There is a virtue in both, shooting video and stills, thus the objective of this comparison is not to determine which method is superiour in general terms and advocating the use of it, but rather to see the advantages and drawbacks in each.
pro-video
one can publish the material shot on YouTube, which is the ultimate universal standard for posting useless stuff, as far as the concept of "original programming" is concerned. The rewards are reaped in the form of viewings numbers and, of course, in the comment numbers. No matter how low the quality of the comments is, as long as there are more than just a couple, the video gains credibility (for an unknown reason, might I add).
pro-photo
mainly digestibility, as the material is not time dependent. Also the question of legacy is an important one — the possibility of publishing pics on ones own blog (which is not really impossible, but rather senseless for video, due to the superiority of YouTube as a format specific hosting portal) not only ensures that the image stays where it has been placed for as long as the owner of the image wants it to, but also having a dedicated space and place on ones own server (co-located or not is irrelevant) does add credibility to the owner, placing him / her in the range of "content provider". As for the digestibility agrument, it is more related to the contra-video, than to the pro-photo.
contra-video
as it has been described above already, there is an issue with the digestability of any item with the preset timeline. It seems that the we can not expect the voluntary attention span to be always equal the timeframe of the video, no matter how short it is. It can be clearly demonstrated by ispecting the YouTube's inside → hotspot option. Unless we are talking about the Seth McFarlane's shorts there will be always a point where the attention span drops to zero.
contra-photo
The forte of the photo is also it's own vice — due to the fact that the personal spaces are not standartized, there is no unified way of evaluating the content. Sure there are mostly ways to comment on posts in blogs, but people are far more reluctant to comment on somebody elses personal spaces, then on everybody's garbage tip, such as YouTube. There are many reasons for this, both sociological and psychological. Let's not get in to this. For now, just the asknowledgment of the fact, that there are fewer ways of evaluation + less will, if we can say that, to do so on blogs should suffice. To prove the point we can compare the photo version of YouTube — Flickr. As the service Flickr is, obviously, nowhere close to YouTube. However, commenting and giving marks to the pictures is far more common, than on those private boards. So, this is not the problem with the format, but the actual unification of the methods and the "sence of belonging". We mark things mach easier, if they are located on the public places, that on private.
conclusion
there isn't one, really. Or maybe there is, but this is a sociological thing, so I would leave it to the professionals.
