The processes of video and stills photography are different.
Earth shattering observation I know :).
I went in eyes open, but I think I have to adjust my pre-conceptions, to allow for how and how much, they differ.
Taking stills is a process of capturing single images to tell a story. Each image stands on its own, but if done to a theme and done well enough, select images from the sequence should tell a story. Taking each image is a singular process, an immersion, with its own victory that stands alone even if it took several to land that one.
Identify, compose, shoot, repeat.
A nothing sort of grab shot that might end up on the cover of a music department retrospective, but mandatory stock for video.
A lot of stills shooting is quite satisfying on a frame by frame basis. Sometimes I come awake from a job excited by a single superior image. Unless you miss your subject completely, any interpretation is accepted as your interpretation. The misses never tell.
Video shooting requires a stronger sense of continuity. The ability to capture the less dynamic moments as support structure for a more coherent story line is paramount. A bunch of random grabs could be cobbled together, but don’t push your luck. You need to work to a plan, shoot a lot of footage that may feel a little pointless in itself, but when combined with the pivotal moment captures, make a better whole.
You need to pre-visualise or “see” the end product and work towards it. You need to plan.
A stills shooter may take some B-roll style images, as they present, a process that often defines their style, but the movie maker needs to take B-roll.
I am still a little unsure here. It seems to be very unformed all of this footage, but that is because I am not yet (don’t need to) tell a story. Mark Bone, in one of his excellent podcasts says the story has to build towards an ending, using the journey to raise tension as the main character overcomes all barriers to success. Maybe when I have an ending to work towards, it will make more sense.
You should do this with stills, but the formation of the story is less about connected images and more about images supporting words. I generally juts trust that I will instinctively take enough fillers to get the shoot fleshed out. Video needs to support itself. Even with narration, it needs to make sense in and of itself.
This does require two creative hats to be worn, but maybe also two heads.
In the beginning of this journey, I felt that a good eye for stills would help with video. It does sort of, but the reality is you need to think differently when you switch between mediums. Tackling video with a more ad-hoc still photographers mentality will lead to disaster. Shooting stills like a videographer would likely be too stilted, too formulaic. Somewhere in between may suit both.
My video learning curve is steep already. Even putting aside the technical side, which is fun but mammoth, the re-training of my eye and the reality of concentrating more on the “jpeg” like process up front will be the biggest hurdles (documentary materiel maybe).
The combining of stills and video really make for a powerful combination. The moving stock takes you there, the still adds impact and raises the importance of a singular moment. It allows you to hover over that moment without it feeling strange or convoluted. The advantage of this approach also is the continuity the video adds to the stills capture.
The trick is doing it.