Photographer
Dan OMell
Posts: 1415
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
Compare this video with that one. Which one is more breathtaking? The music is the same ("Spiegel im Spiegel" by Arvo Pärt). The difference is the human element.
Photographer
Isaiah Brink
Posts: 2328
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
Well, to be honest, this is a bad example of why we need models, but a great one if you wanted to say why we don't need models. The use of color and light was by far superior in the landscape video than in the one with the people in it.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
I found them both to be boring. In some ways, the first one more so. I agree. This is a bad example.
Photographer
Dan OMell
Posts: 1415
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
a research how boring many Americans actually are, WHAT they are trying to capture, and why they're rarely able to see themselves IN THE MIRROR... what about this one (you can skip the talking part)? 
Photographer
KMP
Posts: 4834
Houston, Texas, US
Dan OMell wrote:
Compare this video
with that one.
Which one is more breathtaking?
The music is the same. The difference is the human element. No there are more differences that just the human element.
The film with models is edited scenarios, with interesting lighting and it leaves the viewer to make up story behind the short clips..
The other film is animated stills.. which I found static and stilted in it's editing and the stills really weren't very interesting to me.
Actually, the only real thing they had in common:
I was bored before I finished either video..
Personally I found this video quite a bit more interesting than either of those and it has no models: https://travel.yahoo.com/blogs/compass/ … 25665.html
But.. that's just me
Photographer
Dan OMell
Posts: 1415
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
KMP wrote:
Personally I found this video quite a bit more interesting than either of those..
and it has no models: https://travel.yahoo.com/blogs/compass/ … 25665.html this is spectacular, I totally agree. still, something is missing, or maybe I have too vivid imagination. imagine adding the human element (to me, it looks like it's invisibly here) and/or some story to the same video sequence...
Photographer
KMP
Posts: 4834
Houston, Texas, US
Dan OMell wrote:
this is spectacular, I totally agree. still, something is missing, or maybe I have too vivid imagination. imagine adding the human element and/or some story to the same video sequence... There's are some human elements in there. There's the obvious one with the rock climbers passing right by the camera. But there is one shot you see the headlamps of rock climbers as they scale the side of what I think is El Capitan, a 3000 foot sheer drop. I can see stars but it looks bright, so I'm assuming the "sun" is really moonlight.
Also, another shot of the moonlight and shadows passing over a valley. You see the lights from towns and the cars driving the mountain roads.
Human elements aren't necessary to create a moving editorial.
But I like how the film maker showed the human element as a small part of the nature. Mankind is a blip when it comes to nature, it's power and its grandeur.
I think the film maker makes that statement in his film without throwing it in your face...as I felt the first video really was trying too hard to do. It really made no strong statement.
But as I say, I was too bored with the video to watch it through its entirety.
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 10856
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
GPS Studio Services wrote:
I found them both to be boring. In some ways, the first one more so. I agree. This is a bad example. Yep.
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
Those both touch upon different emotions. Can't say one is better than the other.
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 3351
London, England, United Kingdom
I agree with those who say the video were a bit boring and not really a good example why models are needed. Actually, from the first video they looked more like various film clips of female actresses and not models.
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 7504
New York, New York, US
CHAD ALAN wrote:
Those both touch upon different emotions. Can't say one is better than the other. Actually I thought both were a little bit long, but that was at least in part a function of the music chosen, which was otherwise an excellent choice for either piece. I don't see how anyone can be bored with either.
I found the first, with its cinema verite approach infinitely much more compelling than the second, with its more hollywoodish, almost painfully crisp and frankly expository photography. Each is excellent in its own way, I think, but harder to compare than apples and oranges, which at least are both fruits. More like comparing an actual living person with a marble sculpture.
The first's perfection lies in its human imperfection, the second's in its cold precision.
Personally, I prefer the human, with all its imperfections.
All IMHO as always, of course.
|
