So now that everyone is employing high end camera moves and getting great production value out of their wedding videos, what on earth is the next thing to stand apart? Its pretty crazy, there are at least 3-4 other companies in my area that are doing really good work. The only thing I can think of is in the future offering photo with video as the frame grabs will be so high quality in the next five years.

Ugh, its getting tough to stand out!

I've had a long hard think about pulling frames from video. Eventually decided against it. My reasons are nothing new, but basically it's that there's a compromise on both sides, especially the photo side.

Video compromise: high shutter speed, which not only changes the look but makes low light shooting more difficult.

Photo compromise: raw; higher resolution/sharpness, and freedom of framing are probably the big things you're giving up on. By framing, I mean not only portrait framing, but Dutch tilts, which often look great in photos, but can only be used sparingly in video.

Smaller photo compromise: if you're only pulling frames and not taking real photos as well, you're giving up on creative shots involving long exposure or flash, including double exposure, second curtain shutter sync, strobe lighting, and various effects with radio flash.

Have people really succeeded at creating great films yet? Maybe your area is blessed, but from what I've seen on Vimeo there are a great number of forgettable wedding films that fail to retain the story. People are caught up in time shifting for the sake of it, or are failing to really shine in other ways with obvious faults and a lack of vision either on the shoot or within the edit. Maybe I am too harsh, or expect to always see "high end" that works perfectly, but there just seems a huge gap between a great number of poor to average films, then a huge leap to amazing films?

As a complete amateur, I would expect more from "pros". I should be able to watch films and truly wonder, "How?" As this is not the case in many films, I think people need to learn how to use the higher production gear to enhance the storyline... rather than to hide the basic mistakes, like icing over a flavourless cake. Alternatively, they need to know how to use higher production tools to better the film, whilst also retaining a solid storyline. Either way, the skill of storytelling, capturing great audio and the ability to capture perfectly exposed / well framed / creatively shot footage will prevail in the long run. I can live without a drone.

In ten years, when drones, 8K and other things are common ground at weddings, we'll all still look back at videographers like Ray Roman and consider that a great film is all about light and shadows... whether you're shooting in ISO 400,000 or not, the principles remain.

What is next? It's hard to say but the trend over here is leaning towards an all-in-one service much like Rob Benda is starting to provide. We have one guy and his wife doing a DJ/Photo/Video package and brides love it!

I wonder how far this will extend? Maybe soon our businesses will be providing the celebrant (for civil weddings) as well as photo and video and then DJ and MC services as well ....???

The all-in-one conconcept certainly seems to be gaining popularity if you multitask you can provide a cheaper service from the bride's point of view!

Let's face it if you hire a photo, a videographer and a DJ ..each will cost you say an example figure of $1500 so you total cost for 3 vendors is going to be $4500. Hire just a combo pair that can handle all 3 jobs at say $3000 and that's an awful amount of saving for a bride which is a big incentive.

There are times as a husband and wife team where one is sitting on their butt so Rob has already shown it's quite feasible and the cost saving is a big incentive for the bride.

I already offer photo/video (as Adrian does) and I just had a couple forfeit their deposit to their photog as it was better to just use us and they still saved some money.

I really think that as videographer we need to start combining services and offering more than just video! The advantages of doing just photo and video combined is a huge plus for me as I don't have any "photog in the shot" issues and the bride gets a better deal.

Chris

All of the above is true, and is still ringing out by speakers such as Will Crocket, who discusses lots about Fusion and the interlinking of photo and video. Similarly, Victoria Grech discussed Fusion a couple or more years ago at CreativeLive. She offers 2-3 minute films, whilst also taking the photographs for the day... whilst I found her films decent (and better than I could capture), I also found that the number of shots used were few and far between... I would be, admittedly, disappointed if the growing skills and technology used and adapted for weddings were to go out of fashion with the brides (brilliantly captured 15 minute films). It's incredibly important to me to have a great ceremony, speeches and short, yet brilliantly edited film; along with amazing photographs. I know that as photographers, we see the importance, but still... I know it would be worth the extra $1500 if necessary.

Taking nothing away from these combined services, as every package fits the bill... but making some businesses redundant (as you're giving more for less) is a dangerous step for photographers/videographers, as we look to damage our overall landscape/profits by committing more of our services for less money.

Also, I don't believe that you can be equally talented in both photo and video... the two are both beasts to reach a higher price point (£2000+).

Providing both services? You can forget about being a specialist with images or video that really shine then.

You will be a budget video/photo provider. There is absolutely no way you can capture the moment if you have to focus on both a video and photograph.

I am all for providing photographs if i'm shooting in 4 or 8k by taking frame grabs, but handling a DSLR and my Videocamera at critical points during a wedding. I wouldn't be able to do it. Or if I could, the work wouldn't come out to my standards at all.

Just like a hollywood movie made decades ago and present. With modern technology, high quality CG has become a norm with lots of explosive, aliens, robots etc etc. They sure are an eye candy and fun to watch years ago. Now? We have grown so numb to those effects that we expect it to be the minimum standard. Ultimately what drives a great movie is still the story plot and lines. Although Transformer series visually look great, it will never enter my top movie list. One of my most favourite movie of all time is Forest Gump. Great storytelling and simple cinematography but is very captivating till today and I can keep on watching over and over again. I guess the same goes to wedding. Very soon everyone will be shooting in 4K but ultimately what drives the video is the story and the audio. Just keep every story simple and true to the couple's day and it will be timeless.

So true. So many fancy, blockbuster films bore me to death regardless of how good they look on my HD TV. I still prefer films with a proper storyline.

All comes back to conent. Without the content, your fancy shots of flowers and an empty venue means squat. They are simply B roll. And that's it.

Just don't miss the action on the day! That stuff will always have repeat value when it comes to watching the wedding video in the years to come.

Hi James

I never meant trying to do photos and video solo by any means but as a team with your wife/partner/friend.

My wife handles the ceremony photos while I'm doing video and then for the group photos and couple portraits I do those while she does the venue layouts and also starts an open photobooth for the guests which works very well for us while I'm back on video for the rest of the reception.

I did one combined photo/video shoot at a small wedding and yes, you just cannot do both at the same time and maintain a high standard on either so that would only be suitable for tiny really low budget stuff and even then much too much for one person to handle.

Chris

This is a path we've been talking about lately - offering both photos and videos in a one stop shop.

Yeah, if we could find a DJ service to go in with us, that would be awesome too.

I think brides would welcome that idea of just going to a single vendor to get their media needs covered.

Of course, the hard part with that is, if using independent vendors - getting everyone to coordinate on prices and scheduling.

Just like a hollywood movie made decades ago and present. With modern technology, high quality CG has become a norm with lots of explosive, aliens, robots etc etc. They sure are an eye candy and fun to watch years ago. Now? We have grown so numb to those effects that we expect it to be the minimum standard. Ultimately what drives a great movie is still the story plot and lines. Although Transformer series visually look great, it will never enter my top movie list. .

I really liked the video deconstructing Bayhem - the main criticism being Michael Bay just doesn't understand how to stop with the active dynamic shots and use something smaller and more intimate - simpler, which would provide needed variety and respite. You can't always have it be loud.

I'm sure we all do a smaller version of that - we use dynamic or cool shots a bit, then use the steady. Or break up wide shots with tighter, more intimate ones (or vice versa).

Hi Chris

In that case people are already doing that; providing both services.

I thought you meant juggling the task yourself ... photo AND video on the day! what a nightmare trying to pull that off on your own. If a bride is silly enough to book ONE person to do both, I don't feel sorry for them at all should the photos or video not be up to the standard they would expect.

Anyone who has tried, or continues to produce great 'short form edits' with a storyline to match the visuals will know, not only how difficult this can be within the confines of a wedding scenario, but also the amount of time and energy used whilst putting together all the pieces in a truly magical way that the bride and groom will cherish.

The problem with these edits is that unless you are being paid what you are worth for your work and time you will soon find that you are not making ends meet.

The other problem is, as has been discussed, many couples simply do not wish to pay well for our services, especially here in England.

Many weddings here have little in the way of vocals to enhance the edit. Many times we are left with a poor ceremony in terms of storytelling vocals and even worse speeches laiden with stag do's etc.

I know storytelling is not all about the vocals but it would be foolish to not realise it helps a great deal.

From as long as I can remember, people in the industry have been talking about educating our couples to think differently about what we offer and what we are worth. From my experience couples have seen to a degree how the wedding industry has progressed over the last few years but still wish to hold on to their money or seek a cheaper alternative judging costs by what coverage they may receive rather than quality.

It's all well and good trying to compare our so called wedding films to the likes of hollywood greats with sumptous storytelling but I think we need a reality check here.

Ultimately the films that will stand out are those with a great story to tell (helped by great couples) mixed with beautiful visuals and edited in a fashion that will be coherent even when time shifting is used (not just for the sake of it)

My thoughts!

Very true indeed John.

Too much effort is required trying to tell stories as the edit (as well as the day / speeches) has to be spot on, unlike a long running documentary edit.

It's just not feasible trying to achieve such things.

I think with our miserable grey skys here in the UK unlike certain locations where the sun's always out, you will find many weddings can be very dull (I always seem to find myself filming in the rain). And the documentary wedding videographers that still use HDV camcorders are doing very well. I know of a few actually. As they churn through many weddings and have a quick turn around. No complicated equipment to lug around, no slider shot nonsense or steadicams.

The story tellers struggle to get business in the UK with their high prices (that reflects the amount of effort required in editing and capturing the day in a certain way).

Anyone who has tried, or continues to produce great 'short form edits' with a storyline to match the visuals will know, not only how difficult this can be within the confines of a wedding scenario, but also the amount of time and energy used whilst putting together all the pieces in a truly magical way that the bride and groom will cherish.

I have found that, as long as there are enough quality spoken words from the day (toasts, for example), AND/OR an interview session with the bride and groom, that this kind of narrative/storytelling based film is actually easier (and certainly more rewarding) than trying to make something more or less linear come off well and feel fresh and new. And it's invariably going to be more unique to the project.

I start by laying down the narration (the bits of story and words) and then move to the cutaway shots. I really do find it flows nicely. BUT... it depends on having a wedding of good, usable, interesting spoken words.

Hey James

I do realise that plenty of videographers and incorporating photography already but it does seem to be the way forward in the question "where do we go from here" ... There is only so much you can offer the normal bride and she does have a budget so you have to restrict what you offer a bride proportional to the amount of money she pays you. The major issue with video is that photos still are the primary choice for brides before video is even considered so if we create a photo/video package at least we end up with doing a wedding!

Chris

So now that everyone is employing high end camera moves and getting great production value out of their wedding videos, what on earth is the next thing to stand apart?

Hey James, thinking more about the question, I guess there's at least two questions that you seem to be asking:

1. How to stand out? / How to get a unique selling proposition?
2. What technological advances will future videographers employ?

Re 2, well, there's lots of toys out there that could increase production value or, in general, make your footage very different from what a consumer could get. What's becoming more and more popular are drones, brushless gimbals, FS700 slow motion, and 4K. I don't think Black Magics are used that often at weddings yet, but certainly they add great dynamic range and rich colour.

I'm jealous every time I see another wedding videographer packing a gimbal, which seems to be happening more and more around here (though, frankly, I never see them doing anything with it that I couldn't do with a Merlin Steadicam).

In terms of old gear -- even something like Chris's tripod riser could add a lot of production value to a wedding, though it's not as sexy as the newer toys.

Maybe the next thing is motion control. Remote panning, tilting and rotating heads on jibs have been used in Filipino films for a while. But I think only now is motion control getting a lot more affordable, with gear like Edelkrone target and action modules, similar Kessler units, similar units on Kickstarter, etc.

One toy that caught my eye from NAB, and is way out of my budget is, the Andra follow focus system.

But as for question 1 -- unique selling proposition -- I guess it's quite an open question, and needn't be related to the gear question.

Think of it this way: what's next for photography? Well, maybe nothing! Cameras with more megapixels and better AF tracking.

So how do photographers differentiate themselves from competition? Well, price, packaging, experience, approach, philosophy, style, connections, or just marketing/branding...

So, translating back into video terms, can you position yourself as the go-to guy for gay civil ceremonies, or Asian weddings, or weddings shot at a particular venue, or whatever? Can you chalk up a whole bunch of industry awards? All these more general things potentially differentiate you from your competitors more than buying a Movi.

Hi Adrian

All very true of course but we also mustn't get caught up with the latest and greatest gadgets if the only person it will impress is ourselves and our fellow videographers. You need to concentrate very hard on what will impress the bride (the groom doesn't count) but if you can wow a bride then you are getting somewhere and it can quite easily be something that doesn't require huge amounts of money either.

I proudly told a booked bride last week how I will do her stedicam shoot on the beach with slomo and 360 circles around the couple etc etc and she told me "I'm really not into that kind of romantic stuff it's just cheesy" I'm actually leaving the stedicam in my studio on that shoot as she simply doesn't want that kind of shoot.

We need to look at brides requirements and what they would consider awesome and what would make them choose you over a competitor ... Quite a few brides have told me "I chose you because I love the way you do a live video guestbook" and that is just a single camera on my shoulder and comments from the guests.. no special gear and no special techniques at all. What we think is awesome doesn't mean brides feel the same way!

Chris

Think about how photographers have been differentiating themselves for years. When all said an done, nothing has really changed in the world of photography since we gained the ability to have total control over the albums instead of just sticking pictures in a 'pre-formatted' albums.

So, how do photographers differentiate themselves?

It's a combination of who you are, what you say, how you present yourself, and of course, your show reel with some pretty awesome shots.

Photographers that have mastered both great posing (so it doesn't look posed) and great lighting techniques are the ones who are now standing out. Example: the back lit night scenes with sprayed water that reflects the light make lots of brides go 'wow' and became the signature shots for those photographers.

What will your signature shots be? What will your signature story telling be like?

Building a brand is not about having the latest gear, it's about being something (or multiple things) that catches their eye and makes them want to book 'you' instead of a 'wedding video'.

It's something that all the high value guys have and the budget price guys don't, and 'that' is what commands the price differences, not just the gear they use.

Wow this created some great discussion. Well to clarify, I mean't more along the lines of how many people are all starting to use sliders, jibs, gimbals and other higher end production devices fairly well, which is making it now harder to stand out. There are 3 other video groups in my area who do a wonderful job with these devices. As they become more affordable and people get skilled using them, pretty soon every video will be full of all the camera moves that originally stood out.

The real answer of course is NOT to follow the majority but simply be unique and create a niche market. If you do what everyone does then you have competition that can quite easily do things as well or better than you and you have a huge fight on your hands to stand out from everyone else who, in the bride's eyes, seems to do the exact same thing with exactly the same product making it hard for her to choose so she usually starts to look at pricing to make a choice.

Find something you can do that makes your service unique and no-one else does and voila! you now don't have any competition so as long as it catches the bride's attention and she thinks it's awesome then you have a winner. Having better slider shots than the guy down the road isn't going to lift your head above the majority but a unique feature will.

Chris

Here in Orlando there are a lot of companies adding video to their photography, dj, lighting, venue services. Out of the photographers doing it, I can't say any of them strike me as great. It's moreso, "my camera can film too, so why not?" kind of thing. It really bothers me that people think that they can do everything. With that said, I do photography as well, but I DO NOT get photos from video and I don't do both the same time. If my company is booked for a combo package, I do the filming and have an associate photographer do the photos. Or if they just wanted photos, they can book me to do the photos. I am perfectly capable of both.

But I see trends come and go such as slider shots for entire videos to the whole slow motion photo booth fad, and now the drones are being used a lot. Me personally, I am focused on getting better as a cinematographer and telling better stories with all filmmaking. I don't need gimmicks to get me business, I will let the work speak for itself. However, I do need to book more weddings lol!



Have people really succeeded at creating great films yet? Maybe your area is blessed, but from what I've seen on Vimeo there are a great number of forgettable wedding films that fail to retain the story. People are caught up in time shifting for the sake of it, or are failing to really shine in other ways with obvious faults and a lack of vision either on the shoot or within the edit. Maybe I am too harsh, or expect to always see "high end" that works perfectly, but there just seems a huge gap between a great number of poor to average films, then a huge leap to amazing films?

As a complete amateur, I would expect more from "pros". I should be able to watch films and truly wonder, "How?" As this is not the case in many films, I think people need to learn how to use the higher production gear to enhance the storyline... rather than to hide the basic mistakes, like icing over a flavourless cake. Alternatively, they need to know how to use higher production tools to better the film, whilst also retaining a solid storyline. Either way, the skill of storytelling, capturing great audio and the ability to capture perfectly exposed / well framed / creatively shot footage will prevail in the long run. I can live without a drone.

In ten years, when drones, 8K and other things are common ground at weddings, we'll all still look back at videographers like Ray Roman and consider that a great film is all about light and shadows... whether you're shooting in ISO 400,000 or not, the principles remain.

I completely agree with your assesment. Far too many not telling the story of the day, but rather telling their companies story of how they film weddings.

Goodness, I always get a little bothered by this whole 'story telling' thing.

For starters - stories are chronological. So many of the best aren't doing that. And its for marketing reasons. People need hooked in the first fiv e seconds these days or they are gone. So everyone starts putting photoshoot first. Its manipulative.

I feel that a lot of the big names in the business, and their clients aren't so much telling a story, but are creating a faux finish of an actual event. Its quite distorted and manipulated truth be told.

And why? Because it looks more dramatic, emotional and impressive. Thats what the clients and the cinematographers are going for. It makes them look good to their friends and peers.

But guess what - the actual story of their day involved the beginning stuff happening at the beginning, there were guest who were laughing and chatting, etc etc...

Too many of the 'productions' are in my opinion conceited.

IMO a couple will want to look back in 20 years and watch something that is more like the real event, rather than a movie with tonnes of setup scenes and no sense of reality.

I watched competitors film the other day and was blown away by the filming and the edit - but I really didn't know if it was suitable for a wedding film because it was quite cold and all in slo-mo.

Here is a prime example
Kata & Zsati Wedding Film 12'48" -Masterpiece of 2013- at the Lake Tata, Hungary on Vimeo

Clive, you make some very valid points. I guess every couple has different expectations and that is exactly why it's important to be consistent with your work so couples know what they're getting at the end of the day.

The 'natural' story of a wedding would be a chronological one as you said, however that isn't the only story there is. For example during the speeches multiple stories are told, each representing a unique standpoint of how the film can be different both in terms of actual content (chronology of events) as well as on genre and style (some speeches may be emotional while others can be more lighthearted).

Personally I provide a trailer edit based on speeches or music, and a feature film which follows more of a chronological order. I enjoyed the trailer you've attached visually, although I do feel that the lack of audio takes away from the experience / story being told.

For example during the speeches multiple stories are told

I often have weddings where there are no personal speeches except for the groom saying "thank you all for coming and enjoy your dinner", then there is also a ceremony in church where all texts are provided by the church so there goes your story :) That's why I prefer a more documentary type of approach during the first part of the day so I at least can give some impression how it felt. At the venue it's often just some creative shots and ofcourse the cake and first dance.

For starters - stories are chronological. So many of the best aren't doing that. And its for marketing reasons. People need hooked in the first fiv e seconds these days or they are gone. So everyone starts putting photoshoot first. Its manipulative.



That's absolutely not true. Stories should have a start middle and ending but that doesn't mean they should be chronological. As for the manipulative thing, that's how any story goes. Draw someone in, keep them entertained and end with a bang. Even a chronological retelling of the day is going to be manipulative as you're likely to cut anything unflattering to the couple.

Personally speaking though I wouldn't limit myself to always putting some of the photoshoot first.


But guess what - the actual story of their day involved the beginning stuff happening at the beginning, there were guest who were laughing and chatting, etc etc...


I disagree. That was the running order of their day. But it's not their story or even the story of their day. Rather than thinking of it as a list of "things that happened" you should be thinking of everything as interlinked and how it can be put together to tell a compelling story of not just the day but also of the couple, their friends and their family.


IMO a couple will want to look back in 20 years and watch something that is more like the real event, rather than a movie with tonnes of setup scenes and no sense of reality.


I agree with you on the setup scenes part. For me that's creating the story rather than telling it.

I often have weddings where there are no personal speeches except for the groom saying "thank you all for coming and enjoy your dinner", then there is also a ceremony in church where all texts are provided by the church so there goes your story :) That's why I prefer a more documentary type of approach during the first part of the day so I at least can give some impression how it felt. At the venue it's often just some creative shots and ofcourse the cake and first dance.

I hear you! Most local weddings over here don't do speeches as well so the trailer is more of a 'music video' although I do use the vows as the main storyline. I feel relieved whenever I do destination weddings since their speeches provide countless creative opportunities in terms of narration.

With all these points being said ...

I've come across guys that create magnificent stories and others that just walk around with the camera all day. There is a market for all of those products. Cinematic / documentary and what have you.

But we're all still classed as videographers to any bride. And they either like your style or they don't.

I do agree that stories don't need to start at the beginning ..look at TV dramas ... they suck you in with just part of the climax and then go back to the start. It's a traditional story telling method.

That being said I must admit I don't like the way some videographers jump all over the place with the vows and then jump to speeches and back to prep and back to speeches and unless there is a story itself in the speeches that warrants a flash back to prep then it just confuses the bride totally ...besides most kill all the live audio so only pictures can tell the story yet they seldom do. It might be a wise idea to go onto websites that show you how to write a good story and learn the structures involved. Random video snippets with a music background is not a story at all and certainly won't hold any attention.

Yes James, styles do differ and either can suit a bride. The standard doc from start to finish at least enables the "dumb" video guy to tell a story without knowing it. Creating a story over a shorter span takes a LOT more skill and the guys that master that technique are the ones that brides appreciate the most.

Chris

Yes, sometimes films/tv do start at a later point in the story then show the buildup - but thats totally different. That's in cases where there is some element of unknown or a climax or a twist.

I don't think anyone is going to watch a wedding story that begins with a couple dancing and then want to watch the rest to find out how these people ended up on a dancefloor in front of all these people - its a wedding, we know that already!

I guess I'm just concerned that this 'story telling' phraseology is just marketing. I'm yet to full understand what is meant by people arguing for it.

All i know is when I've finished a good film - if its emotive and contains good clips, my job has been done properly.

Ok yea, you may get something in a speech or personalised vows which is particularly emotive and you may want to overlay that with other video for aesthetic reasons - but I still don't get what is meant by 'story'.

Its an occassion, which you filmed. certain things were said, certain things were filmed - you get to choose the order, but we can't chnage the story of the day.

Am I completely missing the point?

Somebody give me an example - show me a film and tell me the 'story' that that film is supposed to be telling me by the way it was filmed and cut.

I'm willing to learn something here. But I've never been one for marketing spin or duping people with fancy words.

I agree mixing services (photo/.video) but also photo/video booths (slo-mo). Moreso tho, I think livestreaming ceremonies will likely be requested for families out of state & as youths tend to move away & get married elsewhere. Sure their parents will likely come but grandparents/aunts etc might like to watch.

Am I completely missing the point?

Somebody give me an example - show me a film and tell me the 'story' that that film is supposed to be telling me by the way it was filmed and cut.

Here is an interesting article for you to read on the subject: This One's DifferentBecause It's Us | Stillmotion (http://stillmotionblog.com/miffy-mr-bee/)

Its an occassion, which you filmed. certain things were said, certain things were filmed - you get to choose the order, but we can't chnage the story of the day.

Am I completely missing the point?

Somebody give me an example - show me a film and tell me the 'story' that that film is supposed to be telling me by the way it was filmed and cut.


Way I see it, you're not changing the story of the day. You're just altering the way it's told in order to look better visually. This is the same reasoning as a lot of other creative choices that are done both on the day (such as choice of composition) and during post (such as choice of music).

There's absolutely nothing wrong with your methodology though. It's just seeing things from a different perspective, and I'm sure there are plenty of couples who are looking for just that.

Here's an example of one of my recent trailers:

Wedding Trailer: Anna & Michael on Vimeo

I consider this to be quite chronological as shot-wise only the preps are out of place. The ceremony is the central storyline since that's the most crucial moment of the wedding. I've selected parts of speeches made later on after dinner as VO to complement my shots. Sure, it would work well without them, but for the bride to hear her father saying how radiant she looked and how proud he is of her whilst watching shots of them together is much more emotional. The preps shots are linked to the main storyline by having the bride's father waiting for her near the stairs, which then cuts to father walking her down the aisle.

This concept can obviously be expanded in many ways, so if you need more examples look up Ray Roman and Rob Adams.

Here is an interesting article for you to read on the subject: This One's DifferentBecause It's Us | Stillmotion (http://stillmotionblog.com/miffy-mr-bee/)A perfect example of wedding film makers so up their own arses with their Art with a capital 'A' that they have lost sight of what recording the wedding is all about. To quote:-

There are some weddings where we don’t even show the ceremony — if it doesn’t fit in with the best story we can tell, it doesn’t need to be in the film.

A basic problem with a wedding day from a storytelling perspective is that the climax of the story i.e. the ceremony & vows actually takes place chronologically in the middle of the event which is why people will time-shift while editing.

Thank you for putting in words what I have been thinking as well Nigel :D My limited English prevents me from describing it so elegantly.

It's mainly a way to sell yourself, giving the client the idea it's all about themselves while my impression from many clients is that don't want focus that much on themselves but mainly on what happens around them, that's a part they often don't see or it happens so quickly they forget about it, they want the video to help them remember how it feels.

Hi Clive

We all have different views of how to tell a story but some are simply shocking and are just a bunch of randomly chosen clips that fit into a music track.

I thought that the video below really does it well as short as it is as each sequence that follows the previous one makes sense.

Katelyn + Austin on Vimeo


This was on another group I visit done by a lady called Whitney Bohner ... I found it well sequenced and the audio/music was nicely edited too. Due to the settings you need to click the "Watch on Vimeo" button

Chris

Here is an interesting article for you to read on the subject: This One's DifferentBecause It's Us | Stillmotion (http://stillmotionblog.com/miffy-mr-bee/)

Wow Noa, that is interesting. Some wedding film producers take a lot of artistic license. I think maybe that type of film about the couple shouldn't even be called a wedding video at all. It makes me think the producers would really like to make a scripted film with the couple being the leading actors. And if that concept is stretched a little farther, the producers could audition actors to play the part of the couple for the producer's film. Wasn't there a film called " Snow " or something like that produced a few years ago about a Scandanavian couple? That was definitely following a written script.

Other guys, like you and me, provide a service to the couple by making a recording of their special day, and take a minimum of artistic license, while still giving attention to the crafts of good camera work and editing.

OF course, I also shoot corporate, and am gradually getting into more scripting of those. For instance, commercials and infomercials instead of traditional testimonials, speeches, product demos etc. Some of my recent jobs have been working for other production companies on scripted works. Now, I've taken what I've learned and started doing more storyboarding, and helping on screen talent "write their scripts."

But as for weddings, I'll NEVER try to script those. They are "family historical documents." I might be the producer of the "film" and I hate calling it that, but never the director or script writer.

Especially during the ceremony, people should hardly notice that I'm even there.

A perfect example of wedding film makers so up their own arses with their Art with a capital 'A' that they have lost sight of what recording the wedding is all about.

I will defend that work with this idea: sometimes the point isn't the wedding itself, but the couple. If that's the case, then the couple went to the right people for more of a movie about themselves, than about their wedding day. I've got no problem with that. It's really a different service than the one most of us provide.

A smaller difference between most of us is whether we stick to the 'family historical document' or the the highlight style with some time shifting (or a lot), which isn't a historical record, but focuses on emotional impact using story elements and sound tracking.

No big deal. They serve different functions and are for different clients.

I really don't like the 'historical document' style personally, which is why I make our 15 minute highlight films. They appeal to me, so I enjoy the work more.

Hi all, I've been absent for a good many weeks, due to uprooting home and business to a few miles further north, coupled with the busiest Summer we have ever had. We moved on July 18th, hottest day of the year and in that same week, we had four weddings, three with photos and video and four school productions!!!

So this seemed a good thread to come back on:-) Nice to see the same debates continuing on where to head next. Some very good points and arguments made, although I was very interested to see nobody supporting the idea of solo video/photo shoots. The argument against seems to be that you can't actually do either well if you are doing both. I would have to disagree with that, as both Claire and I have filmed and photographed a considerable number of weddings this year. Three of those have already led to recommendations to confirmed bookings next year.

There is no need to compromise on quality if you plan properly and are totally confident with your equipment. It is also vitally important to know exactly what your clients expectations are and to ensure that they see and are totally satisfied with examples of your work. I NEVER take a booking without meeting the clients and showing them examples and NEVER take a booking on a visit. That may be alien to most here, but it ensures that they are completely happy with their choice when they come back to me. It has also given us our most successful year in 30 years.

As regards being different, unique, quirky, individual etc WHY? All of us here have produced or seen other videos that contain similar shots and 'boring' sequences that are repeated year after year, but it is easy to forget that it is only us that see these repeated shots. For the couples and their families, their own wedding video is unique, a capturing of that one special day in their life. As for the artsy and highly technical offerings, yes they are beautifully crafted and probably incredibly satisfying to the producer and their client, as well as being much admired by their peers. However, that end of the market probably caters for a tiny percentage of the wedding video total and as we know, video generally accounts for 10% max of the wedding market.

I worked with a separate photographer a couple of months back, who was very expensive and did none of the basic stills that I would have taken, such as rings with the bouquet, kiss in the back of the car and many other cheesy repetitive shots. He maintained that they were old fashioned and outdated. I took some off my own back to use in the end credits and was interested to find when I delivered the video, that the couple were really disappointed that the photographer hadn't got similar shots and were over the moon to see mine. That was a totally unsolicited response, but one that should be a warning to ensure that what you do is what the couple want.

We all have our own way of working and mine with video, is to capture the couple's day without shaping it or intruding on it in any way. To do that, I need to have a lightweight setup that enables me to move quickly while retaining stability and be unobtrusive. That applies to my video and photography, without heavy and time consuming ancillary equipment. The story is already there, it starts in the morning and finishes in the evening. I don't need to restructure or add emotion, I just need to be totally tuned in to what is actually happening.

Finally, I attended my biggest wedding show of the year last weekend and there were three video companies and 10 photographers. All the video companies offered photography and two of the photographers also offered low level video clips. So the photographers have so much competition that they want to add video and the videographers have a tiny percentage of the market so they also offer photography - Interesting!!

Roger

Is the (occasionally unneeded) demand for 4K lurking around the corner? Or do you feel that's just kinda a marketing thing that really won't ever take over or be needed, like 3D?

Is the (occasionally unneeded) demand for 4K lurking around the corner? Or do you feel that's just kinda a marketing thing that really won't ever take over or be needed, like 3D?

I've already filmed a Wedding, where due to budget reasons, the couple didn't hire a Photographer. I shot a Marryoke, the days filming all at 4K and provided hq stills from the day as a photoalbum. Similarly in churches where the Photographer has been banished to the back of the church and I'm allowed up front, I shoot 4K and provide stills, which have been very much appreciated. So yes there's a market out there for 4K to produce video and photo, if you pitch it right.

The last few weddings I have had guests coming over to me asking, "is that a 4K camera?" (my ax100 has a big 4k logo on the side) I never had anyone come to me asking if I shoot HD so it seems people are aware about the new technology but each time they ask me, "whats the advantage?"

I tell them it will be more detailed on a regular HD screen but that they need a big 4K screen to see the real benefit.

I see the first 4K tv hit the stores below 1K but they are only 40 inch in size, tv's between 49 and 85 inch go from 1800 dollar up 13000 dollar. Only when these 4K screen price drops to a level of what you today would pay for a HD screen it will enter households much faster then you would expect but as long as it's twice the price or more for 49+ inch screens regular HD screens will be prefered by many.

Whether it is needed is another question, not for the client right now but for us videographers it certainly is, I have experience major benefits from shooting 4K.

The last few weddings I have had guests coming over to me asking, "is that a 4K camera?" (my ax100 has a big 4k logo on the side) I never had anyone come to me asking if I shoot HD so it seems people are aware about the new technology but each time they ask me, "whats the advantage?"

I tell them it will be more detailed on a regular HD screen but that they need a big 4K screen to see the real benefit.

I see the first 4K tv hit the stores below 1K but they are only 40 inch in size, tv's between 49 and 85 inch go from 1800 dollar up 13000 dollar. Only when these 4K screen price drops to a level of what you today would pay for a HD screen it will enter households much faster then you would expect but as long as it's twice the price or more for 49+ inch screens regular HD screens will be prefered by many.

Whether it is needed is another question, not for the client right now but for us videographers it certainly is, I have experience major benefits from shooting 4K.

Definitely agree with you Noa.

My main issue with 4K for the masses is that the regular broadcasting channels in the UK, such as BBC, STILL DON'T supply all of their programmes in HD, which shows how far behind the major broadcasting channels can be/currently are.

Therefore, it's going to be like 3D at first (but progress much further afterwards): the only time users will truly benefit from 4K will be when they are watching a movie.

Either way, the prices are dropping significantly and soon they'll be plenty affordable.

Hey Roger I'd been wondering where you'd got to. Thanks for clearing that up :- ) And for stating that men can indeed multi-task!

Pete

Hi Pete, nice to be back having got some of the backlog cleared up :-)

I find doing photography and video solo, as quite liberating, with total control over timing positioning and all the other things that are a compromise when working with a separate photographer. It's even easier when working with my wife as we simply share both tasks, but we also both love working solo.

Roger

Is the (occasionally unneeded) demand for 4K lurking around the corner? Or do you feel that's just kinda a marketing thing that really won't ever take over or be needed, like 3D?

I've heard a lot of speculation both ways. Who knows?

But, just to state the obvious, I hope it's not round the corner. Most of the 4K advantages (cropping, stabilisation, sharper output) seem to be when you're delivering an HD product.

So, if consumers widely adopt 4K, then we'd need to be looking to 5K, 6K, 8K...

Hi Roger

I actually asked in another thread where you had been nut have seen the answer now. You were moving!

Now you were actually the prime instigator in making me add stills to my packages and yes it's quite practical to do it solo but admitted it's a little tough doing it totally solo in some events like when the limo arrives you need to put down the video camera after the car comes to a stop and jump inside and do some stills of dad and the bride ... a bit tricky but not a huge issue. Lets face it 99% of the still WILL be when you are not shooting video anyway! After the ceremony and guest congratulations I can kick into stills mode and do the group and couple shots. I have done complete photo/video all on my own with not problems and brides seem to love "all in one" deals!

I do have my wife assisting with stills now too mainly to cover stills while I'm busy with video so, because I don't need her during the group pics, we also now offer a simple open photobooth that she runs for the guests in the reception venue which adds more value to a package and keeps her busy while I'm doing groups and the couple.

I wonder how far the "all in one" package will evolve to ??? We already have a DJ/video/photo guy here but I'm not partial to working until midnight so that's not an option for me

Chris

I wonder how far the "all in one" package will evolve to ??? We already have a DJ/video/photo guy here but I'm not partial to working until midnight so that's not an option for me

I'd have to be insane to do DJ, Video AND photos. Though, we (my wife and I) did just do DJ and photo booth. Next week is DJ and Video.

Not sure if 4K will ever be standard, like HD is, though probably in a few years. I'd guess anyone who wants to can hold out for 3-5 years without too much trouble.

Mostly, I'd agree that shooting 4K seems like it would be handy for digital zooming, or if you want to replace the photog :)

Hi Chris, I just replied on the other thread and here you are :-) Most here seem to feel that joint photography/video packages are not getting the best from either, but I find that it gives a great balance unless you are wanting to carry out lavish video shoots with lots of equipment set up time and staged shots.

In my own personal experience, the vast majority of weddings require good honest photography with some romantic shots, and full video coverage that isn't intrusive. High end high cost video and photography work is certainly out there, but much more expensive to promote and operate, with a far smaller market. Many of the 90% that don't have a video are using friends to take amateur clips and even photography. This is usually down to cost as most families do not have extra money for what they see as expensive luxuries, even at a wedding. What I have found is that combining the traditional role of photographer with the less popular video, is a lower cost option for a couple and much easier to sell.

You could argue that doing both is taking work away from other professionals. I would totally disagree, as it is a dog eat dog world and other professionals can do the same thing if they feel threatened. We all need to earn a living, and for different people that means differing income requirements. The wedding market is constantly changing and joint packages is just another alternative for couples to consider.

Roger

Thanks Roger

Hope things are getting back to normal and you are settling in. We moved last November which is also one of our busiest months. Silly move!!

I would think trying to do high end video and high end photo wouldn't work but we deal with the budget bride who's father isn't a Saudi prince so it really works for us. We also shoot our video in documentary style and do traditional photos rather than super creative stuff and bride's love it. I love it too as I'm working with a photog that is aware of the cameras and doesn't get in the way. It's a win-win for us too!

Chris