I teach Photography and Media Arts (Video Production). In both of these courses we discuss and practice strategies for storytelling; how to reach an audience with compelling images that convey emotion, conflict and an aesthetic. Which medium is more effective for this purpose? The vast majority of young people will immediately respond that video is far superior because it is comprised of thousands of still images AND sound, but when presented with an image that is perfectly composed, that 250th of a second in time can freeze a person. One still image taken by a professional at the height of his craft has the power to evoke change. I have found that the still image forces the viewer to pause, to think, and to reflect, where as the the video flying by at 30 frames per second seems less important some how. The unfortunate reality is that the media is over saturated with still images taken on the fly that have very little intrinsic value, thus watering down the impact of the really great images.
Clearly a video camera in the hands of a craftsman can produce amazing, poignant, and compelling stories, but in this Youtube world I have found that those stories are hard to find. SO, what medium is better for storytelling, still photography or video? Give it some thought, I think you will find the answer is not so easy.