This Movie Stuff Isn't Going Away...

My newspaper editors are clamoring for more videos and multimedia presence online from our photo staff. I have balked, resisted, hesitated, whined and declared outright that, relative to still imagery, video is a lame format for news and documentary -- even though I really do like well-made documentary films. It's just not good journalism, I would postulate.

I highly regard audio slide shows using still images, but video? I'm not completely convinced.

Yet I have learned over the years that summary statements, like, "video is not good journalism," can bite me where I don't care to be bitten. I have seen stories, documentaries and concepts that work better in wiggly pictures than with stills. As with most things, it depends on the subject. If it lends itself better to video than still then that's how it should be done, and I'd be a fool not to learn to do it and to do it well. Solomon said, "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might."

And video is what the boss wants and expects. It's a skill most others who might be interested in my work could want should I ever be considered for a freelance or NGO gig. Like being bilingual, anyone who can do more than one thing, and do it well, is in a much better position than a one-trick pony.

As a result, I've been looking at short videos (vidiettes?) differently. Which ones work, which ones suck, which ones keep my interest for more than 30 seconds or which ones bore me to death.

I'm taking a closer look at what makes great cinematography: light, shadow, camera angles, perspective, et al. Frankly, the same things that apply to good still photography, only different because one moves and the other doesn't. Oh, and one has sound and the other doesn't. I am watching, with great delight, the classic Mexican films of director Emilio Fernandez and the great cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa.

I plan to pic the brains of mi amigos and local movie-makers Rod Pocowatchit, Wade Hampton and Gino Salerno. I hope to avoid like the plague the usual television style of news video production that, except for the subject matter, all look the same (turn the volume down while watching a local news cast and you'll see what I mean).

I'm also considering investing in my own equipment.

My newspaper has a fixed working budget for photo equipment -- about $50 a year, it seems -- so with more of us hopping the video bandwagon, the two or three working video cameras and one or two computers with the appropriate software are in very high demand. And, naturally, the more the video equipment is used, the more likely it will break and sit on a shelf awaiting a few spare pesos to be repaired. Even more assuredly, random cords, cables, chargers, adapters and electro-doodads will be left at an assignment, in someone's trunk or simply go missing.

So I'm consiering a Canon 5D Mark II. If I buy one, it's mine. I can use it for freelance or take it out of the country (which we cannot do with company gear) and, even better, I won't have to meet a fellow staffer in some parking lot to hand off a company-owned handycam after I finish one assignement and he or she embarks on another. Besides, aren't we all more responsible with our own investments than we are with someone else's? Consider, for example, how the government spends your tax money.

Here's what the 5D MkII can do in the hands of a production crew with more skill and schmaltz than I'll ever need (or want):