Hey, I'm just getting into the biz, but from what I gather the industry is moving towards a more stylized music video/short film type edit, especially with the use of DSLR's. Would you say this is the case? I'm looking at demo videos from local videographers here and everything is so cheezy. Almost every shot is in bad slow-motion and the music is overtly sappy. It all screams 1980's. The best looking videos I've seen have a more modern feel, which is a little more fast paced both in music selection and in editing style. This seems to be the norm in places like L.A. I know of one such company here in Orlando that prides itself on the use of DSLR and more filmic style shooting/editing. Would you say there's a progression going on or is the sap and slo-mo still a viable style?

A wedding video is like women's shoes. The slo mo style is like a comfortable, time tested pair of flats. The DSLR style is like Shape Ups...all young women want them because it's trendy and hip. But do you think Shape Ups will still sell well 5 years from now? Or is it just a passing fad?

I feel it is taking off!! My wedding films are all upbeat with dslr and hv40, but i do my story still with the full ceremony in the middle, upbeat start, ceremony, upbeat from there with a mix of music, speeches, fun. it is their day to show to their family forever, the ceremony needs to be somewhere on the dvd in full, end middle or? steve

Google (http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=www.capture-ur-moments.com&aq=&aqi=&aql=f&oq=www.capture-ur-moments.com&pbx=1&fp=3a71ab308462f2e9)

I'm shooting a wedding at the end of this month, and the bride chose me based on my demo video, which is an assortment of projects, not just weddings. She said she liked the filmic style of my demo vs. the canned look a lot of the other guys had. I think the reason why cheezy video was accepted was because no one challenged it. Now there's a tide shift and people realize they have a choice and no longer have to buy into the monopolized generic format.

Hi Patrick

What car do you drive??? Is Ford better than GM or not...both have a place in the auto market and so do wedding videos... some brides like a cinematic style, other prefer documentary style..in fact I have just booked a bride who didn't like the soppy music videos that some companies demoed her...she wants a true record of the day.

You will always have have the cinematic admirers and the documentary admirers.... Choose your style and target that market..both will continue to exist happily!!! Much the same as different car models

Chris

I'm looking at demo videos from local videographers here and everything is so cheezy. Almost every shot is in bad slow-motion and the music is overtly sappy. It all screams 1980's.

In business, when you see an entire market all offering basically what appears to be the same thing, there is a reason for that and that reason is.... it is that way because it is what sells. That holds true for not only wedding videos, but colors used in new homes and the packaging for your breakfast cereal too.

That being said, any market that does not evolve, is basically dead.

In a market as large as Orlando I would think you could offer alternative editing styles to what most others are doing and create a business from those wishing for "the unique". As Warren points out though, "trendy" often has a very short "shelf life" and what you and others may see as "so cool" today will, more than likely, be more easily dated in the future. The challenge of offering "the unique" is to not fall into a habit where all of a sudden you could find yours have become "cookie cutter" too.

As others have said, I think there is and will continue to be a market for both styles. As far as getting away from "sappy" music, come on......weddings are sappy to begin with !!! :-)

A wedding video is like women's shoes. The slo mo style is like a comfortable, time tested pair of flats. The DSLR style is like Shape Ups...all young women want them because it's trendy and hip. But do you think Shape Ups will still sell well 5 years from now? Or is it just a passing fad?

Actually I use DSLR as a TOOL, not a style. How the shots are composed and how the editing is done is where that finished piece's style happens.

Doesn't matter if it was shot on an Professional HD Camcorder or DSLR, they can both be edited soppy or fast-paced. That's what is to be discussed between you and the clients. I don't have a cookie cutter method of things and each client is unique. Most aren't even "hip" to knowing what the heck DSLR is. Most times it's "We loved your video samples and want to book you." They don't seem to have any conditions of if I shoot in DSLR or not.

Patrick, two things strike me in response to your question; first is that, as Ryan suggests I think you're confusing style with equipment. Whilst it may be true that the music video style is more often done with DSLRs it doesn't mean that they can't be done with "proper" video cameras and vv etc. The only characteristic of the equipment that has any serious bearing on the style is that it's much more difficult to make long, non-stop recordings, often required by the documentary producer, with DSLRs.

Second is that you are not looking at an exclusively professional business and whilst you can find professional dross in most businesses, there's considerably more amateur dross in wedding videos.

If you aspire to professional standards, regardless of how you finance your activity, you will rise to the top so don't let the state of the market dissuade you from getting into it.

I think, as the recent Royal wedding demonstrated more forcefully than any sales brochure could, that the future of weddings is video - and not photography as it's practised now. If I was an aspiring photographer I think the Royal Wedding might have convinced me to direct my ambition and learning (and thus skills) elsewhere.

My videos are cheesier than a triple cheese burger, wrapped in cheese - with extra cheese. Set to a delicious backing track from Rod Stewart and Celine Dion. Shot on cheesy HDV video cameras, and delivered on boring DVD's with cheesy photo printed on the front. $2995 x 45 per year.

Lucky I like cheese huh?

HA! Great post, John.

I charge $895 a wedding and put every ounce of myself into everything I produce to make sure it's not cheesy. Thats just me though.... I don't settle

...and you are booked solid right John???? It's not about equipment at all..DSLR's don't produce "non cheesy" videos or stunning documentaries ...YOU do...what you use as had already been said is merely a tool... buying 2 x Canon 5D II's aren't going to magically transform your style ...that's up to you so use the best tools you can afford, be it a proper video camera or a DSLR.

In another post a very wise poster said something to the effect that it's not what is in between your hands that's important, it's what's in between your ears!!!

Sadly newbies are coming into the industry with absolutely no knowledge of basic film-making and even more essential basic story telling .... forget about the magic buttons on the camera for a while and learn about how to produce compelling content and you won't look back.

Most wedding videographers are truly successful because they produce what the bride wants rather than what most like themselves and assume the bride will like. This is a business and you need to produce an end product that the market likes, whether you like it or not...if brides want cheesy footage with 80's style red hearts floating over the screen then that's what you need to give them. Sadly it's often a case of the cameraman showing off his incredible talent.."Wow, look how good I am!!" "My shots are awesome" ...they probably are awesome too but they also might not be anything like what the bride expects or even wants, so from a business POV they are useless and un-marketable!!


Chris

Shot on cheesy HDV video cameras, and delivered on boring DVD's with cheesy photo printed on the front. $2995 x 45 per year.

You make $134775 a year and you still work with hdv camera's ? :)

I agree with Chris that's it's not about showcasing "your" own talents, it's about giving your clients what "they" want and then use the "right" tool for that job.

So John Knight, I congratulate you: you are ‘customer focused’ and that’s important when it comes to making money. Christchurch is sooo cheeesy; drippingly milder than mild; totally tasteless in fact. You’re welcome to it; I’m staying out on the Peninsula and the shall only visit the city when absolutely necessary. You perhaps should point out that those are Kiwi dollars. But still; not bad going.

Great post.

That's it, I'm moving to New Zealand.

I think DSLR's are a 'fad' but they have opened up our eyes to the way things can be done with weddings - the capabilities of DSLR's and their small form factor have, I believe, led to many more people experimenting with things like sliders, glidecams, monopods (as opposed to big tripods) and an overall more 'cinematic look'. I think soon we'll see a balancing effect whereby the majority people start to incorporate some of those elements into the more traditional style wedding videos (and perhaps the clients come to expect it), but the "music video" highlights style videos will become a thing of the past.

When I think about the broader future of wedding videos though, the only thing runnning through my head is "Please not 3d, please not 3d..."

Hi John

My thoughts exactly on 3D!! We already have a local Perth studio who says he is making 3D wedding videos.... Take a look at the Pansonic 3D Pro Camera at around $21K (and you should be using 2!!)

For a $42K investment I don't think it's worth it...and guess what?? 90% of brides will say..."Nana hasn't got a 3D TV so can you make a DVD for her????"

If they REALLY want a 3D ceremony just duplicate the footage on your NLE ... filter the colour on each track and give the bride a few pairs of red and cyan glasses..voila...3D footage at no extra cost!!!

When every 2nd home has a 3D TV that you can view WITHOUT glasses THEN I'm interested...of course there is a good chance I will be pushing up daisies by then anyway!!!

Bill??? Australia is pretty good economy wise too!!! More than enough work and less earthquakes !!!
Either place you will be welcome but be VERY careful...all our cars have the steering wheel on the wrong side...and we drive on the wrong side of the road too!!!!

Chris

After reading all of this thread with so much interest, the only thing on my mind is:

"Triple cheese burguer with extra cheese".

Now that´s strange... isn´t it?

To stay on topic. Industry´s old-timers will tell you like war storys about every fad we have seen. From video toaster wipes to slow motion to magic bullet filters to shallow dof.

What makes all of them chessy and at the end forgetable (and unnusable) are not the effects per se, but the way people implements them without propper justification, just because they have them at their disposal.

I still remember when a well focused, lit and correctly white balanced video with simply straight cuts and a couple of dissolves was considered professionaly made.

Now I want my triple cheeseburguer... this time with bacon.

Alex

Regarding giving a client what they want... Clients don't know what they want, they hire you because your the professional and you stand by your work. I would rather give up a job then be micro managed by a stock broker with a big budget with no sense of filmmaking.

I don't consider myself to employ any of the fads in my wedding films. Instead I model them after the fine techniques Hollywood directions have used for years to tell a story. Look at the history of cinematography from Hitchcock to Spielberg, they created masterpieces which will go down in history and continue to be studied and appreciated. Every time I hold a camera in my hand I'm not thinking about how much someone paid me to be there, but what kind of impression will this make in the lives of people who view this.

We live in a time of YouTube & camera phones, all I can say is that the cream rises to the top and everything below it is like watery skim milk.

Cheeseman here! :)

It's been a long road for me. I'm 40 now and filmed my first wedding when I was 18yrs old. I guess the biggest thing I've learnt is that storytelling is key.

I've seen my competition crash and burn due to switching to DSLR. The quality of the image does improve, but the content has gone right down the loo... consisting of twiddling the rings on the table, rack focusing from the back of a couch, to the makeup being put on (why? I don't know) A really tight shot of a cufflink. A groom doing up his tie. All shaking around like the Blair Witch Project with "burnt film" transitions after every shot.

Don't get me wrong - if you master the DSLR it is stunning. Many examples from people in this forum will prove that. But it's HARD work to get the image, and nail all the shots in such a dynamic environment.

When I show brides examples of my work, "Wow, it's so clear", and "It captures so much emotion" is probably the comments I here the most. So why change if you've perfected the formula for your particular market.

I'm lucky to have very little competition here in NZ. Occasionally a film-grad will pop their heads up, make a nice website, show some stunning DSLR skills, then disappear after 2 years. I think this is either because they realise what a rotton way to spend a Saturday night the job becomes, or headed off overseas for their big OE. "Kids these days" don't seem to have much stamina or commitment. (How did I get so old?)

I love my toys, but know it's Sony/Panasonics job to convince me that what I have is no longer cool. Resisting that is painful at times, but when I do upgrade gear I make sure it's an absolute need, not a want.

Reputation has been critical as well. Working my way into a position where photographers, celebrants and caterers rave about me. Heavy heavy networking. I do free promotional videos for all the above, making it a mission to get my embedded work on nearly every suppliers website with a little credit and link back to my own.

Regarding cheese... ok, so I don't make my wedding videos cheesey, I've just accepted that weddings are, by nature, dripping with cheese. And I try and recreate that atmosphere of 'being there'. Face it, how does dressing in a ridiculous white dress that you can hardly walk in, putting a pillow case on your head, and walking down a red carpet whilst crying and holding a bunch of flowers not look cheesey!?!

Hi Patrick,

Just my opinion - but I think you should produce what you want to watch. If your heart isn't in it it shows. I'm not the type that can shoot and edit for a product just because there is a market for it. I'd rather create something unique that I get enthusiastic about and let the people that appreciate that style come to me. You have to be confident enough in your work to know that if you like it there are a lot of others that will too. Otherwise you're just guessing.


Hey, I'm just getting into the biz, but from what I gather the industry is moving towards a more stylized music video/short film type edit, especially with the use of DSLR's. Would you say this is the case? I'm looking at demo videos from local videographers here and everything is so cheezy. Almost every shot is in bad slow-motion and the music is overtly sappy. It all screams 1980's. The best looking videos I've seen have a more modern feel, which is a little more fast paced both in music selection and in editing style. This seems to be the norm in places like L.A. I know of one such company here in Orlando that prides itself on the use of DSLR and more filmic style shooting/editing. Would you say there's a progression going on or is the sap and slo-mo still a viable style?

What makes all of them chessy and at the end forgetable (and unnusable) are not the effects per se, but the way people implements them without propper justification, just because they have them at their disposal.


Alex, you took what I was trying to say and said it much better, and much more succintly.

When each new fad dies down and people stop using things just because they're new and "because they can," hopefully what we are left with is another skill/technique/tool which can be integrated into our work at appropriate times, to increase the production value of our work.

Hi Joel

As long as your taste is the same as the bride's taste that's fine...I guess if your style is way out of wack from what bride's expect then the industry isn't for you anyway.

I think that saying "This is what I like so you had better like it too" is a little open to videographers expecting a bride to accept whatever you offer... If she says I want all live audio with no cheesy love songs then as a supplier, you have to decide to give the client what she wants or reject the job outright.

If you have having to reject jobs cos they don't suit your style exactly then you are not going to make much of an income. I just enjoy shooting weddings and if the bride wants certain parameters adhered to it still doesn't make me less enthusiastic. Of course if it's not your living then you can be as fussy as you want to!!

Chris

Hi Chris,

I like couples that see what I do and say 'do that for us', so having a body of work that isn't cliche and isn't a formula copied from a seminar or a convention seems like the best way to differentiate yourself based on what you offer rather than what you charge. Its something they can't price-shop for because there is nothing to compare it to. I'm probably full of hot air though - I've been a full time wedding videographer for 20 years and I'm no where near having all the answers...

Hi Joel

As long as your taste is the same as the bride's taste that's fine...I guess if your style is way out of wack from what bride's expect then the industry isn't for you anyway.

I think that saying "This is what I like so you had better like it too" is a little open to videographers expecting a bride to accept whatever you offer... If she says I want all live audio with no cheesy love songs then as a supplier, you have to decide to give the client what she wants or reject the job outright.

If you have having to reject jobs cos they don't suit your style exactly then you are not going to make much of an income. I just enjoy shooting weddings and if the bride wants certain parameters adhered to it still doesn't make me less enthusiastic. Of course if it's not your living then you can be as fussy as you want to!!

Chris

For me in SLR shooting I don't try to mimmick others out there. My goal is to help tell their story using not just music, but dialogue captured from the day and genuine moments. I never stage shots. Everything is shot as it happens. I don't like the idea of pre-composing people in scenarios and making a fake video from it.

It's my job that in meeting with the clients I get a feel for the type of people they are, get a really good idea of the tone of their wedding, the reception and the family/friends. It's not til after the last shot is done I begin thinking how I'm going to put this together.

Yeah I get some of the technical shots of things, but sometimes they don't fit. My goal is that I have hopefully told a story with their words and visuals and make people feel like they were there all over again. I never think, "Gotta get that token gown shot." "Oop, there's that jewelry shot I need." Yeah the detail shots have importance, but things are not done the same every time.

DSLR has afforded me the opportunity to shoot amazing stuff with that great separated depth of field I have been trying to achieve with cruddy camcorders for years. DSLR isn't me jumping on a bandwagon, I actually prefer it highly despite the challenges of focus during live events. It's the look and feel I'm going for my own personal tastes and not because X amount of people are doing it. I would have never bought into DSLR if I truly didn't love it. I'm personally convinced the look and feel of the imagery I get out of that camera far exceeds that of $7-10k camcorders out there as far as low light capabilities and the shallow depth I really love.

Hi Joel

With you I can understand!! Your brides, like mine, like your style because you have polished and perfected it over 20 years ...(me too actually..but dunno about the perfection bit!!)

I was talking more more the newbie guy who is obsessed by having the latest and greatest and once he has that he essentially shoots what he likes and expects the bride to like it. He hasn't had any basics in film-making nor experience slogging at weddings for countless years like we have.

With your vast experience, although you set your own individual and unique style it is still drawn from many years of wedding shoots so it will more than satisy the brides that see it.

Chris

Hi guys,

I'm not really a wedding videographer, but rather an event videographer who sometimes shoots very special events, some of which are weddings. Although I haven't shot nearly as many weddings as some of you guys, maybe not even very many of you guys, I do listen to what my clients say to me.

I have had SEVERAL clients tell me this, and maybe it only made an impression on me because I haven't shot that many weddings yet. But, no kidding, they told me they hired me because I was NOT a wedding videographer. They wanted someone who took a minimum of artistic license with their special event.

Really. It got my attention. They didn't say anything about the other stuff being cheesy. In fact, one or two actually mentioned the wedding videos they had watched were from very talented filmmakers. But they didn't want a lot of artistic license. They wanted a more documentarian approach. They wanted the memories of family and friends sharing their special day preserved. They weren't interested in a Cinderella story.

Granted, I don't do many weddings. But I listen to people. Especially the ones that hire me. I take note of the feedback I get. Now the weddings I shoot are mostly from mature couples. They are paying for the wedding themselves. Their outlook is probably different than younger brides and grooms having the wedding paid for by their parents.

Bravo Roger!!!

All my weddings are (and will always be) documentary style ..it's a accurate record of the day and focuses on the bride and groom capturing their emotion, laughter and tears and not trying to show off how good I am. I actually get a lot of work mainly because I don't make "music videos". My weddings have a story from beginning to end and anyone who was not there can re-live the moments.

I figure that if the BBC can shoot the wedding of the year in doc style then that's good enough for me. If the bride wants a host of shots with special effects and the latest chart topper then I tell them to grab the stills from the photog and make a slideshow !!

I'm not against video set to music by any means ..it just isn't my style of shooting so no offence meant to the guys and gals who have great success with that sort of style. Each to their own!!!

Chris

Actually, I do offer a music video short if they want one to post online. The music has to be licensed. But I'm a firm believer in recounting what actually happens. A lot of what actually happens at an event can be missed if you don't know where to look for it.

Actually, I wonder about a short version without a music track. How would I be able to pull it off? I haven't really seen one done by anyone else, and don't really know where to start. All the wedding shorts I've ever seen on line have been music videos. If I've seen one that wasn't, I don't remember seeing it. Really, I'm learning from all you other guys that have been doing this longer than me.

As for being a documentarian, first you need to know where to look. Then you point your camera there. If you've been a careful observer of life, you tend to anticipate where to look before something happens. With me, it's partly from training, thirty years working in a medical laboratory, where details are important, but only as part of the big picture. There were just so many details to sort through from all those patients, with all those samples, and all those tests. Discerning what is relevant and what isn't can't be learned overnight.

With the microscope, I knew when to use high power, and when to use low power to get a big picture. It's the same being a videographer. And what's wrong with that word anyway? My customers tell me that's one of the keywords they used in Google to find me.

The camera ops on the news crews around here are called photographers. It's a two person crew, the reporter, and the photographer. So I call myself a photographer too. And I do take stills for my clients when they want me to. However they would like me to document their event is open for discussion. Then I bring my tools to do the job. I serve them. That's what they hire me for. It's not about me. It's their special event. I try to do a good job for them. I still have a lot to learn. Sometimes I mess up and have to make things right for the client as best I can. Sometimes clients are very pleased.

Interesting Thread!

I've been doing weddings for 15 years now, and started when small digital cameras hit the scene.

I did a 10 minute wedding edit using a computer and it took 23 hours to render! Then fixed my mistakes and waited another 23 hours to view it....etc, etc.

15 years later I'm still doing mainly a 10 minute highlight package, but my clients always get all my unedited footage as well, even on my full edit jobs. So they have the best of both worlds.

As far as editng style goes, I always make my clients supply me with the music THEY want on the video, so their music dictates how their video will look, faster (swing) music, more cuts: slow romantic music, more slo mo, and dissolves.

This has always seemed to work for me.

Cheers,

Vaughan

Bravo Roger!!!

I figure that if the BBC can shoot the wedding of the year in doc style then that's good enough for me.Chris

hey Chris. Do you think the Royal Couple had any say in who videotaped their wedding? I bet if Kate and William met with many of the UK videographers on this forum that they would have had quite a different style wedding video and would have been very happy. However, I'm guessing they were stuck with the BBC broadcast that was documentary and not artistic in the least. I bet if they had a chance to decide between StillMotion and the BBC covering their wedding that they would have went with Patrick and his team.

In that case it wouldn't have been a royal wedding watched live worldwide, it would've been a private wedding. They're very different animals.

I think if they wanted some very high production values and cool special technical shots LIVE that would be some crazy stuff. It looked like the key was to not be too obtrusive in letting the cameras being noticed, otherwise I think they woulda gotten some full on crane action and crazy dolly stuff.

hey Chris. Do you think the Royal Couple had any say in who videotaped their wedding? I bet if Kate and William met with many of the UK videographers on this forum that they would have had quite a different style wedding video and would have been very happy. However, I'm guessing they were stuck with the BBC broadcast that was documentary and not artistic in the least. I bet if they had a chance to decide between StillMotion and the BBC covering their wedding that they would have went with Patrick and his team.

Michael

Quite apart from your presumption that you know how the couple feel about their wedding video, you obviously have no idea of the scale of the production. To suggest that any private producer could have made that programme reveals a serious lack of understanding of the television business.

Even William's father's second wedding was handled by a publicly quoted company and they did nothing inside the register office.

Furthermore, if anyone's into betting, my guess is that the future children of couples buying an "artistic" wedding video today will, in years to come, ask why they didn't have it done properly.

That's why most people we talk to at wedding fairs want intelligently crafted, sensitive, emotional documentary programmes, although artistic producers make most of the noise I don't think they're making most of the programmes. We've only had one couple last year ask about an artistic format and they needed to satisfy two audiences, one speaking only English, the other speaking only Russian. Once the understood the cost of transcribing, translating and subtitling the entire programme, they agreed that an artistic programme was just what they wanted. i recommended someone I know who does that sort of work and I believe they're very happy.

[QUOTE=Philip Howells;1647749]Michael

Quite apart from your presumption that you know how the couple feel about their wedding video, you obviously have no idea of the scale of the production. To suggest that any private producer could have made that programme reveals a serious lack of understanding of the television business.

I'm not concerned with the television business. I'm just concerned with making the bride happy and I'm sure Kate had no say in her "wedding video" and I think that is quite sad.

Hi Philip,

That's why most people we talk to at wedding fairs want intelligently crafted, sensitive, emotional documentary programmes,

I think that may say more than you intended it to. In my experience couples planning weddings with the biggest budgets don't attend fairs. That puts a price ceiling on what fair vendors can charge - otherwise eyebrows will go up at the first mention of cost. That puts the videographer into a position of economizing the amount of time and resources that goes into their productions (not a bad thing for any business owner). This invariably leads to an efficient shooting and editing style, or as we call it 'documentary style'. Its doesn't mean the videographer is cutting corners, just that their style is streamlined and more consistent from one wedding to the next - things happen in order and the events are faithfully portrayed. I think the question I'm getting to is a chicken or the egg situation. Are docs offered more at fairs because the that is what the market will bear or do the doc videographers need to be at fairs to fill their schedule?

That's why most people we talk to at wedding fairs want intelligently crafted, sensitive, emotional documentary programmes, although artistic producers make most of the noise I don't think they're making most of the programmes. We've only had one couple last year ask about an artistic format ....

The truth of the matter is you tend to attract what you sell. You obviously sell a more documentary-style production, so you attract those couples. We sell a more cinematic-style production, and those are the couples we attract. So I don't think it's at all fair to say that 'most' couples want one style or the other unless you've done an actual research study. d;-)

I'm not concerned with the television business. I'm just concerned with making the bride happy and I'm sure Kate had no say in her "wedding video" and I think that is quite sad.

I suspect if Kate wants a personal version she can have it edited. A usual wedding video wouldn't capture her wedding day, there would be a lot going on that she wouldn't even be aware of and she'd only see when she watches a recording of the broadcast version.

That's not to say that she doesn't have personal video shots which can be used in her version.

I bet if they had a chance to decide between StillMotion and the BBC covering their wedding that they would have went with Patrick and his team.

Your not serious right? :) That's royalty, it would not even cross their mind having 2 or 3 guys covering a wedding event like this that is broadcasted worldwide. At events like this camera's are almost invisible and preferably lot's of them and all high end so you don't have to worry about dslr moire and aliasing with all that fine detail, I couldn't imagine seeing guys running around with their monopod and dslr's. With these type of weddings people don't care about shallow dof or a "cinematic" approach, everyone wants to see the whole picture and preferably crystal clear.

I was actually approached about videotaping Kate and William's big day. I turned it down when they started nitpicking over my sample videos. I knew they were going to be difficult and I referred them to the BBC. That's how they got the job.

Your not serious right? :) That's royalty, it would not even cross their mind having 2 or 3 guys covering a wedding event like this that is broadcasted worldwide. At events like this camera's are almost invisible and preferably lot's of them and all high end so you don't have to worry about dslr moire and aliasing with all that fine detail, I couldn't imagine seeing guys running around with their monopod and dslr's. With these type of weddings people don't care about shallow dof or a "cinematic" approach, everyone wants to see the whole picture and preferably crystal clear.

Noa, I believe you couldn't be more wrong. It's usually the higher-end bride that hires a StillMotion. Do you really think Kate is going back and watching the BBC coverage over and over?

Hi Philip,
I think that may say more than you intended it to. In my experience couples planning weddings with the biggest budgets don't attend fairs. That puts a price ceiling on what fair vendors can charge - otherwise eyebrows will go up at the first mention of cost. That puts the videographer into a position of economizing the amount of time and resources that goes into their productions (not a bad thing for any business owner). This invariably leads to an efficient shooting and editing style, or as we call it 'documentary style'. Its doesn't mean the videographer is cutting corners, just that their style is streamlined and more consistent from one wedding to the next - things happen in order and the events are faithfully portrayed. I think the question I'm getting to is a chicken or the egg situation. Are docs offered more at fairs because the that is what the market will bear or do the doc videographers need to be at fairs to fill their schedule?

Good points Joel and cost is relative but at about $4500 we don't seem to be in the lower price bracket.

The truth of the matter is you tend to attract what you sell. You obviously sell a more documentary-style production, so you attract those couples. We sell a more cinematic-style production, and those are the couples we attract. So I don't think it's at all fair to say that 'most' couples want one style or the other unless you've done an actual research study. d;-)

And the research is as I alluded to, based solely on my experience at wedding fairs over the past six years; totally unscientific but true for what it is. At wedding fairs, unlike any other promotional media we're just people with screens of moving pictures. We always attempt to greet people and few if any specifically ask about artistic styles.

I was actually approached about videotaping Kate and Andrew's big day. I turned it down when they started nitpicking over my sample videos. I knew they were going to be difficult and I referred them to the BBC. That's how they got the job.

Jeff, you could have added that you, like most of us, couldn't give them an SDE! Your posting should be the last word on this. It is for me.

I was actually approached about videotaping Kate and William's big day. I turned it down when they started nitpicking over my sample videos. I knew they were going to be difficult and I referred them to the BBC. That's how they got the job.

And you didn't think to refer them to one of your fellow DVinfo Members? :)

We could've even all joined forces to make one large production crew, shooting on a combination of Camcorders and DSLR, doing a combination of cinematc and documentary style with both a full length, G-rated "Extended Queens Cut" version and an uncensored, highlights only "Royal Romp" edition.

What was that saying about too many cooks...

I just had a good chat with a matron of honor, I'm shooting her best friend's wedding next month. The matron of honor got married more than a year ago, and her video was done by a company that shoots their weddings entirely with DSLRs. Her initial reaction was that her video was really cool, cutting edge, and very modern. That is, of course, until the excitement wore off. In hindsight, she now thinks she made a mistake. A majority of the wedding was shot with a very shallow depth of field, focusing mainly on the couple, or pairs of guests. At the ceremony, the cameraman struggled to keep the bridal party in focus as they walked towards him during the processional. At the reception, there were great shots of the couple cutting the cake, and great steadicam shots of the couple as they danced, but everyone in the background was always out of focus. She said that after awhile, selective focus shots became annoying to watch because she wanted to see her friends in the audience, but couldn't. She said watching her wedding dvd was like looking through a peep hole...you saw what the cameraman wanted to show you, but there was much more going on that couldn't be seen! So be careful people, don't overuse that shallow depth of field!

Noa, I believe you couldn't be more wrong. It's usually the higher-end bride that hires a StillMotion. Do you really think Kate is going back and watching the BBC coverage over and over?

Can you tell she isn't? The scale is totally different to even your usual higher end wedding. They may have video of the more private parts of the day, on the other hand they may just have wanted to get away from cameras.

When you've had a real royal wedding with a cast of tens of thousands, you don't need to create the cinematic impression that you've had one.

It's usually the higher-end bride that hires a StillMotion.

There is a world of difference between a "higher end" audience and "royalty", they are a few classes above that figuratively speaking. In my country if a "prince" would get married it will definitely be the biggest national or commercial tv's covering their wedding, they wouldn't even know, or care, who the best known wedding videographer was. To them we are just people on the other side of the fence, if you are real lucky you get to shake their hands. You have to live in a country with a monarchy to understand why they would never ever contact mere video mortals like us, even if you are known worldwide. They live by a royal protocol that dictates their lifestyle and which is an invisible barrier between them, the royal class, and us, the ordinary people. :)