The most obvious example of photography’s collaboration is in the realm of moving image (film/TV/Videoblog etc). Why does it seem that still images have more impact than film? Is it because we have more time to consider and read and re-read the image; rather like a book and to place it into our own context to find the truth that it reveals to us? It is fair to say that photography comes with its own embedded history which is older than film so it is understandable that we look to it to represent history and memories. We consider moving image rather in the same way we might a theatre production…it is in the present and now whereas a still image is a little murder of that moment it has captured. It can never be repeated – never live again – it is a permanent memento mori “that has been and therefore no longer is” (Roland Barthes Camera Lucida, 1980). Although we must be wary of allowing it to confuse and muddy the waters of true events – when the photograph becomes the event and distorts the memories. The use of still image within film is often as a representative for memory or death – the panning shot of the mantelpiece where lost loves & relations are forever captured slowly bleaching in the sun till their trace is almost obliterated; ironic when we looked to the photograph in the first place to retain what our memories could not.