Adrian Tan
December 23rd, 2012, 07:40 PM
Here's some setups I've used lately. Interested in any feedback/comparisons. Warning: I think this post will be very dry even for people interested in subject matter!
1. Civil service in restaurant overlooking Darling Harbour. Two shooters, four cameras, no steadicam. No ability to move behind bridal party.
On entry: one unmanned camera on 70-200 getting first look from groom, but positioned to favour the bride, one unmanned camera getting wideshot of entire bridal party's final positions, my friend posted behind bride and bridesmaids as they walked in (she walked in from a side door, and then turned right -- he wasn't in shot), me crouched at front of aisle with monopod getting bride's reactions.
During ceremony: monopod used for cutaways; second shooter's tripod repositioned to centre of aisle for a two-shot.
Advantages of having a guy back with the bride -- interesting angle; possibility of capturing nice moments between father and bride just before she enters; ability to easily relocate camera in crowded environment.
Disadvantages of this setup: (1) unmanned camera on groom -- he might walk out of shot, and the angle won't get a good facial reaction anyway; (2) the part after she walks back up the aisle is messy -- I'm scampering out of the way, and my partner is relocating tripod into a centre-aisle position -- up to unmanned cameras, or to me speedily relocating, to catch the groom shaking hands with father of bride, etc; no close-up shot favouring the groom (no real ability to reposition cameras in this crowded space other than the guy in the centre of the aisle, and I think he was better off there than on a 45 angle getting close-up of groom).
2. Outdoors. Good freedom of movement. Two shooters, four cameras.
On entry: steadicam following bride in; me on a monopod; one wide shot from back of crowd framing for the bridal party; one close-up of groom from angle favouring the groom.
During ceremony: steadicam repurposed to two-shot on tripod; monopod repurposed to bride-favouring close-up on tripod. So we basically had a wide, a two shot, and two close-up cameras that could also be turned around to get cutaways from audience or turned to focus on people doing readings.
Advantages: lots of good coverage; steadicam gets great shots on the walk in; after bride walks up to the groom, steadicam guy can stand there and hold coverage (better than unmanned wide camera) of what happens next as I scamper out of the way.
Disadvantages: tricky to keep steadicam guy out of shot with monopod, no matter how he crouches; because we manned the close-up cameras rather than the two-shot during the vows, no ability to get really close close-ups of rings (masked from the 45 degree angles we were shooting from); having both wide and two-shot somewhat redundant (more a case of safety shots).
3. Small country church. Very cramped. Second storey available. Two shooters, four cameras + GoPro, no steadicam. No ability to move behind bridal party (basically a table bearing candles, then a wall).
On entry: one camera on second storey at back of church framed for entire bridal party; one unmanned camera on groom from angle favouring bride; me on a monopod. Second shooter at back of church on ground level getting clear shot of bride as the doors open, and then panning with her as she goes past. Go Pro sitting on window ledge behind the couple.
During ceremony: back of church ground-level taken to second level and repurposed to a mid-shot.
Advantages: interesting angles; it's basically covered; photographer can wander up and down narrow aisle without blocking anyone's shots.
Disadvantages: unmanned groom camera is always asking for trouble; relying on shots from back of church to get clear groom reactions; lots of details hard to get -- lighting candles on a table behind the couple (couple and celebrant masking this activity; no room to move to get to it; but GoPro got some of it); one big disadvantage -- GoPro was in frame from time to time, with a flashing red light (d'oh!).
Notes: When I can, I'll have one centre aisle cam, one close-up of bride, and one close-up of groom. But -- I find it can be tricky to move around during a ceremony from 45-degree cam to centre aisle, without missing something or being what I consider too distracting (if you walk in front of the front pew to take a shortcut, instead of to the back of the church, and down a side, and back again). So I often just have bride-favouring cameras and centre-aisle cameras.
4. Greek wedding. Ability to stand behind the celebrant to one side.
On entry: instead of crouching with monopod at front of aisle, I had a camera on a tripod I didn't need to move that was behind the priest and to one side. Could get great reaction shots of bride.
During ceremony: One close-up and one wide shot from behind the celebrant; one close-up and one wide shot from centre aisle (since important stuff happens from both directions).
Note: One disadvantage of DSLRs, as someone pointed out recently, is their limited zoom range. So, I don't have the lenses to use the same camera for both wideshot and close-up -- I often need to use two cameras.
1. Civil service in restaurant overlooking Darling Harbour. Two shooters, four cameras, no steadicam. No ability to move behind bridal party.
On entry: one unmanned camera on 70-200 getting first look from groom, but positioned to favour the bride, one unmanned camera getting wideshot of entire bridal party's final positions, my friend posted behind bride and bridesmaids as they walked in (she walked in from a side door, and then turned right -- he wasn't in shot), me crouched at front of aisle with monopod getting bride's reactions.
During ceremony: monopod used for cutaways; second shooter's tripod repositioned to centre of aisle for a two-shot.
Advantages of having a guy back with the bride -- interesting angle; possibility of capturing nice moments between father and bride just before she enters; ability to easily relocate camera in crowded environment.
Disadvantages of this setup: (1) unmanned camera on groom -- he might walk out of shot, and the angle won't get a good facial reaction anyway; (2) the part after she walks back up the aisle is messy -- I'm scampering out of the way, and my partner is relocating tripod into a centre-aisle position -- up to unmanned cameras, or to me speedily relocating, to catch the groom shaking hands with father of bride, etc; no close-up shot favouring the groom (no real ability to reposition cameras in this crowded space other than the guy in the centre of the aisle, and I think he was better off there than on a 45 angle getting close-up of groom).
2. Outdoors. Good freedom of movement. Two shooters, four cameras.
On entry: steadicam following bride in; me on a monopod; one wide shot from back of crowd framing for the bridal party; one close-up of groom from angle favouring the groom.
During ceremony: steadicam repurposed to two-shot on tripod; monopod repurposed to bride-favouring close-up on tripod. So we basically had a wide, a two shot, and two close-up cameras that could also be turned around to get cutaways from audience or turned to focus on people doing readings.
Advantages: lots of good coverage; steadicam gets great shots on the walk in; after bride walks up to the groom, steadicam guy can stand there and hold coverage (better than unmanned wide camera) of what happens next as I scamper out of the way.
Disadvantages: tricky to keep steadicam guy out of shot with monopod, no matter how he crouches; because we manned the close-up cameras rather than the two-shot during the vows, no ability to get really close close-ups of rings (masked from the 45 degree angles we were shooting from); having both wide and two-shot somewhat redundant (more a case of safety shots).
3. Small country church. Very cramped. Second storey available. Two shooters, four cameras + GoPro, no steadicam. No ability to move behind bridal party (basically a table bearing candles, then a wall).
On entry: one camera on second storey at back of church framed for entire bridal party; one unmanned camera on groom from angle favouring bride; me on a monopod. Second shooter at back of church on ground level getting clear shot of bride as the doors open, and then panning with her as she goes past. Go Pro sitting on window ledge behind the couple.
During ceremony: back of church ground-level taken to second level and repurposed to a mid-shot.
Advantages: interesting angles; it's basically covered; photographer can wander up and down narrow aisle without blocking anyone's shots.
Disadvantages: unmanned groom camera is always asking for trouble; relying on shots from back of church to get clear groom reactions; lots of details hard to get -- lighting candles on a table behind the couple (couple and celebrant masking this activity; no room to move to get to it; but GoPro got some of it); one big disadvantage -- GoPro was in frame from time to time, with a flashing red light (d'oh!).
Notes: When I can, I'll have one centre aisle cam, one close-up of bride, and one close-up of groom. But -- I find it can be tricky to move around during a ceremony from 45-degree cam to centre aisle, without missing something or being what I consider too distracting (if you walk in front of the front pew to take a shortcut, instead of to the back of the church, and down a side, and back again). So I often just have bride-favouring cameras and centre-aisle cameras.
4. Greek wedding. Ability to stand behind the celebrant to one side.
On entry: instead of crouching with monopod at front of aisle, I had a camera on a tripod I didn't need to move that was behind the priest and to one side. Could get great reaction shots of bride.
During ceremony: One close-up and one wide shot from behind the celebrant; one close-up and one wide shot from centre aisle (since important stuff happens from both directions).
Note: One disadvantage of DSLRs, as someone pointed out recently, is their limited zoom range. So, I don't have the lenses to use the same camera for both wideshot and close-up -- I often need to use two cameras.