'blennie / goby' is this?
3. how'd you get so dang close? are you a ninja diver or ZOOM?
 
meekal:
schweet pic! couple of questions though....

1. can we assume that it's coming from your HC1?
2. what kind of 'blennie / goby' is this?
3. how'd you get so dang close? are you a ninja diver or ZOOM?

Ninja diver, LOL !

Hey, I plan on doing macro with a diopter for the 1st time on my next trip. I wear all black and I am Asian, so maybe the spirit of the Ninja will let me get close to the fish.:D
 
I gotta jump in here and give an opinion - I have been shooting digital still for 3 years now and just got a video rig for xmas.......... Video is more fun, hands down.
here are my reasons:
1. as a buddy I find that still photography requires more intense concentration on my "subject" and less on what is going on around me including my buddy so I am a better diver as a videographer
2. still requires setting up a shot, adjusting the camera settings, adjusting the strobe......oops, strobe too hot, adjust strobe again....... now where did that fish go??? dang, fish butt again.....
3. video is instant gratification - see fish, turn on camcorder..... swim around or zoom in and as "subject" moves, you move or you turn off the camcorder. Done. Nooooo stresss! No oops, I missed the shot, oops I took 3 shots and they were all either too dark, too hot, or fish butt.
4. video can give you more a sense of what diving is all about rather than just a single frame shot. So it is easier for non-divers to view and get a feel of what "diving" is all about
5. still shots are more artistic and you can put them up on the wall to admire.... that's the only thing they have over video to me!

robint
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom