This interesting article from David Pogue has me wondering which format is better, from the standpoint of the ultimate viewer, for capturing family images? Video is alive, and the sound of children's voices if so precious, but who really wants to sit through home movies? Aren't stills easier to deal with, to browse? As Pogue points out, it may depend on who you expect to be your viewer.

That is a great article and I agree on his points. I use a combo of both. I'll take about 30 minutes of video and 300 photos and put them together into a 10 to 15 minute combo. I mostly use photos but video is the nutmeg on the egg-nog (I'm so glad its the major holiday season) I also will use recorded audio over photos. It gives it a documentary feel. I expect my viewers to be my kids who can't get enough of themselves and my parents who feel the same way. I also expect my grandkids to get a kick out of how their loud and obnoxious mom was always that way! I know my parents had audio recorded some conversations that I had with them and I see that little boy in me now. So I think that one is not better than another but they will in tandem create a medium that is greater than the sum of it's parts.

I think you've posited the question incorrectly. Neither medium is best, rather, they're each different and complementary.<br><br>Photos are great for preserving moments in time, and helping us jog our own memory of the day's events. The best family photos capture some aspect of an individual's personality. Some photos are pretty or awe inspiring. They are wonderful if you already know the subjects contained within the photograph. I just posted a photo of my daughter to DadLabs a couple days ago that makes my heart flutter. How many times have you flipped through your photos and said to your family....oh, do you remember that day...???<br><br>But, here's the main problem with still photos: Family photos are utterly boring and uninteresting if you DON'T know the subjects of the photos well. How much insight can you gain into someone's life by looking at still photos? Maybe their surroundings and their posture and their dress can clue you in. But I think photos are a very, very shallow window into someone's life and thoughts if you don't already know that person well.<br><br>Now consider video. Family and strangers alike come to life. You hear them speak, with all of their inflections and language patterns. You see them interact with other people. You see how they laugh. You can see their reactions to stimulus. You can see their sense of humor in action. In short, you get the full benefit of all their body language. It's a real window into their brain. Perhaps all of these things are not interesting if you already know the person well.<br><br>But how about a kid who wonders what his parents were really like when they were still young?? How about an aging couple who wants to remember what their relationship was like 30 years ago?? Or descendants who want to know where they got their sense of humor from??<br><br>I think video is an amazing time machine that allows you to see yourself and others as they were many years ago....to gain a window into their brains at a given point of time (including a window into your own brain from 10 years ago).<br><br>Now, with all of that said. The video has to be done right. Videos of the school play, for example, are utterly worthless and boring. They give no insight into the person. They're too long. The people are really small and not speaking their own words or inflections. They're interactions 100% artificial. Sports videos? Who cares? What insight does that give into the mind of the person running around the field? In order to be meaningful, the video needs to provide insight into the person and their thoughts, and it needs to be short. Otherwise it will probably never be watched...just as Pogue worries.<br><br>Bottom Line: Different mediums, different objectives.<br><br>Now, then Daddy Clay, how about the medium of writing as way of preserving family history?? Perhaps even better than photos or video??

Doesn't this lead us into the realm of video or photo scrapbooking if we combine all three ?

By far I think photography is the better choice. Not to say video isn't good to have too, but the with photography the barrier for entry is lower and the barrier for viewing is lower. You can carry a picture with you any time to show it off, but you have to get people captive and in front of your tv to show off home movies.<br><br>Also a picture can be enjoyed withing second whereas movies take time.<br><br>Plus, it's a lot easier (and cheaper) to take decent pictures than it is to take decent video.

While I dig my video production, I agree with Michael's points. Video takes time. You can't hang a video on the wall and get a quick glance as you walk down the hallway.<br><br>But yes, they are both extremely important and serve one major purpose... embarassing our children when they bring home the boyfriend/girlfriend.

I'm obviously much more into photos for my daughter right now. I have taken a few short videos, but that's mostly because Abby is doing something beyond adorable that the grandparents/aunts would kill me if they didn't get a chance to SEE. When we do get around to video, I really like Sean's very specific rules for use. I always hated seeing myself playing sports, but always love the annual cousins-birthday-party-video. They were the only people we knew that had a video camera, so one of us children would emcee the day. Anyway, always fun because it was actual people, not just someone running up and down a field.<br><br>I'm in the market now for an upper-mid grade camera. Our lovely, precious, angelic daughter broke the plastic that covers the lens on ours. F.U.N.