Living Magazines

[Nick Rains]

Interesting link on What's New today - magazines with movies in them.

Sounds cool.

But, here's my question, given that shooting the sort of production featured in the link is so vastly more complex than shooting the same editorial on stills, who pays? That shoot would have been done very well by a team of 3 or 4 people, or even 1 photog and assistant - we've been shooting that sort of stuff for years.

Given how tight editorial rates are these days how will magazines find the sort of budgets required for a full-on video shoot for, in this case, a simple feature about some triathlete? A half-day still shoot for maybe $1000 (if you are lucky) would need to be ten times that much, or more, if shot to the sorts of production values shown here.

Thoughts?

[Jim Pascoe]

Perhaps like much recent television content the quality will just be reduced.  We seem to have many TV documentaries where one person with a camcorder will go on a trip and self-film their experiences, then with careful editing they turn into an hour-long feature.  A man cycling around the world in six months is a great story, but companies are not going to send out a full film and sound crew to record it all.  I don't say it a problem, just that we do get used to lower production values for much of the media we see.

I photograph a lot of weddings, and I can see the OLED on a page with a short clip from the wedding shot as moving images.  Fantastic!  The only problem is that I am under no illusion with current technology how much more work that might involve a stills photographer in.  It takes me enough time editing as it is.

Exciting times ahead though!

Jim