what is the main reason most brides would rather forgo video than photo?

Photo is all about a "perfect moment"...Video is all about the event, which has ups and downs. Too many videos have been done by relatives that contain all the embarrassing bits that happened (no editing at all). We can change that through presenting more and more "perfect moments" videos and making that the expectation.

And Photos go on the mantle piece...maybe someone should make a little picture frame with an LCD that would play 30 secs of video in a loop from a thumb drive for wedding videographers to hand to their clients. Push the "stillies" out of the way! (see how I just coined a term and sounded all angry about it ;) )

Nobody wants to watch them. Don't wrong, they can be great, but how often do you see a professional production of a wedding? I have seen too many that just go on and on... Images however, has for a very long time been ingrained as artistic.
M

I would have to agree with Malameel on that one. To capture a perfect picture requires.

Malmeel, what do you do with a Sony F950?

1. One Camera Operater with Flash and a Brain to click the camera when something interesting happens.

To capture a perfect wedding video requires

1. Multiple Camera operators with steady hands, good resolution video cameras.
2. Good lighting situations. (that never happens).
3. Fair amount of choreography (that rarely happens)
4. Good music that is legal to sync to video. (that's impossible)
5. The ability to cover all events from multiple angles all night long.
6. The ability to produce all of this into an interesting video that looks as good as LOTR, The Notebook, Star Wars.

You get the picture. Everyone's an expert when it comes to shooting video, because the own a video camera and can burn a dvd on their Dell. But getting 35mm film developed at the camera shop, well that's just magic.

The F950 makes great wedding videos. :)
M

(Not to steal the thread, but we use the F950 mostly for green screen situations or any big budget stuff. Just setting it up can be a hastle.)

what is the main reason most brides would rather forgo video than photo?

I'd say it's partly a matter of tradition and partly one of budgeting. Photography has been commonplace for generations and people know they want it for their wedding, so they make that a priority early in their planning process. Video is newer and less appreciated, so most couples don't think about it until their budget is getting stretched. At that point paying several thosand for a good video may seem unrealistic, and there isn't a sense that a cheap video is worth the bother. Plus people aren't sure what to expect from a video or how often they might watch it, but they know they'll look at their photos.

It's a shame really given that video conveys so much more of what happens at a wedding than photos ever could. Maybe someday this will be better appreciated and valued by more couples, but that seems to be a long time coming.

While I think "stills" are traditional, I think that surveys have shown that brides who get video are very glad they did.

There's one major thing that video gets if done right - it captures an event that flys by so fast that the people in it don't probably remember what happened... I hear that over and over - they want the video so they an relive the day - it's typically so hectic and crazy that they can't remember anything!

... 4. Good music that is legal to sync to video. (that's impossible)...

Actually not impossible if you use Premiere. I use SmartSound Quicktracks (http://www.smartsound.com/premiere/) for music for my videos. The program is free, the music is royalty free and costs 19.99 per track, and I can customize the length (which is what Quicktracks is all about). It's worked extremely well for me.

For those not using Premiere, there might be similar programs for your NLE though I don't know of any offhand.

Dale

what is the main reason most brides would rather forgo video than photo?Because you can't frame a video and mount it on the wall. :)

Photography has about 150 years on us - it's as simple as that. Tradition is a hard rule to break.

For those not using Premiere, there might be similar programs for your NLE though I don't know of any offhand.
DaleNo NLE is needed to use SmartSound. You simply use the standalone
QuickTracks music generator to compile your own WAV files.

Ah; that's good. I've only used it from inside Premiere, so I didn't know.

Dale

Because you can't frame a video and mount it on the wall.

Actually you could these days, but few people are likely to do that. A more intriguing issue is the question of portability, with some interesting possibilities relating to weddings and other events. If a bride could pull out her cell phone and watch herself saying her wedding vows or dancing with her husband (and dad) at the reception, how cool would that be? Videography is finally in a position to take on photography as a practical means of sharing memories, and if we can start demonstrating that to people we might make some headway in terms of popularity. It will likely be many years yet before video becomes as common as photography for weddings, but hopefully we're moving in that direction.

It's funny, since I shoot weddings, but I prefer photos to video too.

They are less literal, and allow more for the imagination. My memory of my wedding is a sacred, personal thing. Looking at the photographs doesn't break that spell of how I remember it in my mind...it only adds to its lore. My senses aren't fully loaded with sound and moving pictures, so I can really inject however I am feeling while looking at pictures.

The more you watch your video...the more you can anticipate what happens next. It is a very literal delivery, detracting suprise with every viewing. There are usually so many photographs that you can really find so many new things when you go back and look at them.

When I look at photographs, I can look at them in whatever order I want. I can also choose to share just a few. I can also socialize while sharing pictures with someone. All in all, it is much more casual, and sometimes even meditative.

I love moving pictures... I was a film major, but when choosing between photo and video for a wedding I choose photo every time. And I'm a videographer! :)

The thing that kills me is that people monetize the priority...thinking since photos are probably more important than video that they should be able to get a videographer for less. As we all know this is crazy for the amount of work we do.

I'll admit I like shooting stills as well, capturing the "perfect" moment... and it has it's place.

Video is tricky, bad video is easy (OK so is bad photography). Magic is what separates the great spine tingling shots from drek.

Thanks in part to some of the inspired work I've seen from the others who have posted their stuff, I've got a small wedding I'm mixing down that will frankly knock their socks off - got some incredible shots that "just happened", and all will fit together nicely. A few missed shots, some blah stuff, but that's how it goes, and the dead spots are what the "cutting room floor" is for!

Got the groomsmen goofing around when they thought the camera was "off" (it wasn't - I almost feel out of my chair as they took turns dancing and monkeying around!!), got killer footage of the couple in sillhouete with the sun behind them as they dance & kiss... lots of great material.

Video takes a different mindset and a lot more work but if you deliver something that blows people away (even if you've used it a hundred times in other videos...), you can justify the $$ - and if the couple is visually oriented, they will play the DVD until the bits wear off... Hopefully their friends will see it and want the same thing!

I recall WEVA did a survey and found that brides that did video were ALWAYS glad they did, and the ones who didn't were sorry they didn't have the video... surveys may be "biased", but the couples I've talked to really REALLY love the video - and I always put a slide show of the best pictures on the DVD so they can "put it on their (wide screen LCD) wall".

Like anything else, show the "client' something that they really like, and educate them a bit, and you'll be busy enough.

When I look at photographs, I can look at them in whatever order I want. I can also choose to share just a few. I can also socialize while sharing pictures with someone. All in all, it is much more casual, and sometimes even meditative.

To some extent that's true, but less so as video delivery becomes more flexible and accessible. DVDs allow random access and file-based video sharing will improve on that even more, for those who want to pick through their video clips like pictures. It's true that watching a video is a different experience than flipping through photos , but then people don't spend hours every night watching still images on TV...

what is the main reason most brides would rather forgo video than photo?

Since I do both, I would offer a rather long variation of what has already been said. Still images, if they really capture the "moment", offer the viewer the freedom to wander into their own memories or imaginations as they carefully scrutinize the picture before them. This is one of the things I love about the still image that video can not reproduce.

Video is a linear story line that demands the viewer have a dvd player and TV as well as the time to sit down and be entertained. That story, when carefully assembled is much more powerful than the still image, but by no means a competitor.

Video demands more equipment to capture as well as a lot of critical decision time to make that smooth flowing narrative. Digital photographers are finding themselves spending a lot more critital time producing their final products as well, but I personally believe their work remains much easier.

Cost. Video costs more to produce, but average wedding clients can't seem to understand. Their eyes widen at production costs of big feature films but that somehow makes sense. They can not, however, recognize wedding videographers, who use the same basic concepts and processes to produce wedding videos, have massively streamlined the production process to make it cost effective. In my experience, clients who have seen GOOD videos both know what they want and are not disturbed by cost. Those who only have an "idea" that is most often based upon the ignorant comments of some slightly savvy family computer nerd can't comprehend.

Longevity. Production format compatibility and the longevity associated with it lacks assurance. Can my DVD videos of five years ago still be viewed 25 years from now? 50 years from now? 100 years from now? The very first photos made almost 200 years ago remain viewable with no additional assistance. My great grandfather's American Civil War tintype, like my wife's photos of her grand mother's wedding in the 1920's, as they sit comfortably displayed on the mantle, demand nothing more than my eyes to view. Backward compatibility is probably the most important and least considered issue by any manufacturer of any electronic imaging company in the world.

Third, production quality. IF the electronic display manufacturers can promise longevity in terms of backward compatibility, then I think wedding video producers have something to offer in terms of long term value. IF there is reliability there, then I feel natural market processes will shape a widely acceptable standard of quality that all event videographers must accept. If not, event video production will always be first and foremost, a battle for "todays" short term market instead of the building of an industry that has archival gaurantees.

Lastly, video is quite the newcomer in the wedding arena of possibilities. I'm not even sure video, as we currently understand it, will be the standard of the future. In any case, as a marketable item, video must elevate awareness so it has a budget priority that is in the top 50% instead of the bottom 50%.

Personally, I prefer video over photography. It tells a story better in so may ways. I do photography more because it is more in demand.

It's funny, since I shoot weddings, but I prefer photos to video too.
They are less literal, and allow more for the imagination.Exactly. Photos add a sense of mystery which stimulates the imagination.

Actually you could these days, but few people are likely to do that. A more intriguing issue is the question of portability, with some interesting possibilities relating to weddings and other events. If a bride could pull out her cell phone and watch herself saying her wedding vows or dancing with her husband (and dad) at the reception, how cool would that be? Videography is finally in a position to take on photography as a practical means of sharing memories, and if we can start demonstrating that to people we might make some headway in terms of popularity. It will likely be many years yet before video becomes as common as photography for weddings, but hopefully we're moving in that direction.

But all this high-tech is readily available to photogs as well. Technology alone will never distinguish video from photos. And I dread the day when cell phone footage becomes "acceptable" in this YouTube society.

And as far as people using stills for pics... I used to think this might be a possibility as video cams continue to improve in resolution. But a photog pointed out to me the obvious which is the different aspect ratios used. Unless one were to start filming with the cam on its side it will be difficult to reproduce an 8x10" portrait.

I consantly shoot "on the side" for many corporate clients who attend trade shows and prefer vertical plasma placement as opposed to horizontal (like everyone else)
In fact Nvidia have preset settings for this so u can run vertical video straigh off the laptop...
as for weddings doing this.. umm.. no... lol

I consantly shoot "on the side" for many corporate clients who attend trade shows and prefer vertical plasma placement as opposed to horizontal (like everyone else)
In fact Nvidia have preset settings for this so u can run vertical video straigh off the laptop...
as for weddings doing this.. umm.. no... lol

I should point out that stills from video for pix IS a viable option.. but not a replacement. ive had many clients lose almost everything in fires or robberies, wedding pix includedso we replace them with our archives...
Others prefer my stills from video compared to their own photographer. It is a viable add on to video services, but i wouldnt make an issue of it.. not until cameras hit the 6mp mark and have decent sized CCD's with at least 1.8f stop.
DoF is the first thing u will notice on a DSLR pic compared to a video grab.

If however your running an XLH1 and u throw on a 50mm 1.4, turn the cam to its side (RC322 ball head), u WILL get a VERY nice looking shot in 3mp with a VERY decent shallow DoF

And I allways thought the weddingvideo was a much bigger business then weddingphoto's in the states? In Europe it's exactly the same tradition, photographer comes first, often hired a year in advance, and videographer sometimes a few weeks in advance. :)

I allways hate it when I arrive at the bride in the morning before the photographer and when the bride's mother opens the door and says: "The photographer is here!!"

Watching a video requires the input of time and attention, which is tougher to commit to. Browsing through a photo album, can take seconds or minutes. You decide.
Also, many of todays bruides are put off by the cheesy videos their parents got.
But, would you rather have your grand parents wedding in pictures or high quality video?

Andy

I'd like to add, in where I live, most people do think that video = stills with added time dimension. Now, while technically it's true ;), let me give you an example of what I often encountered in my work :

The bride was sitting on a bed, talking with her mom while waiting for the tea ceremony (It's a Chinese custom of having a tea ceremony on wedding).
They were talking normally, with the bride were pulling and fixing her glove once in a while. I thought it could make into a good candid shot, so I fired up my camera and recorded them.
Few seconds later, the mother noticed that I was shooting and she told the bride. Right away, they both stood freeze, putting on their "camera face". Both looking perfectly still, with faint,nervous,fake smile, staring at the camera, as if my camcorder were a still camera :P
And they held that pose for like 5 seconds or so.

Now, what would happen when they look at the video later, were I didn't cut that "freezing pose" in the edit? (which of course I did). It'd be boring and they'd start thinking "This is so boring. Photographs are better to look at".
And then they'd start spreading that idea around.. in which, I believe, in where I live, it already happened since many years ago.

So, aside from what others had already mentioned (photographs are easier to access and you can look at photograph without electricity ;) ), this should be taken into account as well.