How many times do you get the bride and groom making their entrance in single file as the table are close together, and she weaves her way through and he follows about 10 foot behind because of her train. I quite often film them entering from the front and then as they pass follow through the tables from behind, but more and more I get a lovely shot of the back of the groom's head and not much else - I also use a high locked off camera that covers it all but I'm thinking there must be a better way :/

Pete

It's much less of a problem with two shooters :)

I think everything is less of a problem with 2 shooters!

What if there is only 1 shooter ?
2nd shooters cost money $$$$

In my material I send to clients as a newsletter, one of them mentions reception room setup and making sure there are clear walk ways between important spaces (door, bar, head table, dance floor, etc.). I include a few example diagrams. It's up to them to talk to their venue about room setup.

At a reception, during the down time before dinner (if there is any), I always scout the walking space. If it's tight, I may walk through it and ask guests to scoot their chairs for the grand entrance. Most understand.

I have also talked to a few (very few) banquet managers that I was friendly with, in places where I saw repeated issues. Table spacing is one. Cake tables pushed against the wall so that the cake cutting was impossible to get good pics/footage of was real bad for a few years here (even when there was plenty of space).

I don't think I've quite ever experienced anything like that... I've always seen them come in side by side.

I'd imagine, I'd shoot faces until they were past, and just sprint over to the table and try to get them getting seated maybe.

Kyle I would say well over half the entrances are like that - they come in side-by-side holding hands but usually the table are so close together the bride takes the lead and the new hubby follows. being careful (not always though) not to stand on her train!

I always walk backwards a few feet in front of the Bride so that I am not obstructing the guest's view but get the whole entrance, stepping to the side to get them sitting down at the head table.

Roger

I've thought about that Roger but then I would rarely get the groom as he's trailing behind her :/

The photographer would really like that.

I've had that probably 5 times a year. Too many tables in a room that isn't made for that many but it is what it is.
If they get to the tables and have to walk single file then I can only get what I can get which means I would shoot down the path between the tables, let the bride walk thru, then the groom and like others I stayed far enough out so I could usually keep both in the VF once they got past the tables.
I shot in the same places a lot so I had a pretty good idea as to what I would be getting into and honestly, you can only do what you can do. I don't know about anyone else but I stopped losing sleep over it. I'm not a miracle man and if they're trying to put 200 people in a space made for 175 well something is going to give. Do the best you can and move on.
Of course that's my way it may not work for you.

Of course you're right Don but it's good to get other people's thoughts - you never know someone might have a gem of an idea 'hey get a gopro on a monopod and dangle it over their heads!!!'

Peter, how about a 2nd locked off camera? I personally try and never use less then 3 cams total for the introductions, just for safety's sake.

Hey Peter, I agree with you. I'm just sounding off especially now since I'm not doing weddings anymore. Heck I hated when they stuffed so many tables in the room there wasn't enough room for the B&G to get in together and I did try a 2nd camera up in the air (my B cam tripod could get to 8 feet in the air) but for me, unless it was manned I just never had any luck getting a decent shot.

I always follow the couple during the first entrance with my blackbird steadicam, always from behind them so the photog can shoot from the front, if the room inbetween the seats is too narrow for 2 people I follow as far as I can go, setting up a second camera is often useless as all guests stand up during that moment so then I just stop, raise my blackbird with camera as high as I can and shoot from a fixed position.

Noa, I put one locked off camera up 9 feet high from my big tripod, and the second one up to 7 feet. This is what I do when I have no second shooter. With second shooter I just put one up high. It gets everything usually, or at least serves as a suitable safety.

When I do locked off cameras for transition events like this, I usually pick a spot for it to cover, rather than trying to use it to cover everything. I might then just leave out most of the time where they are awkwardly struggling through the tables too close to each other.

For instance, I've got camera 1, then lock off camera #2 to cover when they come in the door (maybe from behind, over their shoulders, so the guests are in the shot), then camera #3 is up front to show them emerging from the tables, or once they up at the head table).

Follow from behind glidecam, locked of camera from front and one from side, intermingle in the edit!! Sometimes walk backwards with the glidecam getting their faces! Be careful though some idiots try to trip you up or get in the way on purpose!! Steve

I'm with Don on this. A benefit of many years and weddings under the belt is that I've done all my worrying about this sort of thing and found that in the end most of the things I agonised about didn't even cross the clients' mind. I know that we are all perfectionists and are striving for the ultimate perfect wedding but things are what they are.
I used a GoPro placed high above and behind the couple's seats either clamped to a structure or light stand, or suckered a window. I used that footage intercut with whatever I had from my POV. That sort of placement gives a great overview and captures the entrance however they enter even with the backward walking photog' or the swirling piper in front of them and ends with them taking their place. I leave it there for the speeches for good audience reaction shots. Most were surprised when they saw that footage as they never even suspected that there was a camera there. One couple did say they noticed it but though it was something to do with venue security.

I always follow the couple during the first entrance with my blackbird steadicam, always from behind them so the photog can shoot from the front, if the room inbetween the seats is too narrow for 2 people I follow as far as I can go, setting up a second camera is often useless as all guests stand up during that moment so then I just stop, raise my blackbird with camera as high as I can and shoot from a fixed position.

I do the same Noa - also do it when leaving up the aisle after the ceremony. Do you ever worry that you are in the shot for the photographer shooting them from the front?

I don't know what to do - I think its a very valuable shot that my clients like to see, but I worry that I may piss off the togs, and photobomb their wedding photos...

I never go in the aisle, always shoot from the altar at a fixed position and often get the photogs back in my view as he walks backwards following the bride when she walks down the aisle, only at a certain point they step out of that aisle to join me at the altar so I get the last part just before the bride meets up with the groom. I don't worry about that anymore, I guess that comes with age or experience, and just take it as it comes, it's a live non repeatable event and I just can't always have it my way.

I used a GoPro placed high above and behind the couple's seats either clamped to a structure or light stand, or suckered a window. I used that footage intercut with whatever I had from my POV. That sort of placement gives a great overview and captures the entrance however they enter even with the backward walking photog' or the swirling piper in front of them and ends with them taking their place. I leave it there for the speeches for good audience reaction shots. Most were surprised when they saw that footage as they never even suspected that there was a camera there. One couple did say they noticed it but though it was something to do with venue security.

Thanks George - Exactly why I posted about this issue :) - what a great idea and one I'll try at this weekend's wedding

Pete

Quite a few posters seem to be worried about getting in the photographers shot or pissinhg him off. That's something that I never find a problem, as I always discuss things like the entrance, walk down the aisle, speeches etc so that we both know how we will get round any limitations. Working together always seems to make for mutual respect in my experience.

Roger

Same here Roger - In 5 years only twice that I recall have I had a tog who I had trouble working with - long may it continue!

I guess I feel that in my area, video guys are deemed to be less important. I don't know if a convesation would go overly well like 'so is it ok if I get the leaving the aisle from the front, and you get the bridal entrance from the front?'

i imagine the response would be 'er no... I normally get both those.'.

Where I'm from its a case of photographers can appear in video shots, but videographer shouldn't appear in photographers' shots.

Nobody else feel this way?

I get paid a fair amount - so I don't want to simply stand at the end and track them with a zoom. To me, the client deserves more for my price range.

Re planning with the tog, sometimes works for me, sometimes doesn't. But bear in mind also that my social skills are miserable.

When it doesn't includes: (1) photographers with an ego, refusing to compromise; (2) surly photographers who kind of grunt at you; (3) ditzy photographers who don't have a plan or couldn't remember one; (4) newbie photographers who run around in a panic the entire day anyway; (5) photographers who don't speak English well (I do lots of ethnic weddings); (6) photographers who just aren't used to videographers, and who operate on autopilot, doing all the stuff they do on most of their weddings; (7) times when the MC or whoever else changes everything around, and the best laid plans go awry.

So, instead, I tend just to plan things around the photographers, anticipate what they might want or do, and leave them obvious places they can shoot from. Experienced guys are much easier to deal with than new people. 19 times out of 20 I don't have a problem. I think I could improve my batting average with better communication, but I guess I also feel that even the 1 time out of 20 that I'll come onto this board and moan about it, even then I've been able to roll with the punches, and it's never really been that big a deal; nothing YouTube worthy.

I don't normally do a lot of advance planning on anything. Generally speaking.

I use to go to Rehearsals and try to iron things out, but what usually happened was, on the actual wedding day, there would be huge/numerous stage decorations which would change a lot of things... so instead we just get there 60-90 minutes early, talk to the director real quick to see where people are coming in from, and then set up.

Also, I always work around the photographer. I always tell them "Don't worry about me, do whatever you have to do. I have 3 or 4 cameras here and we can work around just about anything as long as you don't just stand in front of me the whole time"... and I say it in a fun kind of way.

In my view, I have no problem with the photo team being in the video shots, because they are part of the day as well. A lot of times, they have second and third shooters with them so invariably, there will be photographers in the video. It has never bothered me in almost 14 years, and in the hundreds of weddings I've done, never had a single person complain about seeing a photographer in the video.

Around these parts, the photographers run the whole show pretty much, so it makes my life very easy on the wedding day.

@Clive - I certainly don't want to be in any of the photographers shots. Not such much that it's taboo here, but I am always aware of where they are and where they are pointing their cameras. I'd say 80% of the time I'm actually right beside them for nearly all the reception events. Of course, at the Ceremony it's a little different.

At a recent wedding the photographer stood in front of one of my locked off cameras as the bride arrived. Annoying yes, she had room, and a more front on shot if she moved to the left where there was space.

But then as I was trapped at the back I noticed she decided to use the same spot to sit down whilst the whole service was on. Her head was in my shot for the remainder of the service.

Do I just have bad luck with photographers?

Clive that scenario in your pics is a classic instance of how if you shoot both video and stills it need never arise.

I can't see the whole room layout obviously but based on what I can see if I were the photographer I'd probably be rather miffed that your locked off cam on tripod has nabbed pretty much two complete rows of pews in a prime area.

Alternatives might include having the b-cam on a lightstand against the wall (smaller footprint), or in the window alcove which appears to have a wide ledge sitting on a gorillapod or suchlike - or if you need a bit more height have the cam on the ledge on a collapsed monopod with the three feet extended.

Again a b-cam clamped to the pew top which is immediately behind the photographers lens would have got the couple pretty much full frontal. Even a gopro on the high cabinet next to the pew might have given a nice inclusive view of most of the room.

I probably fuss about these things more than most because I'm used to doing a lot of expensive photo albums and kit in shot is a big no-no just as are exit signs, fire extinguishers, bright carrier bags with advertising on the side carried in by guests etc. Heck I've even had requests for radiators to be retouched out of the compositions. Its funny though that no-one thinks twice about musicians and DJs paraphernalia being in shot.

Back to the original question. Yes you can only do what you can do. Many times guests have ignored or forgotten reasonable requests to give the couple some space, and many times couples have gone their own route to the top table despite the duty manager trying to sheep-dog them.

Will the photographer mind if you go behind the couple? Does anyone really need to ask that? If you were the couple would you have this type of shot in your album if it included robocop in the background:
http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/925-c/ref_925-c/Bride-and-groom-are-cheered-by-guests-as-they-enter-wedding-reception-at-Easthampstead-Park-Wokingham-Berkshire-wedding-venue-150.jpg

I'd also suggest that rather than trying to follow the couples entire entry let the b-cams do their job and instead get some great clips of two or three tables of guests cheering them in.

Clips and photos from this part of the day will seldom be works of art though. Thats just too much to expect.

Pete

Hi peter. What you are seeing is the seating in the 'wings' which are to either side of the pulpit. You can see from the scene what direction the camera is facing. These sections in the wings are not used for seating guests. Guests sit in the pews behind the couple.

The camera is on the pew because I felt in front of the pew was too close to the action and would be obtrusive.

I have another locked off camera from the other front corner, and my main cam with me on monopod shooting mostly from the back.

So, there is no incompetence on my part whatsoever. And whilst yes, this is why I have three cameras - to make sure I account for unexpected problems, it really is a bit of a joke that a photographer doesn't see a problem standing in front of one of the video guys cameras, let alone sit in front of it for the whole service.


Back to the idea of following the b&g, for the evening reception, most togs in NI are finished for the day. So I quite often get free reign.

Thing is, if you are a b&g, what do you want more - a photo without 'robocop' of the entry, or a video from behind/in front of the b&g on steadycam with the full experience of the excitement, and the audible roar.

I'm a bit fed up of having to dance around the togs. What we do is just as important if not more so.

Hey Clive, no implication of quote incompetence intended :- ) Just making observations and you will have gathered that I do wish operators would make more use of clamps lightstands and even photographic boompoles (attached to fixtures with manfrotto superclamps) instead of plonking tripods around like - as I would see it - so many daleks.

In this particular instance the tog may have on being aware that you had three camera angles running simultaneously thought to herself "whats the point in trying to keep out of shot, its impossible". It is hard to appreciate the video side of things until you actually do it for real for paying clients and then of course you understand why you need all that alternative material if you're going to supply a complete documentary film. Again she may have assumed that you had the focal length as close cropped on the couple, not realising that you needed it wide for sitting and standing as its a completely unattended cam. Chances are there was no malice intended and she would have been no more aware of her presence than the multitudes of guests who regularly block viewpoints.

if you are a b&g, what do you want more - a photo without 'robocop' of the entry, or a video from behind/in front of the b&g on steadycam with the full experience of the excitement, and the audible roar.

You're preaching to the converted in that case though. The existing market for video is miniscule compared to that for stills and this is partly down to clients perceptions of how intrusive video is. Rightly or wrongly. I think I've seen you briefly in one of your own evening videos and you seemed to be moving a lot with the main cam but keeping very stealthy and with minimal equipment. Which is good in my book :- ) Imagine how many prospective clients might recoil in horror at the sight of a fully tricked-up video guy.

Pete

Re Robocop, I think it can actually go both ways.

Example: videographer at ceremony, with a vest and steadicam, happily doing 360 laps of the couple.

I'm thinking: "Dude, that's way, way more intrusive than I'd be."

What he tells me: "It was a great idea to buy this new vest. It looks so cool. I've already had a bunch of guests compliment me on my gear and two people ask me for my business card."

I've also seen videographers use this sort of stuff as a selling point at their websites -- "We have fantastic gear. We often get compliments." Pictures of them posing with their Steadicam Pilots and jibs, etc.

I think it's partly a cultural thing. Pardon the stereotyping, but I think there are some cultures where showiness is a good thing, where you may get hired on the basis of professional-looking gear (maybe Arabic weddings), or where they just want a mind-blowing video, not matter what it takes (maybe Filipino weddings or even Asian weddings in general), or where people tend to be quite camera friendly, and even play up to cameras (maybe Indian weddings).

I'm a bit fed up of having to dance around the togs. What we do is just as important if not more so.

It happens that I get to see the photos that where made the wedding day and I hate it when I"m in them, not that I don't like seeing myself, for me it looks like not done, can't imagine the couple using such a photo to enlarge and hang on their wall. If it's a really good photo the couple might even ask if it's possible to remove me before it's being put in their album.

Otoh I don't mind having the photog in my footage, I shoot docu style anyway, that's why on important moments I discuss with the photog how I will be shooting so we won't get in eachothers way.

I'm with Noa on this, the videographer is never going to be wanted in any photo, whereas the photographer is a traditional and expected part of every wedding. I often go out of my way to include a photographer going about his work, making the guests laugh etc.

Roger

Adrian, what I'm saying is that the sort of prospective clients you describe are already sold on the idea of wedding video - you are pushing at an open door. But they are a tiny proportion of the total numbers getting married.

What you're seeing and hearing is the ones who know for sure that they want it, never the ones who have already decided - for right or for inaccurate reasons - that they don't want it. All comes down to then is do they like and trust you and what do they get for the money compared to Jo B down the road who has also promoted himself to cinematographer (yes wannabee artists it really is that simple!).

When do you ever get an enquiry that starts with "We're thinking of having video but ..... ". Other than for reasons of extra cost probably so rare that you can recall all the times it may have occurred.

You're never going to charm the silent majority with cranes jibs steadycams etc. But you stand a good chance of getting them on board if they can appreciate how easy on them shooting a documentary style record of their day could be.

The number of pro videographers I came across when I simply offered stills was tiny - probably a lot less than 1 in 10 weddings. However virtually all weddings had a friend or relation bravely nursing a single handycam:

Ref 297-3736-01_nep Ashton Lamont Photography, Copyright (http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/client-area/nicola-p/gal04-nep/297-3736-01_nep.htm)

Look to the top left of the fireplace in this photo; yes that IS a laptop running a webcam. And that was a well to do couple, USA groom and UK bride:

Ref 105-1941-03_lrl Ashton Lamont Photography, Copyright (http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/075-lrl/gal01-lrl/105-1941-03_lrl.htm)

So the desire is there. You just need to figure out how to monetise it :- )

Yep the fees attainable for video are lower than for stills. But the former is more straightforward plus the acceptable quality threshold is currently very low so the amount of work involved from a purely running a business point of view is not huge.

Pete

Peter,

I assumed the web cam was for live streaming, not necessarily recording it, though UStream saves everything, so you do end up with a record of it.

Robert, that 2nd photo is from 5 years ago, live streaming was barely feasible especially in a countryside location such as that hotel even if it was known of :- ) The webcam gave them a nice wide field of view. They didn't bother with it for the speeches though as the next room was far too dark for it.

Plenty more instances like those in my archives!

On the subject of streaming I've never ever had anyone ask about that. I've only come across it in some central London churches when shooting christenings and the parents want relations abroad to be able to watch live. For that the churches have their own equipment in place. Reminds me of the subject of online delivery; I've done that for a few months now but no-one downloads, ever. They seem to be content just to wait for the physical media to turn up. They do though often wax lyrical about being able to play DVDs to infirm elderly relations who could not attend.

Pete

I love it when the couple, just before booking and leaving a deposit says " but you will be very unobtrusive, will you ?" I say " absolutely, all I carry is just this teenie weenie camera without any tripods or robocop vests and without any 2nd or 3rd shooters" and then at their wedding day, there are 2 photographers that buzz around like bees the entire day. Oh, I get them in the shot all right, I make sure of that.
Which also reminds me about these videographers in my area that shoot only ethnic weddings, they use 3 shooters with huge ENG type cameras on huge tripods with umbrella bounced lighting, cables all over the place, tons of batteries etc. They charge $4000 BUT when after paying the shooters and the equipment depreciation costs ( $75K worth new) and battery replacements, they end up making LESS than I make PER YEAR. They average 40 wedding a year, I do 60 minimum.Their clients love BIG cameras, lots of them and
the more crew gear showing, the better. Wait till they upgrade to 4K. All their present gear will go on eBay.

Do I just have bad luck with photographers?



I'm a bit fed up of having to dance around the togs. What we do is just as important if not more so.

Maybe these two are related. A part of covering the day is accepting that you are part of a team and not in competition. The video and photog' have different requirements and approaches to achieve their results and to that end the video is always going to play second fiddle to the photog' who of necessity will be concentrating on their job, why should they have to keep checking themselves to see if they are interfering with your job or trying to second guess what you are trying to achieve or whether or not an unmanned camera is running or just parked there . Despite the fact that the photographer appears to have complete command of the day, they are probably just as stressed as the videographer is, just as concerned about getting perfect coverage, the difficulty they have is that they must capture it in one frame. To continue the musical analogy if you are the drummer it's no good complaining when the soloist takes the lead, that's what they are there for, no good placing your drum kit in the place they expect to be. If both are trying to grab the spotlight the result will be poorer for all.

My experience has been always make the first move towards liaising with the photographer; it's rare that they ever will speak first. Make it clear that you're there to do your job and not spoil theirs, tell them what your key moments and positions will be and expect them to instantly forget everything you've just said. Maybe after a few time of working together they might just remember your name.

it really is a bit of a joke that a photographer doesn't see a problem standing in front of one of the video guys cameras, let alone sit in front of it for the whole service.
A couple of times I have come across a spiteful & malicious photographer who has done that kind of thing deliberately but mainly it's just stupidity & ignorance. I even had a gig where the photographer had hired me to shoot the video as he had sold a combo package & he then stood in front of one of my locked off cameras all though the ceremony after we had talked beforehand about where he was going to stand (not in front of the camera!). He even turned round & looked directly into the lens a couple of times.