Video is very popular now. Can video replace it? What is the value of photography?

Each has its own characteristics, and no one can replace anyone. Just like barbecue lovers and string lovers. Each has its own flavor! Tired of eating barbecue, you can pick up a string on the head of the meat, sprinkle cumin and spicy noodles, and change the way. Similarly, I love to put on iron plate barbecue! Life is like this, everyone enjoys it!

Personally, I feel that video can't replace photographic pictures. There are three views:

1. The action is different. Video pays attention to the process and plot, and each video is like a small movie, story, script, editing and so on. On the other hand, photography is a fixed-frame picture, which makes the moment beautiful forever.

2. The cycle is different. Video pays more attention to short, flat and fast, and its timeliness is interesting. Except news photography, most photographic pictures hope to capture the "decisive moment" and become peerless masterpieces.

3. Different operators. Cell phones, tablets and computers are all the same to both. But photos can be printed and recorded, just as e-books cannot replace paper books. This is incomparable to video.

The significance of the existence of photographic pictures lies in "there is a moment between square inches, and it will last forever in the heart"

Television photography and photo photography are completely different photography categories, and there is no question of who will replace who. The similarities and differences between photo photography and TV photography, that is, their respective characteristics, are mainly manifested in the following aspects:

1. Visibility of photographic art-the same characteristics as photography

Novels depend on reading, music depends on listening, and camera art depends on watching. Novels and music can't provide concrete images for people to see. They are time art, not space art ... Photography art is both space art (or visual art) and time art, showing the process of time.

The novel uses written description to clarify the theme, narrate the plot, portray the characters and describe the environment. Readers imagine and feel artistic images according to descriptions and their own life experiences.

2. Mobility-a feature different from photography.

Painting, photography and sculpture are all space arts (plastic arts), and they all have visibility, so what is the difference between TV cameras and them? Painting and photography can only express dynamics, so they are called instantaneous art, and neither can express the movement process of objects. Photography is not only a space art, but also a time art, which is called time-space art. Photography and photography (photography) both express their contents through the form of pictures. But their two pictures are different. The film and television pictures are moving, but the photos are still.

Now more and more people must choose video as the first choice of pictures and videos, because video has the characteristics of sound and animation, and pictures only contain simple images; Many people find it difficult to understand an artistic photographic masterpiece, which is normal. After all, the public is not a professional, and it is really difficult to understand this type of work. But this does not mean that video can replace pictures.

Hello, I'm glad to answer your question. Video is very popular now. Video can't replace pictures, because the people in the video are moving and the pictures are still. You can only feel them with your heart. Photographic pictures have a wide range of values. If you shoot the sky, you can describe the weather, add music to make videos, and write green memories when you see some pictures. Pictures can be beautified, and videos can be added. This is my personal opinion. I wonder if anyone likes it. This is my answer.

There is no substitute. First, the perspective of the picture is artistic and documentary, and the emotions expressed are easy for the audience and users to understand deeply. Due to the fluidity of images, Mo's freeze-frame pictures lack themes. Although it can be achieved, it is still lacking in general. Second, pictures are easier to show, and videos also need pictures to show the theme. Third. Pictures are easier for people to get, just pick up the phone. Although the video is ok, it will be indirect to what the photographer wants to express.

I think photos also have their value.

The preservation cost of photos is very small. Although both video and photos can be kept, the consumption of photos is very small, maybe a photo is only a few meters, and the video is hundreds of meters.

For a long time, photos give people a feeling of "real existence". After taking photos, print them out, print them into photo albums, and dig them out anytime and anywhere for easy preservation. Video storage is only through the media, and it is easy to lose. Maybe you forgot your account, refurbished your computer, and lost your hard disk and CD.

Video can't replace pictures, because each has its own advantages, and the definition of video can't reach the definition of pictures. If you want to do billboard advertising and POP in magazines and newspapers, you can't do without photos, and the two will coexist forever.

Different presentation methods and different expression effects are just like the question of whether a mobile phone can replace a TV set.

I don't think video can replace pictures, video can show the beauty of dynamics, and pictures can freeze the beauty of moments!