I just noticed in a couple of threads that many don't give all the raw video footage of weddings. I was wondering why this was. I know photographers don't either. Recently, at some of the chapels I work at, the photography companies have given deals "All raw data included with X number of photos that have been PP" When I asked why, the answer was "Why not? It's not worth the hassle of fighting over." They do about 12 weddings a weekend so they're not hurting for money. This is in Japan and the way things are done may be different country to country, but I wondered what most people here have to say about it. What is the reason?

My understanding (and I'd agree with it) is that RAW footage does not exactly represents the quality of work you would produce. In your raw footages, things may not look as good (no colour correction, movements here and there, horrible audio etc). You need works in post to make sure all these are corrected.

While we may understand this, the B&G most probably don't. They and anyone they let view of the unfinished product may make wrong perception of what you produce and may give the wrong reference to other potential couples.

But it maybe a different case if the video they'd produce is off a single/two camera that sits statically at the back of the church.. then your RAW and your final would look about the same anyway...

Unless the person getting the raw footage is an accomplished editor and colourist, the chances are that raw footage can only damage your business rather than enhance it. Otherwise, why do any of us bother editing in the first place?

Raw footage is exactly that - raw. It's not meant for viewing 'as-is' because it hasn't been colour corrected, hasn't hasn't had the wobbles, zooms and pans edited out, and just as important, the audio from that camera could be terrible too.

Shooting multi-camera means shooting for the edit, which takes viewing the raw footage to a whole new level because you need to bring it in to an NLE (which most people either don't have, or don't know how to use) and sync all angles and audio before you have a good idea of how good / bad the overall production can be. Only then do you start to build the story.

If all you have is a single camera, then you basically have what uncle bob could have shot, and the most uncle bob ever does for editing is 'cut out the bad bits', if he even bothers to do that (most don't).

If an untrained eye looks at your raw footage and sees pretty much what uncle bob could have shot then why would they bother hiring you instead of getting uncle bob for free?

One of the biggest differences between a home movie of a wedding and a professional wedding video is what happens after the day in the edit suite, though sadly most people simply don't understand that.

One reason not to is "how do you transfer it it?" I just checked a folder for one I am working on for a dear friend and that folder right now is 105gb of stuff. Those photogs, a DVD will most likely handle every image they shot for a wedding with no problem. Personally, I think the B&G should archive all their footage, in case of something happening years down the pipe. How many of them want to blow 50-100gb of storage forever, I doubt that number is many.

I get asked now and again for the raw footage and I usually ask them if they have a Quad Core machine and software that can import AVCHD files...of course the usual answer is HUH????? so they drop the issue.

If you take a simple thing like the shoot at the reception going around the tables...say 16 tables of 8 people and on an AVCHD camera you will get a total of 16 short clips (my cams create a new clip whenever you hit record) For me that's a pain to edit so I start the cam at table one and between tables I just point it at the floor while I walk to the next table...so to the amateur viewer it would look terrible and is a bad reflection on the videographer "Gosh he filmed the carpet nearly as much as the people"

I always do guest interviews during predinner drinks and to avoid having to say "OK you can talk now...3-2-1" I go from guest to guests all in one clip so when I ask for bridal congrats I'm filming already and don't have any cue problems at all.....view the same clip and apart from the actual interviews it certainly looks like an Uncle Bob job!!! Both are MY way of capturing footage so I can edit MY way so giving that raw footage is out of the question for the bride!!!

I shoot dual cam and quite often I might be shooting on Cam B while the bridal party could be blocking Cam A ...after editing it's perfect but watch just one camera and it wouldn't make sense!!~

By all means give away the raw footage if you do a single camera shoot with careful in-camera edits and no wobbly bits....the raw and edited footage will probably be much the same!!! But anything else is a blunt refusal UNLESS you decide to supply (at a cost) pre-edited clips before they hit the DVD in MPEG2 format are are already edited and are pretty much a carbon copy of what's on the DVD minus any titles or FX....that's the only way I would supply "raw footage" and they would certainly have to pay for it!!!

Seriously it's not worth ruining your credentials over footage that a client doesn't understand.

Chris

Hey Chris,

I leave the camera rolling when moving from table to table like you, but flip to the camera bars instead of just showing the ground ( that is, when I remember to switch to the camera bars).

Also, I often flip to the camera bars when I want to make a placemark in the footage. That way I can scroll rapidly through long sections of footage while editing until I hit the section with the bars. It saves a lot of time for me later when I start to edit. For instance when shooting soccer games where there isn't a scoreboard, I'll switch on the bars for a few seconds after a goal is scored. It makes it easier to find on the timeline.

Isn't it a terrible shame to just throw away all that footage that would be so interesting as archival material to the B&G and their families in 10/20/30 years time?

No, because they already have all of the interesting material.

What doesn't make it into the final cut is, by definition, not
compelling. That's the wedding filmmaker's most important job.

There's certainly room for BTS and "making of" and bloopers
and other highlights, but not every last minute of the raw video.

Look at it this way: there are some magnificent works of art in
museums around the world that have been sculpted out of marble,
stone, etc. Of what aesthetic value is the pile of little rock chips
that were hewn away to create these masterpieces? Zero. The
sculptor doesn't want you to see that mound of shavings; the
sculptor wants you to see the finished work. It's the same
thing here. Video editing is electronic sculpture.

Many good points raised thus far.

For performance/event gigs, there are times when I provide the "raw" footage. I have one client who does his own editing on four-camera concert shoots, so I give him SD cards right after the show. I have another client whom I provide the edited copy as well as the uncut footage for two-camera shoots, all of which I deliver on DVD. For concerts, it isn't unusual to have the conductor request the uncut footage of the "conductor cam". This footage is used for personal review, auditions, and job applications.

That's pretty much how I look at it. Raw footage would actually be edited to exclude the bits I would normally throw away as a matter of course and as such would also be transcoded from the 'raw' footage in to something suitable for some one else to play. The time it takes to edit those bits and do the transcoding needs to be accounted for, not to mention the HDD I'd ned to buy to supply it on.

When ever Iv'e discussed this with the clients (because a couple of them thought it would be cheaper than me editing it!) it's worked out as expensive as the editing the proper video, and then they'd still have to get it edited! Once they realise that, they seem to be less interested.

Hi Jason,

I just noticed in a couple of threads that many don't give all the raw video footage of weddings. I was wondering why this was...

If the couple wants it I sell it to them, either on SD DVD's for use with standard DVD player or on a USB hard drive. In terms of per hour work it seems worth it in my opinion. For the DVD's I line up all the footage on a timeline and scan it once, taking out sections that don't show anything, like an empty lectern for example. (I work alone and rely on other angles much of the time, meaning that some angles are pre-positioned without the subject in the frame for a few minutes). With the USB drive I just copy all the original source files over to a drive formatted for PC or Mac - their choice. (Ever since selling unedited footage I've learned not to chat to others during the quiet times, like when I'm doing table decoration shots in the reception hall before the guests enter. Its easy to talk to the photographer or catering staff. Not that it would be anything you wouldn't want them to hear, just that I don't want to take the chance.)

We have gone back and forth over this issue in our company. We try to never mention raw footage and we now try to talk to the couple out of the raw footage if they bring it up by telling them what it really is, but if they are absolutely insistent we tell them that in order to view it it will need to be transcoded into a format that their computer can handle and charge them for the transcoding time, transfer time to the hard drive that we make them provide and shipping and handling costs. If they want it on DVD we then charge them for the dvds, cases, burn time, everything. We find that 99 our of 100 times the couple finds it to not be worth the money, and if they are still insistent on it, we look at it as another paying gig that is now worth our time as they are paying our full rate for it.

I give the couple the original footage in the original format (use to be minidv tapes, now it's SD cards) for archive purposes. I also offer to transfer the files to them if they supply a hard drive. It becomes a question of format obsolesence... I explain it all to my clients, both on my website and when I meet with them.

I sell them the raw footage for $200 and they get to keep the hard drive.

I don't think it will hurt my business or the magic I create.

Honestly, I have had clients take one look at it and go "wow" this looks like a lot of work to go through each clip that plays back poorly, they also see how much work editing really takes when looking at 300 clips!

I see it as easy extra income. I make about $3K a year in selling the raw.

Hi Chris,

No, because they already have all of the interesting material. What doesn't make it into the final cut is, by definition, not compelling. That's the wedding filmmaker's most important job.

I just don't have the artist's mentality anymore - I figure its not my decision what they want to see or will find compelling. I can just show them my personal take of the day, and if its short there is a lot left out. I've found unedited footage to be a popular option for short-form, highlights and SDE-only packages. Afterwards I tend to think that what we do is appreciated even more because they've seen what we start with, not only seen the quantity of the footage but also the difference filtering can make.

Look at it this way: there are some magnificent works of art in
museums around the world that have been sculpted out of marble,
stone, etc. Of what aesthetic value is the pile of little rock chips
that were hewn away to create these masterpieces? Zero. The
sculptor doesn't want you to see that mound of shavings; the
sculptor wants you to see the finished work. It's the same
thing here. Video editing is electronic sculpture.

I don't think that analogy relates. It assumes that everything that is left out of the edit wasn't meant to be there in the first place, which is far from the case with a wedding film. Some shots just didn't fit into the edit, but that doesn't mean they are without sentimental and archival value.

Of what aesthetic value is the pile of little rock chips that were hewn away to create these masterpieces? Zero. The sculptor doesn't want you to see that mound of shavings; the sculptor wants you to see the finished work. It's the same thing here. Video editing is electronic sculpture.

Totally agree.

I gave the raw footage away with hesitation ONCE.

NEVER again. First I had ENDLESS phone calls about how to view the HD material. "Why is it skipping and jumping?" "Why is the sound different on each speaker?" (tracks). THEN, 6 months later once they had gone over EVERY frame, the questions started... "Why didn't you include shot of little Johnny outside the church?" "Why did you cut away to grooms face as I was coming up the aisle?" "Why didn't you include all 30 seconds of Auntie Mary sitting on the park bench picking her nose?"

Now I make it clear, they are paying me to produce a final edited DVD of their wedding - that's what they get. Nothing else. No tapes, no cards, no editing choices. Autocracy rules!. Heil to the King baby! :)

Ever since selling unedited footage I've learned not to chat to others during the quiet times...

Oh Joel... that's terrible! Half the fun I have at weddings is joking with the photographer or flirting with the catering staff... another good reason I don't give away the raw. I'd probably be sued (or lynched) ;)

In my opinion the worst thing you can ever say to a client is 'no'. That's not to say I don't say 'no'. I definitely do, but I've learned over the years to find a way to say 'yes' that leaves the client wanting to say 'no'.

Regarding raw footage, we simply don't advertise that it is available. When a client does ask then we quote them a price that tends to make them say nevermind. Sometimes they still say 'yes', but at least then we are making a good profit providing the client with something valuable to them and us.

That said, we also have our contract written so that WE are in complete and total creative control on any edits we deliver. So if a client comes back and wants some random shot thrown in somewhere we can either say 'no' (point to the contract) or we can say 'yes' and quote them a high dollar amount to make the change. Works pretty well.

I've learned over the years to find a way to say 'yes' that leaves the client wanting to say 'no'.
So true, love it!

Look at it this way: there are some magnificent works of art in
museums around the world that have been sculpted out of marble,
stone, etc. Of what aesthetic value is the pile of little rock chips
that were hewn away to create these masterpieces? Zero. The
sculptor doesn't want you to see that mound of shavings; the
sculptor wants you to see the finished work. It's the same
thing here. Video editing is electronic sculpture.

This quote belongs in an analogy hall of fame.

Have you ever heard this? "Photographer is providing all his shots on a DVD."

No he isn't. (hypothetically) he deleted 85 photos in-camera. You never saw those photos and you never will. Wow... how convenient and easy it is to press that trash button when you're product is a still photo comprised of one single file?

My point is that the photographer IS NOT not putting his trash on display ...why would you?

There is no right or wrong here. I'm not going to feel guilty for selling something of value to a paying customer. If they want to pay me for lots of shots of the floor, and out-of-focus shots, etc., then I'm more than happy to give it to them.

It's not like they're renting out the local cineplex to display your raw footage for the whole tri-state area to come watch, or running a 6-hour cable marathon of nothing but your raw footage. Chances are, they'll never even watch it.

Unfortunately some couples have watched the video, suddenly remembered a shot the photographer took (including signing the register!) that wasn't given to them and then complained, so it can work both ways ;)

It's true that a photographer can usually get away with deleting more, but it's also the case that many couples do assume they got all the photos and not just a subset. Transparency is not always the better way of doing things.

Hi Craig,


My point is that the photographer IS NOT not putting his trash on display ...why would you?

A. Because they are willing to pay for it.
B. I don't consider my unedited footage trash.

I offer my raw footage for free. It takes the onus of the archiving off of us, and I consider everything I shoot art.... :)

I control the why didn't you include this or that with a nice letter saying that the studio time included in their package has been exhausted and any future editing will incur a $200 per hour studio fee.

The way I deliver the raw is have the couple give me a flash drive (or HDD) with varying capacities depending on time on location. The files are uncompressed the way they came out of the 5 or 7D. I let them know in the aforementioned letter that they will need a good fast computer to play the HD clips.

To this date I haven't gotten anyone asking anything to be changed as a result of giving out the raw footage.

Why give something away for free that clients will pay for?

Our industry struggles enough as it is to get paid properly for our talent, expertise, investment and time. To me, giving things away for free that a client values and would pay for is bad for business and bad for the industry.

I get that you don't want to hassle with archiving, so just put in your contract that you don't archive and that the raw footage will be cleared a week after delivery of the DVD's. But don't just give it away for free.

I give the raw footage on my highlights packages. I don't have anything to hide really. IMO The people should have a right to see it, and I make every effort to make sure each shot is done well and not a massive quantity of junk then cleverly edited later to cover up my mistakes.

There is, however some common sense I use in my raw footage inclusions if there's some goofed up shaky meaningless pieces that end up in the batch. I simply omit that material and include the rest. I also normally enclose what to expect from the raw footage just so they're informed.

My highlights package includes a full edit of the ceremony and other main events, so in turn the raw footage from those are completely removed because they just aren't necessary at that point.

I haven't heard one complaint yet and the couples I've worked with have been very appreciative thus far.

Just curious .. why do you think they have the 'right' to see it?

Travis-

Well... Just given how much they paid for their package and what little is given in the finished product (even though it takes a lot of time to edit and color process well) I just think it's something nice for them to have. I guess a "right" isn't so much as just me being nice about it. In the end it all goes to an archive on my server and most likely never used again, so other then it just takes a bit to throw on some discs I don't see the great harm in it, but I have contemplated it being a by request/added fee thing because the rates I charge are very competitive for HDSLR cinematography and finished product for what goes into it.

I'm not against anyone who doesn't do it. In the end it is your work and I think people can do what they please with their raw footage.

What fps do you shoot in? Saw your site and love your work!

When I shot weddings regularly, I never, EVER, provided raw footage to the clients, and even had that policy notated in my contract paperwork- with "no exceptions" included in the wording. I was only asked twice if it would be something I could provide instead of an edited work, as a means for providing lower cost services to the client, but I simply explained to them that the formatting of the audio and video content, along with the massive amounts of data from an all-day multi-camera shoot and multi-tracked audio would impose nearly insurmountable hurdles to their ability to enjoy the footage. That was the technical reason. Luckily, I've never really had to go into much detail about the practical reasons for such a policy.

After editing wedding videos for some time, I eventually came to realize that I was, at least in part, responsible for how they will some day come to remember the event. (This was a realization that was partially fostered by a documented psychology experiment in which a test base of individuals where intermittently exposed to doctored images from their childhood, displaying their presence and involvement in events and circumstances that never actually occurred. Over time, they began to share details about these events with their imagination having filled in the holes, and did so with the firm and compelling belief that these events did actually occur.) Although that perspective is a bit extreme compared to wedding footage, there is a fundamental similarity. For many bride/groom couples, the wedding day is such a whirlwind of anxiety and activity that it is often difficult to take stock of the details and individual moments of the day. Often, they rely on their wedding videos to afford them this opportunity. My general approach to wedding video editing was that I would attempt to provide a document of the day that they dreamed of, (within practical reason, of course) even if at times such documentation required the judicious omission of undesirable content - most often by explicit requests from the bride or groom. These would typically involve footage that included a fainting bride or groom, hostile family arguments, event crashing by an "Ex w/posse", or almost anything that required calling 911.

But most often, and quite commonly, my exercises of omission involved content that the bride or groom were never even made aware of, and that I determined on my own would not be included in the final cut.

When I shot weddings, I generally had cameras and microphones EVERYWHERE, and most often very discreetly located to be unobtrusive, but positioned in such a way as to capture rare and special moments, or appropriate cutaway shots. While the wedding party and guests were generally aware of this, such discreet placement and my unobtrusive nature eventually made them feel more at ease and forget that the cameras were even there.

Keeping in mind that many such events frequently included ample opportunities for recreational lubrication among the guests, those in the shots (bride, groom, respective parents, wedding party, and guests alike) were often enjoying varying degrees of inebriation, and I found that the discreet nature of my camera or microphone placement generally corresponded with an opposing lack of discretion among the subjects captured.

Over time, I found that I had captured in the raw footage a great many samples of very rude, crude, cruel and infantile demonstrations of behavior from a whole host of guests ranging from groomsmen, college roommates of the bride, to grandparents of the couple, alienated family members, and so on. It was my own determination that my clients simply not even know about such incidents, and that no good would come of it if they did.

The end result is that if I have captured the event well enough, and that I have purposed the content to not only meet but exceed the clients' expectations, they would not even have to think about the possibility that anything of merit remains on the cutting room floor.

But the long and short of it is this: By and large, wedding video clients are generally oblivious to what is involved for the proper editing with the final masterpiece. (And really, it's not their job to know - just like I don't really have to know or care how a high rise is constructed if all I want to do is walk through the front door.)

But at the same time, when such clients ask about the raw footage, it is my contention that they are generally unaware of what it is they are asking.

I think that allowance for raw footage may merit consideration depending upon the extent of proposed cutting, as well as the nature the event coverage to begin with. But with my personal style of shooting and extent of coverage, client acquisition to raw content was never a consideration.

-Jon

I shot a wedding last week in which the bride asked for the raw footage a week before the wedding. When I discussed it with her, she wanted to see the entire ceremony and, as she said, "not miss any of it." When I told her that I would also be providing a full documentary of the ceremony, she was happy. That was all she wanted.

I enjoy producing the highlights and short form of a wedding by far the most but when you get down to cases, brides also want to see the entire ceremony as it actually happened. I have looked at and admired a lot of short form wedding videos produced by others but they are only part of a complete package in my opinion. The word is getting out that a short form wedding is short on content and high on eye candy. Nice as the eye candy is, brides want to see more of their day. How do I know this? I have has several brides tell me. After seeing samples of short forms, they are concerned that is all they will get. Slick as they look, when you watch one of these four or five times, you can understand the question, "Is that all there is? My wedding took all day and evening and this is it!?" The New York Times book review of a new book can be quite entertaining and informative but that doesn't mean you don't want to read the complete book.

There are times you need to decipher what a bride is actually asking for with respect to her wedding coverage. In the case I mentioned above, the bride wasn't asking for the raw footage per se; she wanted to make sure she could see the entire ceremony of HER wedding. She had seen a few 'doses' of eye candy short form weddings and their relative superficiality concerned her. There is some food for thought in there by the way. Even though "Bro" videographer A and "Bro" videographer B may decide how it all should be as they talk about how "stoked" they are, there is just one little minor detail that isn't considered in the bro-speak; what does the bride want!?

Travis-

Well... Just given how much they paid for their package and what little is given in the finished product (even though it takes a lot of time to edit and color process well) I just think it's something nice for them to have. I guess a "right" isn't so much as just me being nice about it. In the end it all goes to an archive on my server and most likely never used again, so other then it just takes a bit to throw on some discs I don't see the great harm in it, but I have contemplated it being a by request/added fee thing because the rates I charge are very competitive for HDSLR cinematography and finished product for what goes into it.

I'm not against anyone who doesn't do it. In the end it is your work and I think people can do what they please with their raw footage.

What fps do you shoot in? Saw your site and love your work!

Something to consider is that clients will only value what you place value on. So anything you just include or that you give away for free, the client will place very little value on that. Once you place value on something, though, the client will also then see as something with value.

It's interesting that you give the raw footage away because you 'feel' the couple has already paid a lot to you. But then you also admit you've invested a lot of time, effort, experience and skill into the product you are delivering to them. So really, the issue of value is on your end. It is YOU that having a hard time feeling like what you have delivered to the client is really worth the money they paid you. Trust me, in no way am I stating that it isn't worth it. I'm simply pointing out that deep down inside there is a part of YOU that feels it isn't.

What is also interesting is that this is a pretty common issue among small business owners and videographers in particular. Few of us have business degrees or any real business management experience. As a result, we tend to devalue what we offer to our clients .. in our hearts and minds .. before the client ever has a chance to. In some ways, it boils down to lack of confidence in our product versus what we are charging. In many cases, it's a situation of "well I wouldn't pay that much for what I do so why should anyone else?". And this leads to people including things for free, because 'emotionally' it makes them feel better.

The good news is you don't have to do this. Have confidence in your products and your pricing and your clients will have confidence in those as well. Place value on anything available to the client and they will see those offerings as valuable as well. The photography industry is plagued with the same problem. Photographers give away discs full of images left and right because of a lack of confidence in their products and pricing. So they throw something in for free.

There is more than one way to run a successful business, so I try to never preach anything as gospel, but I will say that it is hugely important to make sure your clients see value in everything you offer. For some clients the raw footage is not something they care about, so when you give it away for free they could care less. You gain nothing and they gain nothing. For those that do care, when you give it away for free they now see raw footage as something without real value. Again, you gain nothing and they gain nothing. By charging some amount for the raw footage you let people know that everything you do or offer has value. Going on 9 years in the business now and we've never included raw footage for free, and so far no complaints or backlash of any kind. We HAVE however, made an additional profit when clients DID want the raw footage, and that's a good thing. Even if you start low, like $300, at least you're attaching value to what you're offering them.

Anyways, just offering my opinion. Hope it's useful. I firmly believe in turning the tide in our industry and making sure that we're all getting paid appropriately for our time, effort, skill, experience and investment. To me, that starts first and foremost with placing value on everything.

Regarding fps, we've always shot in 24p (well, 24F on the older cameras several years back). The more filmic look appeals to me. Thanks for checking out our website. d;-)

"Anyways, just offering my opinion. Hope it's useful. I firmly believe in turning the tide in our industry and making sure that we're all getting paid appropriately for our time, effort, skill, experience and investment. To me, that starts first and foremost with placing value on everything."

Travis, your opinion is very useful. It's an informed opinion based on experience. Plus it's true. Objectively, it is true. It's human nature to suspect that if something is cheap or free, it must not be worth very much. If we don't value our hard work and talent, who will? It's hard to come up with a price that is comparable to value. Value is a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity. Confidence does come into play when I set prices. So does the available budget of the client. I wish I was a better salesman, but wishing won't make it happen. Working on salesmanship is required.

There were some times that the couple asked for the unedited material. We always refused, except once, when we are pretty new at the job, and the client wanted to have for trying to experiment himself (the groom) with editing techniques (the couple was amazingly satisfied with the final product, which was our first "big" job in some respects). All the others who asked thought that "they have a cousin or friend that does editing too, he has a good computer and he'd like to try too" (they were asking BEFORE they get their hands on the final product! :) ). Of course we never give anything away, unless the couple wants to see the monopods go extremely shaky, the camera going out of focus, or their friends and relatives doing naughty comments about things. And anyway, it's all in the contract terms. :) The thing is that, you are paid to do a job which is not cheap (at least to us), so trust in our work is of the essence here. From our side, it's sure that we never leave a useful shot out and we make sure the couples will know that. Unfortunately there are some wiseguys in their family circles who would like to do it better (if they can, they are in the wrong line of work then).

Here here to Jim Snow's comments!

I have felt we as videographers have been trying to outslick everyone else with those killer shots only highlights while forgetting what the client may want. Sorry for the broad brush but you get what I'm saying.

I hear you Travis but when I say free I mean no additional cost to the client as long as it's a drag and drop situation. Most really appreciate it and likely never view it. I send out a letter saying I won't have a record of any kind six months after the event. I deliver within 8 weeks.

We are in a business like the Dive business. People want to be in it and will undercut and try to out deliver the next guy just to eat PB&J while "establishing" themselves. Meanwhile it hurts the people who really have the goods and the business head to maintain a venture.

I have owned and operated at least three successful (and a few not so) business over the last 23 years.