About time-lapses, I get asked: "Why not video?"
Time-lapses create a different perception of time than video,
where no one can see individual frames at 24 frames a second;
here, each frame is just barely separate, and images stick.
Still photographers eventually come around to the sad fact that
people look at photos for a few seconds, maybe a bit more. Even
when that is not the case, stills usually don't hold the eye and time
like moving pictures.
Anyone engaged with SEO (search engine optimization), the
semi-science of how to get attention on the Interwebs, knows that
search engines prioritize pages containing movement, typically
videos, because people stay on the those pages longer, making it
more affective for advertising. The result is that pages containing
motion tend to appear higher in search results; if you have an online
presence, this is what you want: to get across.
All this being said, a strong image can get across in the blink of an eye.
Time-lapses are those blinks, multiplied.
While many of these time-lapses were done for myself, some were
done as part of gigs. There is no consistent theme or soundtrack. Some
contain non-congruent sounds, like a rocket countdown accompanying
a bird in a tree, or small waves with crickets. Some have no sound at all.
On the other hand, watching a group of four-year-olds opening birthday
presents accompanied by "Happy Birthday" from a music box makes
perfect sense, as do circus performers supported by an ancient band
recording. Without leaning on theory - because I don't have one - seeing
and hearing things that normally do not go together makes the seeing
and hearing a little fresher, a more intuitive experience; a kind of
relaxation, if you will.
I think of my time-lapses as very short movies, a minute or so, some only
around 10 seconds, because that's all they need to be.