Photography or Video?

I am getting slightly bored of clicking on a new thread on this forum expecting to see some new photographs and finding that I'm faced with a video clip.

Could we not have a separate section for video clips and leave the photography part of the forum for those who have examples of photography rather than filmography? (no offence to those who take videos but it doesn't quite seem the relevant section for them).

 

Why not a separate one for photos then as if you dont like videos then thats fine but why should photos rule over videos .Then again i dont have to click on photo links just as much as you have to click on peoples videos

 

I presume because this sub-section of the forum is labelled "photography", not "videography"? Personally, I don't mind, but I can understand those coming to the photography section might expect to see photographs and not videos. So perhaps it should be labelled "Photography and Videography", or alternatively a separate section made for video postings and discussion.

 

The team are currently discussing this issue.

 

Natprestube

 

I like to see both and can usually tell before clicking on the link. Many posters leave a clue such as 'Here is my vid from today' or 'a few of my pics can be found here.'

 

A selection of thread titles:

1) 'North Yorkshire Moors Railway 19th July 2010'
2) '46115 empty coaching stock movement - 19th July 2010'
3) Vintage Trains on KWVR - 11th July 2010
4) Embsay & Bolton Abbey Railway
5) 44871 midweek on the ELR
6) NYMR 3rd July, 9F & Q6 at last!

3 video, 3 photography, what's what just from the titles?

 

I wouldn't want to assume what someone else is going to post though. Someone who posts a lot of videos may also put up good photographs and vice versa. I'd rather not prejudice what they're posting.

The point I'm making really is, could we have a separate forum for videos pleassssssssse?

 

Is there really any need for a seperate video section. I can see where you're coming from, but nobody has ever had a problem before? I'd class video has an aspect of photography.

And your links only have 2 video, 4 Photo's. My thread about 46115 ECS only contains photos on the website, no video has been uploaded. For somebody who posts both video clips and photos taken from the videos a new section would become slightly confussing in my opinion, having to remember to post in the correct section.

 

In a photography section I want to look at photographs, not waste my time opening threads that are videos. I don't see what the harm is having a sub-forum for videos so you know what you're looking at.

Again, why should I prejudice Simon's posts and assume they are all video? What if he takes good photographs that I want to look at as well? Why should I just ignore what he posts because I have assumed that it's all videos and not photographs?

 

I don't accept that there is a difference between stills and movie any more than I accept that there is a difference between film and digital photography. It is a question of technology and labels no more. The one is a single image, on film or digital media; the other is a sequence of images at 25fps to create an illusion of a moving image.

There are people who insist that digital photography is not true photography - a view which I think is utter rubbish - and now there are people who want to insist that the moving image is inferior to stills too. Personally I think it is the ultimate in Nat Pres intolerence for 'Neil_Scott' to complain that he opens links in error and finds only disappointment. Perhaps if he wasn't so damned lazy and actually looked to see what the link is actually going to direct him to he would be better off.

 

I have at no point suggested that still photography is superior to videos, what a ridiculous suggestion. What I've suggested is a better way of organising the forum into more appropriate headings and sub-headings for posting.

I don't understand the last sentence of your post at all Orion. If I didn't open the links how would I know what's in the post? How would I know whether it's film or video? Of course I open the links, hoping to see photographs and find videos in a photography section!

 

If you see a link with the words 'YouTube' and 'watch' then it is a video to which you are being directed. If on the otherhand the link includes - amongst others - the word 'fotopic' then it is to a webpage of stills. It's dead easy.

I am very much of the view that photography is a broad church and the NP 'Photography' thread should reflect that. It matters not one iota whether the image is recorded on an emulsion or digital media, whether it still or moving, in colour or black and white it is all photography and should be respected as such. To move any, absolutely any, of those variations of photography into a category of its own is to move it into a ghetto with the very obvious implication that it is inferior. This implication is unacceptable to me and probably to anybody who values photography as a medium for recording or art - and sometimes both.

So, Neil, just look at the form of the link to get a clue as to the content that lies behind the link.

 

Neil,
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I prefer a good still to a good video but I prefer a good video to a rubbish still. I'm happy to look at them all and it's only a mouse click to move on if I don't like what I see.

 

Slightly puzzled by this. You don't accept there's a difference, but then go on to describe some of the differences?

As I said before, I don't mind if they're all grouped together in the same forum, but equally I can see Neils point and wouldn't raise any objection to them being in separate sub-sections. It would be neater to keep the two separate, but so far only Neil has raised it as an issue, so it may not be worth the administrative burden of setting up and maintaining a separate section, unless more people have strong views. I find that it doesn't usually take more than a couple of clicks to work out which is which and I can live with that.

I think it's wrong to suggest that Neil is in any way giving the impression that video is inferior. Just because I have a preference for LMS Pacifics, it doesn't mean LNER, SR, GWR, etc. are inferior. Actually, bad example, because obviously the latter are definitely so. ;-) I suspect, like myself, he shoots stills and that's his main interest so that's what he primarily wants to look at. Keeping them in separate forums would just make that a little easier. Whether it's worth it or not is up to the mods and may depend if other's besides Neil have strong views. Some clearly express the opposite view and think they're better grouped together.