For some time now DSLRs have been used by many videographers as a useful additional tool in their kit. I've noticed recently that photographers are also finding them to be a useful addition; let me explain.

During the last year I have worked with a number of 'togs who have been running their camera in video mode during the ceremony, they just stand close by the couple (as many do) and let it run. Those that I've asked tell me that they give the couple a 'bonus' with their stills, a DVD of the ceremony. Whilst they accepted that it wouldn't be the same as a 'proper' DVD they said it was often a deal breaker for them. I wonder how they sell that, I suspect that they don't down play the limitations more likely say it will save on having a separate person to film, it's only afterwards the couple find out how limiting it is. Photographers are always ahead of the video in the planing/booking so that may even put couples off enquiring about DVD thinking that they will have it covered.

Now last week that problem jumped up a level. Whilst I was filming the ceremony I noticed a Zoom recorder on tripod right next to the couple which hadn't been there when I set up, when I looked to the back of the church the photographer had set a camera on a tripod pointing straight down to the couple and he was on the opposite side to me shooting. Later when I asked him he said the audio was just used as a background to his 'slideshow', however during the speeches, just as the father stood up, he walked up and plonked his Zoom right in the centre of the table. I am staring to think that very soon a 'war' will break out; rather than trying to work together many photographers are trying to burn out the opposition, or to be more charitable to them, increase their take by slicing off the video budget. What really annoyed me though is that on my work the zoom is very clearly in shot and may look as though I set it there, when I go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that my equipment is place where it will not appear in shot, I even conceal the lav so it won't appear in the photographers shots.

Another aspect is venues using weddings to create their own wedding video. This happened to a friend only this weekend. He had been commissioned as the wedding videographer but noticed someone else with a DSLR rigged with rails and matt box etc for video. When he questioned the person she stated that she was working on behalf of the venue to make their own video of the wedding. He explained that his contract with the couple claimed exclusive commercial rights to filming the event. He was then confronted by the manager of the venue who in no uncertain terms told him not to interfere with his videographer. When he protested that he should have been informed of the situation prior to the event as two crews working without coordination would mean the potential of both producing a poorer video he was to he would be banned from that venue in future.

Has anyone else had any such problems?

We haven't encountered problems although I am sure that it's the obvious next step as far as covering weddings is concerned. I know quite a few photographers present an animated slideshow set to music. Some even do it just before first dance for maximum impact (their equivalent of a same day edit). I know of another who produces what they call a “Movie Slide Show” where they take a selection of HD video clips and then merge them with stills all edited & set to music and then produced as a DVD or Blu-ray disc Movie Slideshows - Lisa Beaney Photography (http://www.lisabeaneyphotography.co.uk/movie-slideshows-lisa-beaney-photography/)

On the basis of if you can't beat them join them my wife has stepped up to the plate & agreed to take on photographic duties in future so that we can offer a dual package. We are already shooting on DSLRs so it's a logical progression. She has always been a keen photographer & after our experience with filming weddings is well placed to take on the role. Over the past couple of years we have both joined photographic organisations (SWPP & MPA) been attending photographic workshops & other similar training events plus subscribing to online training like Mark Cleghorn's Photography Training For Photographers - PhotoTraining4U (http://www.phototraining4u.co.uk) as there is a wealth of photographic training available which is very applicable to videography & very little video training available. We have now rebranded the business changing the name from 'wedding videos' to 'images' & just launched a spiffy new website. Alice Barker Images – Professional Wedding Photography & VideoAlice Barker Images - Professional Wedding Photography & Video - Professional Wedding Photography & Video (http://www.alicebarkerimages.com).

The traditional long form documentary style wedding video has never been popular with more than a fraction of couples & never will be. What most couples want is something extraordinary that makes their wedding look even more wonderful than it was just as photographers will do beautiful fashion style poses & create spectacular images with off camera location studio flash units. A photographer may charge $500 or $5000 & still use the same camera but it will be his/her flair & artistic skills that will enable one to charge ten times what the other can charge. Photographers also have the advantage of being able to offer beautiful artefacts to their customers with eye-catching large prints & gorgeous albums.

Unfortunately couples are generally not willing to pay the true cost of producing spectacular video involving as it does multiple camera operators & lengthy editing to produce a truly outstanding product.

I was reading an interview the other day from a top Aussie photographer who started shooting weddings back in the late 1950s. Interestingly enough he said that back in the 50s & 60s about 20% of the high end weddings they did were also filmed on 16mm. I doubt that the percentage of weddings today that have a video is that high. Those 16mm films will likely just have been highlights & silent at that. Perhaps a highlights video along with some lovely photographs is all that the vast majority of people want & are willing to pay for?

Damn! Just realised that after rebranding & redirecting all our websites that I had still forgotten to update my signature on DVinfo. Now all done:-)

Nigel, I think that is probably the way to go, work together with the photographer to remove or at least reduce the risk of conflict. That's obviously much easier when there's already a tie such as your situation (though my wife's a very good wildlife photographer she won't go anywhere near a wedding) or you business partner with a photographer or employ one as I'm sure that many established or accomplished photographers would be reluctant to split the winnings once they realise the potential they have in their camera.

Whilst I acknowledge that a large percentage of weddings will never want a video, my experience is that many of those that do, whilst appreciating the short form and on the most part stating that's the part they enjoy most, they or at least their parents still want to have a fully documentary. I meet many couples who's weddings I did years ago tell me that it's only in time or when they start their own family that the true value of their long-form video reveals its true value to them and their family. So many say that it'd the favourite video of their young children. Bear in mind that in the fifties the expectations of a 16mm film would have been very short and silent.

However, I'm realistic enough to realise that nothing remains the same for all time.

Hi George

The opposite also applies!! I did a wedding just before Christmas a a very stressed photographer came up to me (she hadn't bothered to attend the rehearsal) and asked me if I was going to take any stills? I told her sure, I always take half a dozen shots of the couple for my DVD cover...that didn't worry her and she beathed a sigh of relief...like most she had the exclusive right during the wedding to do the stills and the previous weekend the video guy and his TWO assistants rolled up all with 5DII's each and not only shot video but also shot stills of every single group she posed!! She was abviously livid!!!

It seems like the video guys are doing some payback too!! As Nigel says if you can't beat them, join them!! I actually work in with a photographer who is pretty popular and he offers "combined packages" and his website and I do the same so we never have any issues about who shoots what. It seems to work very well!! So, instead of a video assistant, get a photographer up your packages to cover the cost and tell the bride to fire the photog!!!

Just for interest, my wife had a work associate who got married back in her home town in Kenya ..it was a huge wedding with video and photos and I did some editing and a slideshow for her..she gave me two disks for the photos..one is the photographers images she said, and the other is the paparatzi images!!!
Aparently over in Kenya freelance photogs simply "gate crash" weddings, ceremony and reception and shoot thousands of frames and sell them to the couple. The photogs over there are used to it I guess???

Yep, I have also been hijacked once by a devious photog who said his buddy was "making a promo just of me working"..he shot the entire wedding but I made sure that my assistant got in his way as much as possible. Maybe get really mean George ?? get an old film camera and buy the biggest meanest flash head you can find and while your cams are running blast the photog with overexposure and then see how he/she feels!!

It's a bit pointless raising legal issues after the damage has already been done!!!

Chris

George,

The problem is that the traditional long form documentary video does not appeal to the vast majority of couples. I don't know whether this is because of the bad reputation that wedding videos have for being technically incompetent &/or boring or whether they regard shoulder mount broadcast cameras as intrusive or what but it's clear that the product as it has been delivered for the last 30 years does not appeal to most couples.

Most videographers delivering 15-30 minute short form cinematic videos are not being paid what the production is worth in terms of time & effort.

I think that there might be a third way which is a to deliver a beautiful short form cinematic highlights video plus as separate chapters on the DVD/Blu-ray a straightforward real time multicam edit of the the ceremony & the speeches at the reception & perhaps some other bits like first dance or any special entertainment like singing waiters or fireworks. Combine this package with photography & I think that we can attract more couples than just the current minority who even consider a video. It helps that to an extent we can multitask e.g. the videographer can help organise the wedding party for group shots while the photographer can help lug the gear about:-)

It's pretty easy nowadays to use two or three locked off camcorders & a digital audio recorder for the ceremony & speeches so that a photographer can offer some video in their packages 'for free' & for many couples that may be all they want. As videographers we need to be able to offer something that the photographers can't.

Hi Chris.

I wasn't suggesting that the poor videoguy is whiter than white in these things. I think that some weddings will become a metaphorical battlefield as the new forms of capture and delivery take over from the older ways. Last night I had two guys from the disco sweeping the dance floor with cameras and uploading stills and videoclips straight to their facebook page and telling the guests to log on to see them. The first dance there almost before I switched off. With a declining number of weddings with shrinking budgets to boot everyone is trying to maximise their income in ways that would not have been possible in previous times. I had for many years had good working relationships with local photographers but one by one they have retired or given-up.

As for pursuing exclusivity contract terms after the event, that's not my style and to a great extent probably a complete waste of time, money and energy, unless there is any issue about me not being paid.

George Quote:

"As for pursuing exclusivity contract terms after the event, that's not my style and to a great extent probably a complete waste of time, money and energy, unless there is any issue about me not being paid. "

Hi George,

As you know my reliance on weddings and the need to pay a mortgage is not my principal requirement, so bringing on the heavy guns when your business is being squeezed is a concern for others, but does spill over into other areas. And yes, as it gets tighter, many will have to resort to different strategies.

All my "gigs" are on contract and designated as "exclusive" in that the client agrees that I am the only video producer/video production provider on the day - failure to comply is forfeiture of the total amount (always paid before the shoot day) and as a result of the breaking of the contract (with me) I have no obligation to provide.

Contract Law in the UK is specific when indeed there is a contract to enforce.

As for a venue pulling out its own videographer as previously described then what will happen is a claim for damages as I pack up the kit - my clients will sue the venue (for my payments), and very likely the venue will settle out-of-court with me for threatening and restrictive practices or not allowing me to lawfully exercise my contract with my client.

My husband is not skilled in photography or video, but he was a post-graduate tutor in Law - my son-in-law is a lawyer - so family members are contributors to my small and meager business.

As in all aspects of video production for location and participants, the contract is all. Everyone of my clients understand this.

Nigel.

On what do you base your assertion that the long-form doesn't appeal to most couples?

I have many couples who are concerned that they will only get a 30 minute video. When I show them a fully chaptered 90 minute documentary with a 5 minute highlights they are happy. Whilst I guess that you offer the shorter cinematic type and obviously attract that market you can't rule out that some do want a more comprehensive recording of their day. Even though the market may be shrinking in terms of volume it is still quite diverse in what couples want.
Boring is a relative term and often over-used by those promoting the cinematic form. I have given a highlights alongside my docu-type almost from when I started when editing was done tape to tape; on VHS it was the first 10 minutes with the full video following so they could show that to their friend without having to go through the one their parents and grand-parents wanted to see. Obviously on disc this can be chaptered more selectively.
I have no concerns over the style that I shoot and present, my main concern is that the value of video is being undermined by photographers, who mostly get to see couples first, suggesting that because they can also shoot video there may be no need to spend much, or even bother with a videographer. In the past most photographers had no interest in video and would happily pass on recommendations, that is now becoming rarer.

Everyone who is serious about filmmaking should know how challenging it is to produce a high-quality wedding film that will touch people on a many different levels. If you're at the top of your game and produce a consistent awesome work, there's no way a photographer who does half of the job can get close to being a competition to you.

If a photographer can "steal" a client from me, it either means that his video work is much better than me, or that the bride who picked him simply wasn't the type of bride who would appreciate and value my work in the first place.

So far, I haven't found any of that to be something I should worry about yet.

I tip my hat to you Long and all of those who are able to draw the 'right type of client' beating a path to your door by dint of reputation for excellent work.

However not every wedding videographer is an award winner and not every excellent film maker wants to be in the wedding market. Whilst there is a top-end who value style over cost most couples are on more modest, even capped, budgets so are looking to get the most bang for their buck. This is the market that I'm in and I know that this is the most turbulent where many more people want a slice of a smaller cake.

I wasn't accusing photographers of 'stealing' work after all if they are able to satisfy couple that their video will save them money good luck to them, that's what a free market is all about.

This was not meant as a complaint or a rant against photographers, rather an observation on some things I find happening in my market; just wondering if others have similar experiences.

On what do you base your assertion that the long-form doesn't appeal to most couples? For most of the last 30 years only the long form documentary edit has been offered to couples but the vast majority of weddings have not had any video done. Therefore the long form documentary edit doesn't appeal to most couples.

Hi George

One very essential key to business success, especially in a niche market like weddings is that you have to produce something special that the average man in the street cannot produce..if it is easy duplicated then we end up with Uncle Steve doing the job...in fact the DIY market seems to be emerging too on wedding videos. If you can only produce a wedding video in much the same format as Uncle Tom (but with better quality and better gear) then the bride (who isn't that clued up on IQ anyway) might just let Tom do the job even if it's a bit shoddier simply beacuse it's free.

Add some speciality into the wedding video that is beyond the talents of Uncle Bob and his HandyCam and market it correctly and you have something that cannot be duplicated by a relative and is unique...let's face it, your next door neighbour, with a couple of cams and some practice, in the brides eyes, could quite easily be perceived to be as good or even better than you, something that makes you vunerable.

Chris

I'm with Long. Not a concern. And if this is a concern, you should evaluate in a lot of ways, how you have gotten here. A photog with half baked audio should not be able to steal even a quarter of your thunder, whether they get to the bride first or not. If they're serious about video then bring it on. But if they're gonna just play with it for some sense of security. They are no threat.

Chris.

I don't decry my next door neighbour or even uncle Steve from doing their video (after all most of us will be someone's neighbour or uncle). If a part-timer with a couple of cameras is able to produce something the bride is happy with so be it, not everyone has the budget to employ a professional. I'm not aiming to compete against those people, I fear I may have given you a wrong impression of what I produce.

I wasn't looking for tips, merely reporting something that I have become aware of and wondered if others were finding the same, it seems not so maybe it's just here that it is happening.

Hi George

I totally realise your point ..the only thing I was pointing out is that if you have a unique product then the bride won't even bother with getting others to shoot extra video.

Yep, it happens to all of us and it will continue...it's going to get a bit crowded when you have the videographer, assistant, photog and photogs video assistant!!!

The real answer is 3 GoPros at roof height and CCTV shoot the wedding..while you sit outside and relax and let the rest squabble over space!! My GoPro has got me out of quite a few situations when there were just too many people to get a clear shot!!! I still, of course do a two camera shoot as well!!!

Chris

Chris.

I don't think that it's brides that are seeking extra cover I believe that the photographers are just offering it as it seems like extra value with little additional cost to them. That's not a real problem to me, in fact I have shot a couple of 'hybrid' stills/video DVDs myself using a GH2 just shooting the audio parts, i.e ceremony, speeches and first dance as video and the rest as stills and then in AE produce a video slideshow. I point out that I was booked to do that, not alongside, or in addition to, any other operator.

The worry I've got is when there are two operators on the day aiming to get the same aspects on video, how long before the 'togs start insisting on prime position in the church, or mic'ing the groom because they've promised to supply video as well.

Hi George

I guess all you can do is write it into your contract ..I think mine says that I'm the exclusive videographer for the event...(more legal than that..but you get the idea)

HOWEVER I verbally go thru the terms and conditions with the couple and mention I have the exclusive rights to do the shoot...maybe you need to explain that in layman terms ie: "that means that means your photographer is NOT allowed to shoot any video for you..even for free as he will get in my way and ruin your wedding video" I normally tell them that the guests are welcome to use camcorders from the pews or guest tables. We don't shoot stills over the photogs shoulder so he/she shouldn't be shooting video over ours....much the same as the usual sign in stops that deal in cash transactions "DON'T ASK FOR CREDIT ...WE ARE A SHOP NOT A BANK"

We do have one video lady here who is quite explicit in her contract ..something like "If I think my equipment is in danger of being damaged I have the right to pack up and go home" .....Maybe if one is really frustrated ..have the same clause..."We reserve the right to pack up and leave if the photographer starts shooting video"

I think educating the couple and if the photog is already booked get them to convey the message that he/she is not permitted to shoot any video..only stills.

Chris

Chris, at the risk of labouring this now, how would you deal with it on the day as in my case last weekend. I had no knowledge that the photographer would be shooting video until I saw his Zoom DVR on a tripod in front of the couple at the altar just as the ceremony started; he'd sneakily dropped it there just as the bride came into church. Even with the exclusivity clause written into the contract would you be happy to stop proceedings and confront the photographer? I did speak with him after the ceremony when we were eating together, that was when he told me that he had promised them, a 'slideshow' with their ceremony audio as the soundtrack. He didn't tell me he was about to do the same thing during the speeches, i.e. place his Zoom on the table directly in front of the bride's father, I suspect his second camera was locked-off shooting video.

George,
if they're paying me $3k to do what I do, I frankly don't care what the photog does. its just going to fall flat in comparison, and if it doesn't fall flat, then I need to step up my game. basic market dynamics.
Bill

Bill, I was thinking the same thing...If I'm at a wedding, I've already won the battle with the photographer who is shooting video. They booked me for my product because my samples, or a friend's video spoke to them and they just couldn't go without one at their own wedding. If my product is not more impressive than the photographer's, then you are right, I need to step up my game.

Hi Bill/Katie I think we are arguing a different point here.


I think that the gist of my point may have been misunderstood.
It's not the value of my product that I'm concerned about, either as it stands alone or in comparison to any video that a photographer might bring them, albeit that I'm not within sight of your price range. It's the situation that I find on the day. At the moment it's just one occurrence that has caused me to voice this, but I'm interested in how others might deal with a similar situation should it occur.

George,
Tell me what you mean by "not within sight of your price range" If I found this on the wedding day, I would roll with it and get the best stuff I could with the idea that this photog is attempting to do something that will, in the end, just look silly and eventually they'll quit.
BIll

Hi George...I see your point, yes it is different from what I was getting at. On your point, I can totally agree that I would not want a photographer taking my prime video spot...although even with photographers doing stills only, it seems like position and getting in each others' way is already a concern. (Cue nightmare photographer stories) We have been lucky thus far, knock on wood, and have almost always worked with great photographers who look out for us, as we do them. If more photographers start doing video, they would need double the "good spots"...one for photo and one for video, leaving very little room for us.

I haven't had the situation yet, at least to my knowledge, where a photographer is doing video too. We've had a couple photographers admit to us that they were going to test the video waters, and turned back quickly once they realized how different, and how much work it was. Until then, if we do run into a situation, I guess we'll just have to figure out how to adapt...just put it in with one of the millions of other wrenches that can be thrown into our wedding days.

George,
if they're paying me $3k to do what I do, I frankly don't care what the photog does. its just going to fall flat in comparison, and if it doesn't fall flat, then I need to step up my game. basic market dynamics.
Bill

I agree. Photog can't beat me with a couple cams and a zoom, and trying to do his primary job at the same time. It just can't scale up to what an experienced video crew can do. And just because they try doesn't mean they succeed.

I always get to the Church before the photog anyway so I have the choice of spot..My only instance of this situation had the photogs assistant way behind me without any mics near the groom so it wasn't an issue.

If I found that a photog was shooting video and I had explained my contract to the bride, sure, I would just continue but I would mention to the bride (at a convenient time) that his actions are a contract violation so if his gear or assistant appears in my video she has to accept it....I don't think it's worth spoiling her day by fighting but definately worth making her aware of it and, as a true professional, you will continue on regardless!

Chris

When I know I'm going to work with a photographer I've never worked with in the past, I personally request a meeting with my couples and their photographer prior to the wedding just to make sure everyone's on the same page and that we have a good understanding of how each party works. It's almost a mandatory meeting in my case.

My couples and their photographer are normally very happy with the fact that I'm taking this initiative. It allows everyone to get along and develop a good chemistry before the event. And most importantly, it allows us to avoid any unexpected surprises on the day of. We all end up enjoying our work experience together and I've made tons of good photographer friends. And guess which name comes to their mind when their future clients ask them if they know any good video guy? =)

Hi Long

That, of course, is ideal but over here the photographer never attends even the rehearsal !! To get a photog to come over to see the bride "just to meet the videographer" ain't going to happen here!!! Most that I work with here have poor, if any communication skills and I have had bride's trying to contact the photog on the actual big day because he hasn't pitched up yet!!! The best I can ever manage is a quick intro and some rules discussion just before the bride arrives.

Chris

Hi Chris,

I wouldn't know about your area so I guess there are definitely challenges over there. I am simply sharing what I do and throwing ideas in hopes that someone out there would probably find it useful and adapt it to their own situation.

In my case, I have made it my personal goal to set my expectations very high. Although I am nowhere near an award-winning wedding filmmaker, I do make it my goal to give my best shot at every wedding and try to aim for perfection. Now while I know I still have a very long way to go until I can achieve that, I think that by simply setting that as a goal and having that mentality, it has forced myself to try doing whatever it takes to get the best out of a situation. This means that I often need to go out of my way and make the extra effort to push my own limits and defy things that used to stop me from doing my job properly.

For example, I used to only have 1 consultation with my clients to explain what my packages include, then another one to sign the contract and I would finally show up at the wedding to cover what I need to cover, then go home and work on the edit. I then realized that this practice would leave way too much room for unexpected surprises to happen, leading me to not get the best shots as I would spend more time trying to react and adapt rather than anticipate and plan before I shoot.

To give myself a better chance at doing a better job during the shoot, I decided to spend more time with my couples before their wedding. It has allowed me to show up better prepared and I would be in better control of the situation.

I used to think that it was a waste of my own time, that brides in my market don't care about spending extra time with me before the event, that they are too busy, giving myself every excuse that it wasn't going to help my work. But all it took was a bit of determination and forcing myself to do what it takes to make it happen. When I meet my clients during our first consultation, I will tell them straight up what they are getting themselves into if they seek my services. The experience they are going to have with me is nothing like the typical vendor-client relationship. I will become their friend, their advisor, I would a lot of the time even become their wedding planner. It's not uncommon for me to just call them out for a drink or dinner and chat about different things that are sometimes not even related to their wedding. Obviously, I will also share my passion for filmmaking with them and they will get very excited about the project.

Because I spend more time with my couples before their wedding, they end up treating me as a good friend, they are more comfortable with me around, they also understand my work better and know what it takes to get better results for their video so they would do things that will allow me to do my job better and get better coverage. The good relationship I have with my clients goes a very, very long way.

Now obviously, those meetings aren't going to improve my technical skills and allow my work to become exceptionally better. But they do help me a lot. And I just simply tell myself that every little step I can take to get a higher chance of doing a better job is a good step towards success. Spending that extra time and working on a better relationship with my clients is just one of the many things I can do.

Just going back to my opening point. It seems from reading other threads that I'm not the only one who is experiencing photographers shooting video along with their stills, in fact one of our regular contributors to this forum has given much guidance to the way he does it.

Over recent years there's been a move from documentary towards cinematic form of video and in the stills world a move from printed photos to disc based presentation. Do you see a day when still and moving image making as one will become the accepted form of wedding day memories. Just one disc (or media file); a hybrid product of still, moving, audio clips and backing tracks all in one production.

With the ever increasing improvements in image quality obtainable from video cameras maybe it could be the videographer - or cinematographer - that could steel a march having many tens of thousands images to grab. I know of one videographer who gives a disc album of around 100 stills with his DVDs.

Quick thought, CreativeLive.com just did a weekend workshop on photo+video fusion, which I honestly think is kinda cool. Not a replacement for a real wedding video, but an interesting budget hybrid possibly? As a photographer as well I'd be interested in trying it.

Example:
Digital Fusion Album on Vimeo

I do see the future as a far more multimedia end product than is the case at present. Clients already take this for granted in their normal daily lives and before long won't accept the now artificial boundaries between stills and movies.

I also see it moving in favour of video with stills gradually being relegated to what the clients would regard as essential posed shots with relations and friends.

However that does not mean that the goal posts move in favour of current videographers. The trade and other support networks available to small business stills shooters completely dwarf those available to film-makers and once they get over trying to do with their dSLRs what is not really ever going to work they will not be slow on the uptake.

Genuine self-employed photographer business owners (rather than part-timer wannabees) are already experiencing a massive drop in interest in albums and post wedding loose print sales and are casting around for new ideas and sources of revenue. At present many are held back from realizing the potential of video by their poor experience of videographers and end products over many years; they need to get over that. And they will.

The new hybrid will be far too demanding to be offered by part-timers. They will occupy the either / or ground of stills or video and will earn next to nothing from it. They will withdraw and be replaced by others ad infinitum.

As regards the style of video I think operatives need to recognize who they are producing it for and why - even if that means saving the clients from themselves on occasions. Producing an - if I can call it Vimeo style - film may help the producer feel better about themselves because it is not "just a wedding video" and they do not therefore occupy the icky ground at the very bottom of the food chain (as they would see it). Plus that style is a much easier sell to the clients. But it is not a record of an important event in the family history and it does not take account of the appeal a longer form will have a few years later when everyone is older and fatter and dare I say deader. Each wedding filmn is only ever going to have a very small audience so get over yourselves and stop making car adverts :- )

Cinematic samples only ever seem to be shot in decent light in beautiful venues with plenty of space and compliant cooperative celebrants and guests. Try pulling that off in what might be called a bog-standard scenario of low light, iffy weather, tight timeline, indifferent celebrant, corporate decor, no space to move etc and watch it fall apart - just as stills can do.In other words the market for cinematic is very limited even if every client would budget for it and are OK with all those operatives running around everywhere working through their storyboards.

Pete

Professional wedding photographers have shot themselves in both foot by emphasising 'reportage' & natural photography which is basically snapshots that anyone can take with a halfway decent digital camera. What professional photographers can do that amateurs cannot is produce exceptional images by their use of flash or other artificial lighting plus skilful posing of their clients e.g. really creative & exciting fashion style photography with the use of portable studio flash units etc. Those who produce images that are beyond what Uncle Fred can produce will succeed & be able to sell the profitable albums & prints of those exceptional images.

For the same reasons to increase the market penetration of wedding video we as videographers need to produce exceptional videos that are beyond what a photographer is capable of producing as a sideline to his stills or that Uncle Fred could produce.

Higher end clients recognize and appreciate high-quality photography at present. Film still kills digital, IMO, and local people here still flock to the local premier film photographer, but there are so few clients that will pay for it that most have gone out of business. The clients with money are becoming rarer as the economy continues to stagnate, so this is putting the squeeze on some segments of the market.

Yes the market is changing but for the mainstream customer the photographer is still king, and I don't see that as changing this year. Good photographers here still earn double and triple or even quadruple the rates of equivalent videographers locally. The higher end video guys here earn $5k and up but the demand is relegated to a pretty small segment.

I disagree about the natural photography, Nigel. When done well it is stunning and commands a good price. There are clients who recognize quality, and locally the best "natural" shooters make really good money. I personally have a strong bias toward the style, I love it, but that is just me. There are the mediocre shooters that do it that produce flat and uninteresting images, but the pros that know what they are doing produce beautiful images. In Cincinnati it seems that higher end clients currently prefer and hire the best natural shooters, and I love their work. Even the best natural style shooter will use flash as needed, they understand you need to do what you need to do to get a good image and they are not bound by strict rules, but instead do whatever it takes to get pleasing images.

I should add that I'm not a photographer, and I think you do know a lot more about photography than many of us here, so I will bow to your opinion, I'm just basing my comments on my observations here, as uneducated as I am on the subject.

Professional wedding photographers have shot themselves in both foot by emphasising 'reportage' & natural photography which is basically snapshots that anyone can take with a halfway decent digital camera. What professional photographers can do that amateurs cannot is produce exceptional images by their use of flash or other artificial lighting plus skilful posing of their clients e.g. really creative & exciting fashion style photography with the use of portable studio flash units etc. Those who produce images that are beyond what Uncle Fred can produce will succeed & be able to sell the profitable albums & prints of those exceptional images.

For the same reasons to increase the market penetration of wedding video we as videographers need to produce exceptional videos that are beyond what a photographer is capable of producing as a sideline to his stills or that Uncle Fred could produce.

Well I really can't let that pass without comment :- )

Reportage or natural or storytelling style coverage is immensely more involved than "basically snapshots". If you go to any wedding where the couple have a dedicated site to which guests can upload their own efforts you immediately see how awful the guests shots really are. Where clients describe the style they want - which is usual - it is reportage that they describe. Furthermore they will usually add that they want to spend as little time as possible facing the cameras n.b. being posed. The crunch is that the clients appetite for what THEY would regard as reportage is increasingly satisfied by those guest shots of goofy goings on.

Reportage involves the use of available light. And if that available light is supplied by an available flashgun so be it :- ) It also involves a thorough understanding of the wedding day, participants interactions, and making sure you are in the right place ready for the right time - the much quoted "decisive moment". Anyone can shoot a few decent photographs during the day but it is quite another matter to record the WHOLE day to a high standard in the form of hundreds of "decisive moments". However, no matter how skilled it is and how stunning are the final results it all counts for nothing if it is not something that the mainstream market attaches sufficient monetary value to.

Fashion style is just another niche product and its been around since the year dot. Much pushed on the seminar circuit by photographers who have been unable to fill their diaries with real clients :- ) Neither is it difficult to do. A half day course gets you fluid with studio lights. Then its really just a matter of scouting your venues for suitably fashionista backdrops and reminding yourself of a few favourite poses by looking at them in the photo memory of your smartphone. It certainly is a whole lot easier than a few years ago as now not only can you review the results in the camera's screen but also shoot straight to a laptop or even to an Ipad or phone, even upload to the web as you go.

Where it becomes demanding is in the boring stuff of packing and transporting the tools for quick assembly and breakdown on site. It really can b e a sweaty physical job.

I have three mains powered studio lights plus numerous brollies, large softboxes, radio triggers etc. But my preferred equipment now is two Quantum Turbo 2x2 high powered battery packs each of which can power two flashguns so thats up to 4 guns each of which can fire at up to full power several hundred times and with no recycle time. The latest guns do compete with mains strobes. Its very liberating as there is no hunting around for mains power, trailing cable issues etc, and its much quicker to set up. I use these with Cheetah lightstands which again are easy to manage, and brollies. The radio triggers work with mains strobes and with flashguns.

But with the right equipment and the right venues and the right posing library and your skills off pat you still have to find clients who like the style plus who are willing to devote the considerable extra time it takes out of their day.

By co-incidence tonight I've booked a client BECAUSE I could bring all this equipment to bear. It is a 4pm ceremony in early December and their big concern is how to get half-decent posed group shots when clearly there will be no available light. That is when the equipment earns its keep, not because it can be used to turn a wedding day into a ladies fashion catalogue shoot.

I'm pretty sure the future for fulltime professionals is in providing a much more multimedia product, an appropriate record of the clients wedding day using the tools that best suit each part of the day. So thats big emphasis on ceremony (video) and on speeches (video) and on posed and semi-posed groups of attendees (stills).

Pete

Peter, looking at the work on your website & your own description of your methods confirms my point that successful photographers need to produce outstanding work that is beyond the capabilities of Uncle Fred. You have some great images there. Where we differ is that you think that the wedding video should be produced with the equivalent of snapshots from several static consumer camcorders as an adjunct to the main course i.e. the outstanding photographs.Together with most of the others on this sub-forum I believe that the wedding video needs to be just as outstanding & well crafted as the photography. That isn't achieved with static cameras. You are also I believe not charging for your video but offering it as a freebie to your clients so if you don't value it why should they? We put a price on the video that we produce for clients (quite a modest price & probably often less than you charge for photography). We also are proud enough to have samples of our wedding videos on our website.

I am very much in favour of offering a package to clients that combines photography & video but not at the expense of dumbing down & offering an inferior version of one of the elements.

The truth is that as far as customers are involved there will never be a definitive right way as there are so many different situations, tastes and budgets and no matter how hard we try to 'educate brides' there'll always be some that love our style, some that hate it or at least are indifferent to it.
We get buoyed up and reassured by our clients reaction to our work, the problem is when we take that endorsement to mean that we have the right product. It really means that we have a product that satisfies the people we attract.
Only this week I had unprompted feedback from two recent weddings. Both said that if they'd had to have either stills or video it would be video and they wished they'd spent less with the photographer and more with me. One had taken my least expensive service and an expensive photographer, the other had taken my top package and the same with the photographer. One couple's DVD and photos arrived on the same day, they put the DVD on straight away and spent all evening watching twice, in the last couple of weeks since they received it the bride has watched it so many times with friends, yet they still have not bothered to sort through the 400 photos to select the 100 the photographers wants to put into their book. They really love some of the portrait and stylised work that the photographer took but they see no point in having shots of them getting out of cars, walking to the church, walking down the aisle, the speeches and dancing and so on when it's all there with atmosphere on the DVD. They said it's too difficult to capture the day in 100 photo's having seen how the video captured - in their words - absolutely everything and caught the essence of the day just as they remembered it.

Now whilst that's very nice to hear, and I'm sure that you've all got similar stories you could tell, in no way do I believe that what I do is the way everyone should be doing it. For those that are interested it's a full doco style, edited to 90 minutes with an 8 minute highlights/montage call it what you will.

I think it's a matter of playing to your strengths.

Incidentally the photographer mentioned above was the one I saw videoing at the wedding, the one who prompted me to start this thread.