distinction between photography and cinematography

[Tom Lowe]

You should make the distinction of saying "motion pictures" vs "still photographs".... because both are "photography."

[Michael Nash]

You should make the distinction of saying "motion pictures" vs "still photographs".... because both are "photography."

 

And the difference doesn't end with the capture either. We're comparing different presentation mediums as well (photos and movies). How the photography is used is an extension of how it's captured.

 

For example, still photos used in advertising and publication are often mixed with graphics and text; cropped, layered, half-toned, etc. etc... Motion picture photography in movies is usually presented full frame. Or, the opposite can be true -- TV commmercials with lots of editing, layers and graphics compared to a still photo presented in a gallery or coffee table book...

[David Auner aac]

One more thing to think about:

 

One can look at a photograph as long as they want, but in motion pictures we define the time one is able to look at a picture/shot (leaving the pause button of DVD players aside :D).

I'm currently reading two books that deal with that question actually among a load of other issues. One is Susan Sonntag's On Photography and the other is Mary Ann Doane's The Emergence of Cinematic Time. Both are a very worthwhile read. And Walter Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction concerning the loss of what he calls the aura of a work of art.

 

Cheers, Dave

[Leo Anthony Vale]

One more thing to think about:

 

One can look at a photograph as long as they want, but in motion pictures we define the time one is able to look at a picture/shot (leaving the pause button of DVD players aside :D).

 

Which makes motion pictures similar to symphonic music.

 

When Satyajat Ray received his life achievement Academy Award he claimed motion pictures are derived from 19th century classical music. Something I had alreadly considered.

[Thomas James]

Actually the distinction between photography and cinematography can be blurred with the proper techniques. For example with a video portrait I can lock down on a subject without panning or tilting just like a still photograph. Yet I can also capture motion. So if I photograph a tree I can capture the tree swaying in the wind and the leaves fluttering. Since still photographers never had a monopoly on fine detail I can capture as much fine detail as I want up to 20 megapixels if I shoot 65mm film. Yet I can also capture as much motion as I want. This type of photography is vastly superior to conventional photography. With video or motion picture film portraits the photography can be identical to Ansel Adams yet the waterfalls of Yosemite come alive and liquify because you are also capturing motion. But on the otherhand there are no distractions because you are not panning or zooming or intercutting the footage with other subject matter. So what this is is a hybrid of still photographic techniques and motion picture techniques. Yet purists will always debase this artform because they insist it has to one or the other. Yet even if this were true all I have to do is ramp up the shutter speed and I can get a perfect screen grab from the footage rather than having to get lucky enough to get the right shot which I always seem to miss.

[Chris Keth]

Actually the distinction between photography and cinematography can be blurred with the proper techniques. For example with a video portrait I can lock down on a subject without panning or tilting just like a still photograph. Yet I can also capture motion. So if I photograph a tree I can capture the tree swaying in the wind and the leaves fluttering. Since still photographers never had a monopoly on fine detail I can capture as much fine detail as I want up to 20 megapixels if I shoot 65mm film. Yet I can also capture as much motion as I want. This type of photography is vastly superior to conventional photography. With video or motion picture film portraits the photography can be identical to Ansel Adams yet the waterfalls of Yosemite come alive and liquify because you are also capturing motion. But on the otherhand there are no distractions because you are not panning or zooming or intercutting the footage with other subject matter. So what this is is a hybrid of still photographic techniques and motion picture techniques. Yet purists will always debase this artform because they insist it has to one or the other. Yet even if this were true all I have to do is ramp up the shutter speed and I can get a perfect screen grab from the footage rather than having to get lucky enough to get the right shot which I always seem to miss.

 

I have to disagree with a couple of points you raise. The addition of motion does not make a photograph any better. It is a difference, not an addition. You show me some of your work that is anywhere equal to that of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, or Bresson and I might reconsider.

 

Still photography does have a monopoly on the extremes in fine detail, even to this day. 65mm film, the ultimate in motion picture photography pales in comparison to 8x10 sheet film of even the fastest speeds. 8x10 is only the most common large formats, too. I know of people shooting sheet film sizes up to 20x24 and I even know of one polaroid photographer that has an exhibition of life sized original portraits (they are not enlarged at all).

 

Also, getting that perfect photograph is not luck. It is work and skill. If you can not seem to do it, you probably need to work harder, learn more, or both.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Chris Keth

[Michael Lehnert]

This discussion has now moved into the complex areas of intersection between the one and the other where we might end up eventually debating whether Bullet Time effects are actually 'photography' or 'cinematography'.

 

 

Worse even: we start to bring in painting and music which is extremely difficult to relate to in respect to cinematography and photography, as at their very essence of being, the later two are concrete art forms, whereas the first two are abstract art forms. A recent thread about one's inspiring painters should have showcased that. In that respect - as I mentioned in my post there - I never get tired of recommending the films by Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, particularly "Cézanne" or "Une visite au Louvre", but also "Lothringen!" or "Antigone", or or or... :) . These films are a challenge on every level.

 

 

(By the way: I prefer to use the terms 'photography' and 'cinematography' distinctively over 'still picture' and 'motion picture'; never liked or indeed understood as a child the job title 'Director of Photography' in films either... so confusing to civilians even now..: "...but I thought you headed a modelling agency?!" :rolleyes: )

 

 

To briefly return to the original question and daring an attempt to define it in a philosophical nutshell (!), I would say that the two signifying dimensions of difference and similarity between photography and cinematography from all imaginable perspectives ? namely the maker, the observer, the techniques of creation, the act of reception, the underlying material economy and the artistic language at hand ? are indeed 'time' and 'captivation'.

 

I would hence state that photography is dwelling in the moment of frozen time, whereas cinematography is the indulging in the passing of time.

 

In German, I would formulate it as such:

Photographie ist das Verweilen im Moment gefrorener Zeit, Cinematographie ist das sich Ergehen in vergehender Zeit.

 

 

-Michael

[John Sprung]

i think one of the biggest differences is that a cinematograper dosn't just shoot a series of nicely framed compositions. Each shot is composed with the awareness that it will have to 'cut' into another shot fluidly. i.e. continuity of lighting, exposure, screen direction etc.

There's more to it than that. What constitutes a nicely framed composition differs depending on whether it's still or in motion. The more the motion, the bigger the difference.

 

Go frame by frame through a well done chase sequence, for instance. Very few of the frames would be remotely acceptable as still compositions. Yet each shot works when you put it in motion. Looking for freeze frames is sort of the intersection between still and motion composition.

 

Or think of it the other way around. Try to shoot the chase so that every frame works as a still. That would be a visual Rubic's Cube of pointless difficulty, but if it were done, I'd bet that the sequence wouldn't work in motion.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.