REFLECTION on still vs video and nature imagery
Making successful images of animals and birds turns out to be much harder than I realised at first. Getting a good big lens helps but doesn’t ensure success. I am sure patience would help too, but I haven’t really tried that yet.
Much of what works for a people-shot works for creatures: close framing, uncluttered backgrounds, eye contact, the right ‘outfit’, balance, sharpness, a good smile and so on. OK, the outfit in this case means no brown (pooey) marks on your white feathers, inelegant patchy moulting, unmanly scars on big cats. A good smile means not too much slobber.
Professionals on our Antarctic trip said that you can’t sell images of penguin parents feeding because it looks like they are swallowing the chick! (I will post one latter you will see what I mean). They also said bloody photos sell in Europe, but not USA (!!)
Looking at my early attempts with video I am wondering if moving images solve some problems at least in documenting behaviour. We can see the penguin sky-pointing and hear them calling and see it as part of courtship. Or see the gathering and stealing of stones for nests as a sequence rather than wondering ‘what’s that in its mouth’ Obviously video shots are also better clean and well composed, but we do have the action component that can draw the eye away from clutter.
Video doesn’t replace a fine print for display purposes but a short clip may well come to replace some fixed images in publications especially once the iPad rules the world. Think ‘The Daily Prophet’s moving pictures in the Harry Potter series.
see also this teknote on DSLR video
As an example compare these images; penguin & penguin and this video
