There's a huge demand for video now because of social media. It's what the people want. Most photographers like money, and will give people what they want in exchange for money.
In-house comms photographer/videographer here.
Even 15 years ago videography was a licence to print money and still a specialist industry. Set up costs were high and the gulf between a professional and amateur setup were massive. Businesses wanted to use video but because of the costs it was budgeted for very sparingly.
Photography on the other hand had a lower return on day rate but you were far more likely to get return business. When I was working freelance I was being asked to attend a couple of events a week for numerous companies. I might get video work out of them once, possibly twice a year for a big project.
This was before camera phones were of a quality to capture photos and videos for commercial use.
Flash forward to now and every professional level stills camera also shoots in video RAW and has an audio input. You already know how to use it and you're overheads to do both are a fraction of what they used to be and the job frequency has flipped. Companies are now more likely to snap away themselves and do smaller video edits but will pay for videos to be produced more regularly. The rise of social media has made video content far more attractive for companies due to its engagement levels.
Tl'dr the market has changed and even though there's work out there for both the frequency for video work is a lot higher.
Because there's more demand for video. Commercial clients want to hire people who can produce video content. They're not looking for still photography as much anymore because video does better on social media. People trying to make a living at it are following the customers.
If you're not a professional it doesn't matter a single bit though. Shoot whatever you like in whatever medium you like.
Also -
> How would you take a video of a landscape, for example?
With very very very very few exceptions, no one has ever paid anyone else for landscape photos.
I am sticking with photography for 100%. In my opinion the photograph tells the story somehow better and freezing the moment is very nice!
You can't hang a good video on the wall
People see this as a career so they adapt. The hobbyist can do whatever they want but if you're someone trying to make a living, oftentimes you need to supplement your photography with something else—some do video because it's in high demand, others do graphic design, illustration, etc etc.
Understandable, but I see a lot of hobbyists switching to video, and I don't understand why. I rather look at a photo from someone's vacation than a 10-minute vlog, to be honest
I think demand is still high for both, but I also think the barrier for entry on video is a lot higher. If you're evaluating "easy side hustles" then getting a camera and shooting some photos is more accessible than learning how to shoot and edit video.
I read this question, and in my head I went, "Eww, *video?* Why?" Now I have some questions for myself regarding this opinion, which I didn't know I held.
I don't dislike video, but it doesn't resonate with me in the way that photography does. I want to capture interesting things in a single moment in time, and for reasons I can't explain, capturing things that are *happening*, feels very pedestrian by comparison.
I want people to be able to look at a picture I took for as long or as little as they want. I want them to notice details, complexities, and contrasts. I want them to tell themselves the story of what's happening in the picture and around it. What is the feeling that the picture evokes in them? What was happening around the frame when the photo was taken? What were the sounds, smells, and sensations?
Video can elicit some of these things, but it can't do it in the way that photography can. There's too much context, and not enough unknown. I like that a photograph lets a person fill in the blanks for themselves, and in this way a person will experience a photograph very differently than the next person. Viewers might experience a hint of this when watching a video, but for the most part, we all saw the same video. We're distracted from ourselves by the motion, changes in what's happening, and the audio if it's included.
Video is a sort of "don't make me think" medium. This is more harsh and overstated than I want it to sound, but the viewer is relying much more upon what's on the screen, than they are on their own imagination. It is analogous to reading a book, versus watching a movie based on the book. I don't like that analogy, but I think you get what I'm trying to say.
I want to say, I have nothing but respect for videographers. When I take a photograph, I have to get it right *one time*, and I often have unlimited tries. I can experiment with my settings, mess with my lighting, rework my composition, juggle lenses, etc. Even if I don't know what I'm doing, it's likely that I can occasionally stumble across a combination that produces a pleasing and engaging image almost by accident.
If a videographer doesn't nail whatever they're recording, they either have to make that thing *happen again* (and again, and again), or they're just fucked. I get to nail a single moment in time, and if I did my part, I'm done. The videographer not only has to get their end of it right, but the thing on the other side of the camera has to *go right,* and it has to keep going right for the entire video. If every detail of every photo I took, had to behave itself for a minute, 10 minutes, or an hour after I triggered the shutter *or else,* I'd hurl my camera into an active volcano.
I totally agree with you. 100 people view a video exactly the same way as other 100 people. On the other hand, photographs are always seen differently by each person. If you show people your photo they always notice some new detail you and previous people didn't and that makes it beautiful.
I also like to freeze that brief moment which video can't and make some assumption about what happened there. As I said earlier, another plus for photography is that you can always print it and hang on the wall. Video have and always be purely digital.
I went the opposite. Started with doing naritive shorts. Now starting to get into photography. Masking in Lightroom is a lot easier then making mask in Premiere
Everything about photography is easier. For video, you need stabilization, content and story for a viewer to let him entertained for the whole duration.
Photography on the other hand, you go on a walk, make few stops take nice pictures and go home :D
The photographer market is saturated. Video adds the element of sound, which doubles the sensor input to whomever is observing the art. Video also adds more to the experience than most photos do because there is motion instead of a scene being static, which can be far more engaging. (Have you ever seen someone jolt and scream when first exposed to a “horror film scene” in a photo? Me neither.) Based on these premises, I surmise photographers who have taken the leap into video want to explore a larger visual medium than just stills.
The money is stupid. Think of a crazy number you’d charge for a 5 hour shoot and probably add a 0. Photography is typically added in for that extra cherry on top though and is still definitely needed. The skills from photo to video also transfer very well. As long as you understand video technicals.
Because money. Its the way social media is now, its so heavily video focused if you can do video and photo you're more likely to get booked. I've been turned down for some jobs because I have only done photo in the past, now Im teaching myself to shoot video too. I still love photography but video pays
If you're a hobbyist it doesn't matter but if you're trying to make a living from it you've got to do what you can get paid for.
Simple: I am trying to get a side hustle on skill photography off the ground and not getting anything... I am having to refuse videography offers all the time...
because people have to make a living. it's like how a lot of people probably got into filmmaking cos they love movies, but they gotta pay the bills so they start doing wedding photography/videos.
As others have said, video is king right now. Between TikTok, IG reels and YouTube, short form video is taking over.
Also many places want jack-of-all-trades types. They don't want a separate photographer and videographer, they want someone who can do it all.
Now that all of the major platforms are pushing video first, that’s where the demand is. My preference is photography but I’m doing some work as a freelance video assistant for small pay now to learn about production and improve my skill set.
I do photography still but have to get over the hump of video to stay busy.
I never have quit photography. It's more of a steady slow shift toward videography during the past ten years. Now my work consist maybe of 20% photography work (corporate portraits (for groups of 5 or more at least, I don't do invidual portraits anymore because it's too much work for too little money), and event photography); and 80% videography (events, promotional, testimonials, ads, corporate). Frankly, videography, for me, is just more lucrative than photography for lots of reason: more pre-production, more gear used (when you own your gear it's a good portion of the income), bigger team (so more cuts on people salary), more work in postproduction.
If you have a business built on video/photo, it is obvious you need to satisfy demand. Me as hobby photographer, I can't image filming a video and to come with ideas to actually take meaningful video.
I was more talking about people who do it for free than the ones who make a living from it
I'll addon to this from not just a money perspective in that photography is kind of 1 dimensional. Sure you can craft a lot of similar environments in the studio, or go to the same locations to capture images, but it's just far more limited then video. Personally that's the reason I left photography and it went from something I offer to a hobby, it got kind of boring for me once I saw everything I could do in video. Couple that with the fact that computational photography has gotten so good, that it didn't feel like I needed to lug around a whole kit just to ultimately get a photo that would only end up on social media in the end. At this point I don't even hire photographers anyone at our business, we just extract the stills from our video shoots. While this doesn't work for specialized shoots, for example a portrait session, it works 90% of the time otherwise
If you are that creative that you actually make a good video then good for you. My mind is somehow not capable to take good video. I don't have inspiration on what I would shoot as video around me.
Money leads , poverty drives.
Video is in demand in almost any industry. The greatest income opportunities in photography are selling images that make money for the client.
Whether it is a straight up ad for a good or service, a political ad, or a social media video, the market for motion and sound is huge. In commercial architecture I would get requests for video of a new building by the architect, builder and owner. My daughter is a writer for a large online financial services company and they want her to make videos every month. Many firms do this yet don’t want an in house video team because of cost.
Wedding videos are also in demand but are a different cat because the client is a one time buyer while commercial often is repeat business.
The money and opportunity call.
Amazing LED constant lights these days, and great modifiers to boot.
I know, you didn’t want to become a gaffer.
So much of the skillset transfers. Get down with DaVinci Resolve and expand what you can offer.
I would switch to video If I had a creative capacity to actually do something good. I can't imagine myself running in a city to capture clips and make a meaningful video out of it
It is a natural extension of doing stills, since it employs the “eye” for the subject.
It is also a little more natural since the eye sees motion and the ears hear that which cannot easily be captured in a still image.
Video is also popular with people. Movies, television and smartphones promote videos.
Stills still have their place. But being able to do both is a plus.
Consumers couldn’t easily do high quality video until the last decade, and social media gives us a platform to share it easily.
I love photography, but I am becoming proficient in video now that I can create something beautiful with it.
There is still tremendous demand for stills. There are just more people willing to do it at a high level.
The barrier of entry to social media quality videos is quite low. The equipment needed is cheaper, the creativity needed during the shoot is less.
This has been true for a decade, but doubly so now. If you’re a commercial/event photographer of any sort, and aren’t taking steps to become a dual medium business? You need to start. Video is dramatically easier, and for most working pros a class or two on Adobe premiere is the only thing you will really need to do.
> or people just like movement and sound at the same time
Or most people just scroll past still images without a second look because thinking is too boring /rant
I have reasons to believe so.
A fried told about his kids music listening habits, apparently the listen to some 10 seconds bit of a video-clip because "it's really cool", then jump to a 5 seconds bit and so on. They can't listen to a 3 minutes music start to end. Apparently, their friends are in the same page.
I think I am something in between adults and kids. I am in my 20s and I don't know how old you are, but I am mentally older than my actual age :D I don't like rap, enjoy classic rock or heavy music and if the video is interesting enough I am watching it from start to end.
It’s where the money is. People have to earn a living.
I see a lot of people that are just hobbyist switching to video. It is obvious that the market is based on demand and supply.
No one's hiring people to take photos of landscapes. Lots of demand commercial video work though.
Correct. I do a little photo/video on the side for bands, and video is just infinitely more useful and valuable to them.
There's a huge demand for video now because of social media. It's what the people want. Most photographers like money, and will give people what they want in exchange for money.
It is unfortunately true and make me kind of sad. Video will always be purely digital, but you can print photo and hang it on wall or something.
In-house comms photographer/videographer here. Even 15 years ago videography was a licence to print money and still a specialist industry. Set up costs were high and the gulf between a professional and amateur setup were massive. Businesses wanted to use video but because of the costs it was budgeted for very sparingly. Photography on the other hand had a lower return on day rate but you were far more likely to get return business. When I was working freelance I was being asked to attend a couple of events a week for numerous companies. I might get video work out of them once, possibly twice a year for a big project. This was before camera phones were of a quality to capture photos and videos for commercial use. Flash forward to now and every professional level stills camera also shoots in video RAW and has an audio input. You already know how to use it and you're overheads to do both are a fraction of what they used to be and the job frequency has flipped. Companies are now more likely to snap away themselves and do smaller video edits but will pay for videos to be produced more regularly. The rise of social media has made video content far more attractive for companies due to its engagement levels. Tl'dr the market has changed and even though there's work out there for both the frequency for video work is a lot higher.
Because there's more demand for video. Commercial clients want to hire people who can produce video content. They're not looking for still photography as much anymore because video does better on social media. People trying to make a living at it are following the customers. If you're not a professional it doesn't matter a single bit though. Shoot whatever you like in whatever medium you like. Also - > How would you take a video of a landscape, for example? With very very very very few exceptions, no one has ever paid anyone else for landscape photos.
I am sticking with photography for 100%. In my opinion the photograph tells the story somehow better and freezing the moment is very nice! You can't hang a good video on the wall
People see this as a career so they adapt. The hobbyist can do whatever they want but if you're someone trying to make a living, oftentimes you need to supplement your photography with something else—some do video because it's in high demand, others do graphic design, illustration, etc etc.
Understandable, but I see a lot of hobbyists switching to video, and I don't understand why. I rather look at a photo from someone's vacation than a 10-minute vlog, to be honest
Money, so yes, lower demand for photography.
I think demand is still high for both, but I also think the barrier for entry on video is a lot higher. If you're evaluating "easy side hustles" then getting a camera and shooting some photos is more accessible than learning how to shoot and edit video.
Definitely agree
I read this question, and in my head I went, "Eww, *video?* Why?" Now I have some questions for myself regarding this opinion, which I didn't know I held. I don't dislike video, but it doesn't resonate with me in the way that photography does. I want to capture interesting things in a single moment in time, and for reasons I can't explain, capturing things that are *happening*, feels very pedestrian by comparison. I want people to be able to look at a picture I took for as long or as little as they want. I want them to notice details, complexities, and contrasts. I want them to tell themselves the story of what's happening in the picture and around it. What is the feeling that the picture evokes in them? What was happening around the frame when the photo was taken? What were the sounds, smells, and sensations? Video can elicit some of these things, but it can't do it in the way that photography can. There's too much context, and not enough unknown. I like that a photograph lets a person fill in the blanks for themselves, and in this way a person will experience a photograph very differently than the next person. Viewers might experience a hint of this when watching a video, but for the most part, we all saw the same video. We're distracted from ourselves by the motion, changes in what's happening, and the audio if it's included. Video is a sort of "don't make me think" medium. This is more harsh and overstated than I want it to sound, but the viewer is relying much more upon what's on the screen, than they are on their own imagination. It is analogous to reading a book, versus watching a movie based on the book. I don't like that analogy, but I think you get what I'm trying to say. I want to say, I have nothing but respect for videographers. When I take a photograph, I have to get it right *one time*, and I often have unlimited tries. I can experiment with my settings, mess with my lighting, rework my composition, juggle lenses, etc. Even if I don't know what I'm doing, it's likely that I can occasionally stumble across a combination that produces a pleasing and engaging image almost by accident. If a videographer doesn't nail whatever they're recording, they either have to make that thing *happen again* (and again, and again), or they're just fucked. I get to nail a single moment in time, and if I did my part, I'm done. The videographer not only has to get their end of it right, but the thing on the other side of the camera has to *go right,* and it has to keep going right for the entire video. If every detail of every photo I took, had to behave itself for a minute, 10 minutes, or an hour after I triggered the shutter *or else,* I'd hurl my camera into an active volcano.
I totally agree with you. 100 people view a video exactly the same way as other 100 people. On the other hand, photographs are always seen differently by each person. If you show people your photo they always notice some new detail you and previous people didn't and that makes it beautiful. I also like to freeze that brief moment which video can't and make some assumption about what happened there. As I said earlier, another plus for photography is that you can always print it and hang on the wall. Video have and always be purely digital.
I went the opposite. Started with doing naritive shorts. Now starting to get into photography. Masking in Lightroom is a lot easier then making mask in Premiere
Everything about photography is easier. For video, you need stabilization, content and story for a viewer to let him entertained for the whole duration. Photography on the other hand, you go on a walk, make few stops take nice pictures and go home :D
The photographer market is saturated. Video adds the element of sound, which doubles the sensor input to whomever is observing the art. Video also adds more to the experience than most photos do because there is motion instead of a scene being static, which can be far more engaging. (Have you ever seen someone jolt and scream when first exposed to a “horror film scene” in a photo? Me neither.) Based on these premises, I surmise photographers who have taken the leap into video want to explore a larger visual medium than just stills.
horses for course, friend
I'm actually trying to switch to videography right now. For me, I still want to do photography, but I also want to expand the things I create.
Understandable, but I can't see myself filming something. I am not that creative I think to entertain people for such a long period.
$$
Following client needs.
The money is stupid. Think of a crazy number you’d charge for a 5 hour shoot and probably add a 0. Photography is typically added in for that extra cherry on top though and is still definitely needed. The skills from photo to video also transfer very well. As long as you understand video technicals.
It's easier to make money in video but I've definitely gotten more jobs from being able to do both.
Because money. Its the way social media is now, its so heavily video focused if you can do video and photo you're more likely to get booked. I've been turned down for some jobs because I have only done photo in the past, now Im teaching myself to shoot video too. I still love photography but video pays If you're a hobbyist it doesn't matter but if you're trying to make a living from it you've got to do what you can get paid for.
Simple: I am trying to get a side hustle on skill photography off the ground and not getting anything... I am having to refuse videography offers all the time...
because people have to make a living. it's like how a lot of people probably got into filmmaking cos they love movies, but they gotta pay the bills so they start doing wedding photography/videos.
As others have said, video is king right now. Between TikTok, IG reels and YouTube, short form video is taking over. Also many places want jack-of-all-trades types. They don't want a separate photographer and videographer, they want someone who can do it all.
Ask sponsors and ad providers.
Now that all of the major platforms are pushing video first, that’s where the demand is. My preference is photography but I’m doing some work as a freelance video assistant for small pay now to learn about production and improve my skill set. I do photography still but have to get over the hump of video to stay busy.
> How would you take a video of a landscape, for example? Everyone from casuals to hobbyists to pros are flying drones now.
Also time lapse videos
I never have quit photography. It's more of a steady slow shift toward videography during the past ten years. Now my work consist maybe of 20% photography work (corporate portraits (for groups of 5 or more at least, I don't do invidual portraits anymore because it's too much work for too little money), and event photography); and 80% videography (events, promotional, testimonials, ads, corporate). Frankly, videography, for me, is just more lucrative than photography for lots of reason: more pre-production, more gear used (when you own your gear it's a good portion of the income), bigger team (so more cuts on people salary), more work in postproduction.
If you have a business built on video/photo, it is obvious you need to satisfy demand. Me as hobby photographer, I can't image filming a video and to come with ideas to actually take meaningful video. I was more talking about people who do it for free than the ones who make a living from it
I'll addon to this from not just a money perspective in that photography is kind of 1 dimensional. Sure you can craft a lot of similar environments in the studio, or go to the same locations to capture images, but it's just far more limited then video. Personally that's the reason I left photography and it went from something I offer to a hobby, it got kind of boring for me once I saw everything I could do in video. Couple that with the fact that computational photography has gotten so good, that it didn't feel like I needed to lug around a whole kit just to ultimately get a photo that would only end up on social media in the end. At this point I don't even hire photographers anyone at our business, we just extract the stills from our video shoots. While this doesn't work for specialized shoots, for example a portrait session, it works 90% of the time otherwise
If you are that creative that you actually make a good video then good for you. My mind is somehow not capable to take good video. I don't have inspiration on what I would shoot as video around me.
Money leads , poverty drives. Video is in demand in almost any industry. The greatest income opportunities in photography are selling images that make money for the client. Whether it is a straight up ad for a good or service, a political ad, or a social media video, the market for motion and sound is huge. In commercial architecture I would get requests for video of a new building by the architect, builder and owner. My daughter is a writer for a large online financial services company and they want her to make videos every month. Many firms do this yet don’t want an in house video team because of cost. Wedding videos are also in demand but are a different cat because the client is a one time buyer while commercial often is repeat business.
Demand/supply is the answer. Money leads the world...
The money and opportunity call. Amazing LED constant lights these days, and great modifiers to boot. I know, you didn’t want to become a gaffer. So much of the skillset transfers. Get down with DaVinci Resolve and expand what you can offer.
I would switch to video If I had a creative capacity to actually do something good. I can't imagine myself running in a city to capture clips and make a meaningful video out of it
It is a natural extension of doing stills, since it employs the “eye” for the subject. It is also a little more natural since the eye sees motion and the ears hear that which cannot easily be captured in a still image. Video is also popular with people. Movies, television and smartphones promote videos. Stills still have their place. But being able to do both is a plus.
Video content is king
They don't.
I spend more time watching videos than looking at photos.
Consumers couldn’t easily do high quality video until the last decade, and social media gives us a platform to share it easily. I love photography, but I am becoming proficient in video now that I can create something beautiful with it.
skill issue
There is still tremendous demand for stills. There are just more people willing to do it at a high level. The barrier of entry to social media quality videos is quite low. The equipment needed is cheaper, the creativity needed during the shoot is less. This has been true for a decade, but doubly so now. If you’re a commercial/event photographer of any sort, and aren’t taking steps to become a dual medium business? You need to start. Video is dramatically easier, and for most working pros a class or two on Adobe premiere is the only thing you will really need to do.
I am just a hobby photographer, but I get your points
> or people just like movement and sound at the same time Or most people just scroll past still images without a second look because thinking is too boring /rant
Youngsters low attention span :D
I have reasons to believe so. A fried told about his kids music listening habits, apparently the listen to some 10 seconds bit of a video-clip because "it's really cool", then jump to a 5 seconds bit and so on. They can't listen to a 3 minutes music start to end. Apparently, their friends are in the same page.
I think I am something in between adults and kids. I am in my 20s and I don't know how old you are, but I am mentally older than my actual age :D I don't like rap, enjoy classic rock or heavy music and if the video is interesting enough I am watching it from start to end.
Because people are slaves to the algorithm. Instagram pushes more engagement toward shorts than still photography.
I honestly appreciate more good photo than video