Why aren't most photographers cinematographers anymore?

As a prefix, I want to affix the link for the trailer of The Fall. Beautiful film. Horrid narrative. Why? Just Because.
Now, to the question. I have been reading about all these Pioneering photographers, like Goldbeck, and Lawrence. Both of them were also cinematographers, and frequently got their work published in newsreels. I can understand why. Cinematography uses the same visual skillset as cinematography.
Now, I like to think of myself as a photographer of sorts, especially after I joined the masochistic sect of large format photographers. I also do cinematography. Nothing fancy, I make youtube videos for my college, as a college job, for beer money, (which as a starving college student, is a welcome prospect).
Since I get paid to do that, I could consider myself a semiprofessional cinematographer.
Since I do both, I wonder, why more people don't do it too. I have yet to see movies shot by any of the contemporary photographers. Andy Warhol, yes, but, lets not get me started on that guy...
I really don't think arguments that the technology is too complex, because with the coming of the digital revolution, You really don't need focus pullers and expensive eastman color development shops, or panavision lenses. (Not unless you want to make hollywood, or in my case, bollywood, movies.)

Rahul Sharma said:

Cinematography uses the same visual skillset as cinematography.

Click to expand...

Hi Rahul,

Cinematography also needs other skill sets. IMHO it is much more difficult to tell a story with a single still image, than something that also allows time and movement to help/steer the viewer. On the other hand, motion picture also requires additional skill sets such as audio, storyboarding, postproduction (re-sequencing, grading, etc.).

Cinematography is more than nice compositions of scenes that move ...

Cheers,
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Cinematography is more than nice compositions of scenes that move ...

Click to expand...

In most cases I would agree with you, but I have been on a Godfery Reggio kick, and most of the stuff is like this Samsara Trailer but with better music. And this is exactly what you said.
I do agree with your point the skillset is not exactly the same, but it comes pretty close, and with a bit of work, a competent photographer can become a competent cinematographer (not a hollywood cinematographer, but good enough to make a documentary).
Which ties into my initial point. If the earlier photographers did it, how come contemporary photographers don't?
I don't except a solid answer, I was bored, and sleep deprived, (as all college students are), and had this thought mulling in my mind for a while.

Rahul,

Today, there are many more demands on time. Many photographers only work because the modern camera is so efficient. We for create pictures with some planning perhaps, but mistakes are easily corrected in subsequent shots. By contrast, moving pictures are not so really taken in the first place. Some care needs to be invested in planning and then for the shooting, accessory lighting becomes much more important in story telling. Errors cannot so readily be corrected in a moment. The whole sequence shot has to be re-enacted or else, for example, in a wedding, that is lost altogether. Then one has to be able to record sound, devoid of background dominance or distraction and that requires further investment in time and money.

I have just completed a 5 camera shoot of an opera and it required all the mental resources I could muster as everything happens in so many dimensions.

Now taking movies of family is fun! Whatever happens is just adorable!

Asher