Western Railroad Discussion > Video vs. Still Photography

I'm just interested in how many people out there prefer to take video over still photography when out foaming. I'm a video man myself and find many advantages to shooting video than film. (Please note that I am not knocking film in any way, if nothing else, this site shows how wonderful rail pictures are/can be).

But with video, I thorougly enjoy getting the opportunity to look back and relive my train watching experiences somewhat, with all the fluff (waiting time, etc.) edited out. I can view more of the train, hear the sounds, etc., etc. Also, lighting is much less of a consideration when shooting video than still photos. You can get more trains on record during a given day.

Being a midwesterner, I still thrill to my self-made videos of Tehachapi and other locales...even several years later. I know I wouldn't get that same satisfaction had I shot still photos.


These are just some of my opinions...I'm not knocking anyone/anthing/trying to start a flame war. I'm just interested in what others think as advantages to photos vs. video, and how many out there also shoot video.

Thanks,

Tom

I have done both, love the video part too but have stopped until I get better sound equipment to use with the video camera. My compromise until then is by using a Nikon CoolPix 5700 digital camera that takes 1 minute QuickTime movies with sound. The files are too big for the QT area on TO but have been positively received among those who have seen them. Whatever make the fun for the railfan. I plan to do both pics and video again in the future.

Loco Bil

I'm a stills guy, but I do appreciate what video can bring to the experience. And I've seen LocoBill's short videos he's done with his coolpix and am really sold on the possibilities!

But for me the single image is my preference for my own uses, as I do a lot of editing and creative work with the stills.

There is definitely a NEED for both types in the hobby!

I do both. Have a Panasonic AG456U S-vhs full size camcorder. It does a great job and I have a lot of great video from my trips. Also shoot slides with a Canon A2 and Provia100 and Kodachrome 64.

Sometimes I'll just set the video and not move it and concentrate on the photo or I'll use a cable for the photo and concentrate on the working the video.

Sometimes it seems like a lot of work, but I'm glad I have been doing both when I go back and watch the video and look at the slides. Just wish I would have been doing both a long time before 1998.

Randy Lundgren

I've done both as well, Video is nice since you don't have to buy film all the time, and Still is better since you can get more dramatic shots.. Video can be a plus when shooting in low light. Last month I was up chasing the E&N in Canada and there was NO sun to be found, and got my slides back and they all came out dark.. but Video is just fine.. Digital should be my next adventure, I've been prefering roster shots and detail things which can be done with my video camera now but not with good quality.

I've also got a couple cameras that are "expendable", which I've gotten some amazing shots with.. MILW 261 from between the rails at 60MPH.. and UP3985 shot from beside the rail (camera placed on the ties).. The cameras are still working fine..

It's been dubbed the "Ditch Cam" The sound is horable and video is kinda fuzzy but it works..

~Ian

Both. If the train is against the light, or the same old thing (Catfish back east), video with zoom as the train approaches.

If shooting still, often I set the video up to one focal length and let the train run through the frame as I am shooting still ... drawback is the sound of the motor drive on the video :-(

I too do both, but have more experience in still. I'm enjoying learning video. I do have a word of advice. If you want to be bi-photo, don't try to do both at once! It's really not a good thing to try, as one tends to do neither well. The 2 formats require enough of a different approach and mindset and (at least while you are learning either) they are different enough to make problems adapting.

I must admit as much as I appreciate and enjoy great photos and slides they only capture a moment not the experience. My firt video camera I got in the fall of 92 was a Canon A1 Digital Hi8 unit. Sweet picture and awesome Hifi sound. I got to shoot all over the country. This spring I edited all this footage down to 1 hour production that really brings it all back and is a really unique montauge of all the sights and sounds of that time. There is nothing like preserving the marvelous sound of a SD 45 accelerating away from a hot box stop in the remote peace of central Texas. Today I shoot with a Megapixel D8 unit and just love the pristie picture it records.

I never shot much video until about six months ago. I still don't shoot much, but I started when I realized that stills just don't capture the sound and feel of four big tunnel motors lugging up grades or the horns on a D&RGW GP40-2 set. I figured while I still have the chance, I might as well shoot a bit to remember it by.

When the Grandes are gone, that will probably be that for video. I've even thought about giving up weekend railfanning and photography and concentrating on other hobbies, but I doubt that will ever happen completely. I'll still go trackside when I'm travelling, but I've only been out in Colorado once in the past two months. Somehow I just don't twitch with excitement every time I think of the endless drags of ACs on coal trains.

Nathan
http://www.drgw.net

Video and still at the same time is possible, but hard to do. The following pic was taken while I was zooming the video camera, but had a remote trip for the Nikon F2 in my other hand. Of course, this was before autofocus, so I could only shoot at one spot that I had focused the Nikon for.

At the present time, I don't have a remote trip for my D1.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=905

As for looking at them, I think they both have their place... As far as doing them myself, I think video is a lot of work, which kind of takes the fun out of it for me... I would rather just buy some good ones from the people that make them. Still photos are a good enough recording for me. But sometimes I'm even too lazy to do that. :-)

Dave D.
Los Angeles, CA

-Rail Radio Online-Home of the "TrainTenna" RR Monitoring Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/railradioonline
-------------------------------------------------
-The Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Photo Archive & E-Mail List-
http://eje.railfan.net
-------------------------------------------------
-The Ashley, Drew & Northern Railfan Page-
http://eje.railfan.net/adn
-------------------------------------------------
-Southern California Trains-
http://eje.railfan.net/socal
-------------------------------------------------

There are times when I want to use the camera of my mind. Just sit there and soak up the entire thing without a camera stuck in front of my face. Reminds me of the story of the tourist who returned to the US from Europe. "Where did you go?" asked the customs agent. The tourist answered," I don't know, I have to develope the film."

re: the post above. I had a video camera early on in my son's life (he's now 19). I found that I wasn't attending/enjoying the events of his life, I was only filming them. While I would like to look back on some, the experience of enjoying them at the time was much greater without the camera, looking through a viewfinder.

A new digital has now given me the option of short videos (that's all you really watch anyway) or stills. The best of both worlds.

I am basically a steam fan. Steam is awesome to all senses, sight, sound, all the rest. I always try to shoot both video and stills, and agree it is difficult to do them simultaneously. I love reliving steam excursions from the videos, and occasionally get a good still. Lately have tried video on a tripod sitting still, shooting several stills at the same runby. I'm currently on my fourth video cam. Messed one up real bad years ago shooting out of a vestibule behind a coal burner. I had goggles for my eyes but, duuuh, never thought about the camera until the next day it wouldn't run due to "cinder clog."

Used to do some video, also a Canon A1 Hi8 and it really does do well. It has some quirks about it but I can't argue the general performance. Haven't used it for probably 8-9 years. I think the new digital video cams are potentially better and editing should be a whole chunk easier. As it is, editing or tolerance for gluteal tolerance of the viewers remains necessary, still or video. I do think it's a lot easier to get boring with video as you can't just quickly flip to a new picture, etc. And how many containers do you really want to see?

However, there are times that video really outshines stills for drama. I've got some 3751 shots from the earler runs sweeping up Cajon from just north of Old Cajon and the train is rushing up and then turning and leaning in to to start the climb up to Sullivan's Curve. Later that same set of trips I caught it from the top of the Caliente Horseshoe and caught the train running all around the horseshoe, with steam from the whistle, then the sound and the echoes - you can't do that with slides!!!

Most current camcorders have remote controls and LCD screens, which would make it easier to take both movies and stills. Set the camcorder on a tripod where you can see the LCD (viewable from front, rear or sides) and keep the remote on a string around your neck.
For those who want to get their feet wet on video, Sears has a smoking deal on a basic Sony digital 8 (DCR TRV 140) It used to be $569 ($496 at Target & Walmart). Sears price dropped to $399, and they gave me a discount of 10% when ordered on line for store pick-up. On top of that, Sony has a $50 rebate on this model if purchased before January 18th, making my net cost $309 plus tax. This model is being discontinued and may be hard to find. I wanted the next model up (DCRTRV240) as it had jacks for external mics, and the rebate was $100, but I couldn't find one.