4711 Cologne and Cathedral

[digartal]

Cologne/Koln Cathedral. Begun in 1248, the building of this Gothic masterpiece took place in several stages and was not completed until 1880. Over seven centuries, its successive builders were inspired by the same faith and by a spirit of absolute fidelity to the original plans. Apart from its exceptional intrinsic value and the artistic masterpieces it contains, Cologne/Koln Cathedral bears witness to the strength and endurance of European Christianity.

4711 - Original Eau de Cologne - the origin of the fragrance genre Eau de Cologne. At the end of the 18th century, the merchant and company founder Wilhelm Mülhens took the fragrance market by storm with his Eau de Cologne, now known as "4711 - Original Eau de Cologne". The old 4711 house was completely destroyed in the war in 1943, as were the factory facilities in Cologne-Ehrenfeld. In the 1950s, the production facilities in Ehrenfeld were rebuilt. In 1963, the current new building Glockengasse 4 was constructed in a neo-Gothic architectural style and is adjacent to the Cologne Cathedral in the courtyard.

The video is made of 3 images made into an audio visual then combined in PTE AV Studio with music added.

 

[Alex55]

Nice video!

Thanks Mark

Alex

[digartal]

5 hours ago, Alex55 said:

Nice video!

Thanks Mark

Alex

Thanks Alex, glad you enjoyed it.

Have quite a few more from my trip to Europe last year that I need to review and edit.

[Alex55]

Hope we'll see those. 

Best

 

[Ghulya]

It lacks any narrative foundation based on photographic or cinematic grammar. This becomes evident right after the initial "sphere" gimmick. Take that zoom, for instance—the entry into the church followed by a violent zoom out. Had there been a cross-dissolve, the result would have been entirely different.

A still image possesses a grammar and syntax distinct from a streaming video flow. It is essential not to confuse the two.

Best regards,

Ghulya
Photographer / Cinematographer / Graphic Designer since 1969

[nelson]

Looking forward to some of your work that illustrates your critique of Mark's work.

Kieron

[digartal]

9 hours ago, Ghulya said:

It lacks any narrative foundation based on photographic or cinematic grammar. This becomes evident right after the initial "sphere" gimmick. Take that zoom, for instance—the entry into the church followed by a violent zoom out. Had there been a cross-dissolve, the result would have been entirely different.

A still image possesses a grammar and syntax distinct from a streaming video flow. It is essential not to confuse the two.

Best regards,

Ghulya
Photographer / Cinematographer / Graphic Designer since 1969

Thank you for taking the time to provide such detailed feedback. I appreciate the thought you’ve given to your observations on visual grammar and narrative structure.

Your distinction between photographic composition and cinematic flow is an interesting one. I intended to experiment with the tension between dual fisheye 360° travel equirectangular imagery and post-capture motion video, particularly through post-capture proprietary editing techniques and the use of more abrupt zoom transitions within a short, visually arresting piece. I understand that these choices may feel disruptive when viewed through a more traditional cinematic framework.

The zoom sequences you referenced was designed to create a moment of spatial disorientation as a transition between scenes before re-establishing context. I acknowledge that a cross-dissolve between each video clip or more gradual transition would have produced a different emotional cadence. While I did incorporate PTE dissolves between the three separate images/video segments, I appreciate your perspective and would consider alternative approaches in a longer, more conventionally cinematic production.

More broadly, your critique touches on an enduring artistic tension — the balance between tradition and experimentation. This project was an exploration of how emerging 360° dual-fisheye technology might interact with established visual grammar, rather than strictly adhering to single-lens or classical cinematic conventions.

I value constructive dialogue around visual language and would be pleased to share the three source images if you’d like to interpret them in your own style. I’m always open to learning from different approaches and styles.

Ciao,
Mark

[Ghulya]

There is a defining difference between photography and video, specifically regarding movement. The traditional dividing line is the "hard cut" between sequences, which is typical of video and cinema.

Conversely, the cross-fade is the soul of what we used to call "slide shows" or "audio-visuals." These were born from analog transparencies projected via Kodak Carousels and synchronized with external control units for sound. During that transition from one slide to the next, a "third image" emerged—something incredible and ethereal. The enchantment of a true slide projection remains unrivaled by cinema and even less so by standard video. Using the mp4 format for "moving" slides today is a choice reserved for those with a refined palate.

Ghulya photo etc since 1969

[digartal]

46 minutes ago, Ghulya said:

There is a defining difference between photography and video, specifically regarding movement. The traditional dividing line is the "hard cut" between sequences, which is typical of video and cinema.

Conversely, the cross-fade is the soul of what we used to call "slide shows" or "audio-visuals." These were born from analog transparencies projected via Kodak Carousels and synchronized with external control units for sound. During that transition from one slide to the next, a "third image" emerged—something incredible and ethereal. The enchantment of a true slide projection remains unrivaled by cinema and even less so by standard video. Using the mp4 format for "moving" slides today is a choice reserved for those with a refined palate.

Ghulya photo etc since 1969

Yes, there is a clear distinction between photography and video, but in my view the gap has narrowed considerably in the digital era. This is particularly evident in 360-degree photography, where a single captured image can be reframed in post-production and transformed into a video that reveals multiple angles and perspectives. The boundary between still and moving images is no longer as rigid as it once was.

I’m not a recent convert to slideshow photography. I cut my teeth on slide film and analogue AV productions in the late 1980s. Soon after taking up photography, I began creating AVs using dual Kodak Carousel projectors synced to a tape recorder, projecting Fuji Velvia slides. I vividly remember spending long nights marking the tape by hand to cue the advance of the image in a second projector. While I never reached the heights of national or international exhibitions, I regularly entered local city competitions and remained deeply engaged in the craft of audiovisuals.

Working in IT sales and service with Compaq during the rise of digital technology, I readily embraced the shift to digital photography. I even spoke at local camera clubs about what I called the “gorilla in the room” or "the snowball rolling down the mountain" - the inevitable transition to digital and what it meant for photographers.

A few years ago, I developed an interest in videography through commercial drone projects, and this gradually became part of my personal artistic practice. I’m not especially motivated by narrative or scripted storytelling. Instead, digital AV gives me the flexibility to present my imagery - primarily photography, and at times video - in a moving format that can often more effectively hold a viewer’s attention. I also regularly use a mobile camera and editing apps to create AV presentations.

Ultimately, however, what I produce reflects my own subjective perspective. I understand that it may not resonate with everyone.

Ciao Mark