As video ascends to the place once held by still photography, the latter finds itself battling for relevance and staying in the picture in a digital age where speed trumps stillness
“Pictures came and broke your heart/Put the blame on VCR.” When the popular track, Video Killed the Radio Star, by the British new wave/synth-pop group The Buggles hit the airwaves in 1979, it was meant to be a dirge, an elegy for a form of art, and artists, whose livelihoods were upended by the advent of technology, when the rules of the game came to be ‘rewritten by the machine.’ The song perfectly captured the moment when television, with all its flashy visuals, started muscling in on the territory once ruled by the humble radio. Radio stars, who were once the voices of a generation, suddenly found themselves upstaged by the glitz and glam of television; their smooth, melodious voices were seemingly no match for the bright, dancing images that TV could deliver.
During the early to mid-20th century, radio was the primary source of entertainment and news for millions, with radio stars enjoying widespread fame and influence. These stars — whether they were singers, comedians, or radio hosts — held a special place in the hearts of listeners, their voices filling homes with entertainment and news in a way that felt oddly personal. Take Orson Welles, for example. He was the mastermind behind the infamous 1938 broadcast (on CBS Radio Network) of The War of the Worlds, an adaptation of HG Wells’ sci-fi novel, which had listeners believing that Martians were invading Earth. Yes, that’s the kind of power radio wielded then. But as television sets started popping up in living rooms across America, even Welles had to trade in his microphone for a camera. Then there was Bob Hope, who would dance and crack jokes on the radio — drawing on the vaudeville comedy tradition — before TV came along and made him a household face, not just a household name.
In India, the legendary Ameen Sayani was the voice of the nation with his show ‘Binaca Geetmala,’ where he counted down Bollywood’s biggest hits week after week. His voice was like comfort food for the ears — friendly, reliable, and intimate. But then came Doordarshan and its iconic shows, and suddenly, people wanted to see everything, not just hear them. Poor radio had to take a backseat while television became the new king of the entertainment jungle. While some radio stars made the leap, others quietly faded into oblivion, their golden days preserved in memories and old recordings.
The flicker of the still
Just as Video Killed the Radio Star encapsulated the moment radio was outshined by television, we’re now seeing a similar shift happening between still photography and the moving image/audio visual. The still photograph — once widely considered as the ultimate medium for storytelling — finds itself relegated to the backburner. Once the proud preserve of glossy magazines, front-page newspapers, and coffee-table books, the photograph has been somewhat sidelined as video content floods every conceivable platform, from social media to news outlets. This shift towards video has not only changed the way we consume information but has also had major implications for photographers, many of whom find themselves in a landscape that is no longer as friendly to their art.
There was a time though when a single photograph could stop the world in its tracks. Think of Jeff Widener’s haunting image of a lone protester standing before a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square, or Kevin Carter’s harrowing photograph of a vulture lurking near a starving child in Sudan. Or Nick Ut’s horrifying images of the Vietnam War. Or Alfred Eisenstaedt’s V-J Day in Times Square of a soldier and a dental nurse caught in a lip-lock in 1945 that became one of the most iconic images of the 20th century, recording a moment that marked the joyous end to years of World War II.
These photographs became indelible parts of our collective consciousness, not just because of their content but because of the stillness they imposed on the viewer — moments frozen in time. Newspapers and magazines once relied heavily on the power of the still image. The New York Times, National Geographic, Time and Life magazine, to name just a few, built their reputations on the strength of their photography. Iconic images from wars, natural disasters, and cultural moments were not just illustrations; they were stories in themselves. The still photograph had the unique ability to distil complex events into a single frame, allowing for deep, thoughtful engagement.
The rise of the video: Speed over stillness
Fast forward to the digital age, where the pace of information has accelerated to breakneck speeds. Video, with its ability to capture motion, sound, and context, has quickly became the preferred medium for both consumers and creators. The rise of social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and most notably, YouTube, has fuelled an insatiable demand for video content. The algorithmic design of these platforms favours video, encouraging users to scroll past still images in favour of content that is more dynamic, more likely to catch the viewers’ fleeting attention, and, crucially, more shareable.
The New York Times, for instance, has expanded its video production team over the past decade, creating immersive documentaries, short news clips, and explainers that often accompany or replace traditional photo essays. Similarly, The Guardian has developed a robust video section that provides in-depth visual storytelling, reducing the space dedicated to photojournalism. In India, there has been an explosion in YouTube channels. From legacy media to the independent digital platforms ramping up their video content to individual creators like Bhuvan Bam and Dhruv Rathi becoming household names, the emphasis on video has reshaped the media landscape forever.
These videos cater to an audience that craves immediacy, preferring a quick visual over a still photograph no matter how compelling or contemplative the latter is. At some level, this shift has to do with the very nature of storytelling in the digital age. Video allows for real-time updates and live streaming, etc that still images simply cannot offer. The ability to capture not just the moment but the lead-up and aftermath, to tell a story with moving visuals and sound, has made video the go-to medium for news, entertainment, and even education.
The fallout
This shift from still photography to video has not been without its repercussions. Photographers who once held prestigious positions at newspapers and magazines are finding their roles diminished or, in some cases, eliminated altogether. In 2013, the Chicago Sun-Times made headlines when it laid off its entire photography staff, opting to train its reporters to take pictures and videos with their iPhones instead. The decision was an early, and stark, indication of how the priorities of media outlets had shifted. In 2020, Condé Nast, the publisher of iconic magazines like Vogue, announced widespread layoffs across its photo departments as part of a broader strategy to shift focus towards video content. In India, photojournalists stare at similar challenges. Prominent media houses have reduced their reliance on staff photographers, increasingly commissioning freelancers or relying on wire services that provide both video and stills. The situation has been exacerbated by the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to further cutbacks in media staffing and budgets.
The emphasis on clickable content has led to the downsizing of photography departments and the rise of video production teams. In most of the cases, it is not just about cost-cutting; just a reflection of changing consumer preferences. The modern reader or viewer is more likely to get hooked to a short video clip than a still photograph, and media outlets have had to adapt accordingly. Even platforms that were once bastions of still photography have followed suit. Instagram, originally a photo-sharing app, has increasingly shifted its focus to video content, with the introduction of Stories, IGTV, and Reels. The algorithm jettisons this format to the top of users’ feeds, while still images — no matter how beautiful or powerful or appealing — often get lost in the shuffle.
There is little doubt that the proliferation of YouTube channels and other video platforms has democratised content creation, but it has also marginalised still photography. With the barrier to entry for video production now lower than ever, anyone with a smartphone and a basic understanding of editing software can become a content creator. This has led to a revolution when it comes to video content, from vlogs and tutorials to news reports and documentaries, flooding the internet with moving images. This new wave of content creation has also given rise to a new kind of celebrity.
Video creators like the Canadian Lilly Singh, known globally as Superwoman, have built empires on platforms like YouTube, reaching millions of viewers with content that ranges from comedy sketches to social commentary. Closer home, millions of young men and women are finding the medium lucrative, creating short videos about anything and everything. In the pursuit of a reel, young men and women are even losing their lives. A few weeks ago, Aanvi Kamdar, an influencer from Mumbai, fell into a 300-foot gorge while shooting a reel.
In India, regional YouTube channels catering to specific languages and regions have mushroomed, which has further eroded the space for still photography. The rise of video content in vernacular languages has brought a whole new demographic into the digital fold, creating a vast audience that consumes news, entertainment, and education through video. Still images lack the same level of visibility and influence in the digital age.
A fading art? Not quite
Video may have killed the radio star, but photography as an art form is unlikely to be completely pushed into obsolescence. The emphasis on photographs may have changed, but exhibitions, photo books, and online platforms dedicated to photography still attract passionate audiences. There remains a distinctive power in the captured moment, in the ability of a single image to convey a story, move us, delight us. Iconic photographs, like Steve McCurry’s Afghan Girl (above) or Raghu Rai’s images of India, continue to resonate deeply with us, proving that the still image retains its place as a great medium of storytelling.
Moreover, photography’s adaptability has allowed it to carve out new niches in the digital age. Fine art photography, for instance, has seen a resurgence, with collectors and galleries grasping the medium’s potential for visual expression. Social media platforms, while dominated by video, still offer a space for photographers to share their work and build communities around their art. Therefore, while video may have taken the spotlight in today’s hyper-visual world, consigning still photography to a secondary position, it has not extinguished the power of the photograph. Instead, it has forced photographers and visual storytellers to rethink their approach, adapt to new mediums, and find innovative ways to keep the art of the still image alive. After all, in a world saturated with moving images, sometimes it’s the stillness of a photograph that can best express the magic of moment, a profound truth, or an emotion that words and videos cannot.
