What’s the Difference between Photos and Movies? Thinking Anthropologically about Media.

by Johannes Merz

Photos are static and movies move. That’s the difference. But have you ever considered how this affects how people understand images and how they interact with them?

When I researched movies with people in Benin, West Africa, who were less experienced with images than I, I noticed that some found it difficult to make sense of stills from movies. But when I showed them the corresponding movie clip on a tablet (see photo), people found it much easier to recognize what the moving images showed and what was happening. 

Especially for people who are not used to images, photos can be challenging to understand. The main difficulty for them seems to be to distinguish shapes from their backgrounds, which is a skill that needs to be learned. While in many countries we do this at a young age, there are some people who hardly have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with images as they grow up. Being handed a photo to look at may thus cause a pause or some difficulty. Even an apparently simple task of figuring out the correct orientation of a photo can be a challenge. 

Movies are generally easier to understand, even if we may consider them a more complex form of media. The main reason is that movement helps to differentiate shapes from their backgrounds. As soon as somebody or something moves, they become alive and much more easily recognizable. Photos may be life-like, but movies bring photos to life.

Appropriate light conditions, too, increase the recognizability of images. When we look at pictures on paper, we benefit from a good light source. Movies typically rely on dim light conditions to be clearer. Cell phones often adjust the screen’s brightness to light conditions, and they can display both still and moving images. 

Thinking anthropologically about images, photos, and movies means that we should first think about potential audiences and their experiences and preferences of images. Would still images be okay, or would it be better to provide movies? 

Then, we should pay attention to the composition of images. What we might consider a good image may not always be the best choice. Generally, I have found that simpler images with less busy backgrounds are easier to understand, especially when there is no movement involved. For example, it’s better to maintain empty spaces than fill them with unessential detail or decoration. Also, a high contrast between main characters or objects and their background can facilitate an image’s recognizability. 

Next time you work with images, first think about the people you’d like to use them. Images, whether still or moving, should help people focus on what’s essential. 

Johannes Merz is a senior anthropology consultant with SIL Global and trainer for International Media Services. He holds a Ph.D. in anthropology and lectures at Moorlands College in the U.K. He and his wife, Sharon, have been based in Benin, West Africa, since 2002. You can contact him at johannes_merz@sil.org.