The goal of any multimedia journalists covering sports is to capture the moment so they can tell the story of the game to their audience whether it’s through video or a single photo. That may be their objective but there are some differences in covering a game with a video camera or a still photo camera.
“Taking still photos at a game is much more difficult in my opinion,” Santa Clarita TV cameraman and photographer Cory Rubin said. “You only get one chance to take a photo while a play happens, where video you are recording the entire time so you don’t have to worry as much about missing parts of the action.”
There are also differences in their purposes as well. The purpose of a still photo is to capture the emotion and to tell a story with the emotion shown in that picture. Where as in video the action continues so the audience can see the entirety of what happened during a game or at least that play.
“That’s why it is so important from a video stand point, that the videographer doesn’t miss any of the action,” Arizona State Olympics Video Producer Rob Roberson said. “If the videographer doesn’t start his camera before the play starts then they could miss something very important.”
Angelfire gives a step by step process of how to tell a good sports story using video to accompany a written story.
Tom Jenkins explains how to use still photography in sports to seize the moment and create drama in his blog.
Videomaker shares some different types of sports videography that can be used to tell a story and how a videographer would uses those types of shooting.
Videos and photos will always have their unique differences especially in sports story telling. However, there both meant to capture a moment that tells the audience exactly what happened in the game.