A few years ago I tried the route of getting an assistant for both video and photography so we could share duties. I have no idea what they teach students at media courses but my last lady had a 5 year Uni course PLUS a few years as a media teacher so technically she was ideal. I sent her off to do bridal prep on video plus take a few simple groups of the guys on stills!!

Absolutely hopeless!! Even the most basic videographer would know NOT to film guys in a dark room standing against a huge sun filled picture window. The stills were just as morbid ..she stood them against a wall and shot with direct flash. After that I gave up and coaxed my wife into doing weddings ..after a while she really started to enjoy them (better than sitting alone at home while hubby is at a wedding) and her idea of an open photobooth with props is a hit with the brides too.

So Steve, you either shoot alone OR we find you a wife ..that's about the size of it. I'm sure Roger would be glad to shoot your wedding too!!

I do think though that 4k and 8k is going to be the final turning point, where any of the thousands of video frames may be used as a still while maintaining high quality.

It will be a lot easier to pull high quality frames but I"m sure this will never be of any threat to a higher end photographer, video and photo require a totally different approach. You could just shoot video, extract stills from that and sell it as a separate photo package but you will be serving a group that doesn't have so high expectations, that have a small budget but that are happy with some simple photo's which is fine if that is what you are aiming for. Photography is more then resolution only.

"Good looking virile videographer seeks a female with a good camera and lot's of talent for marriage and business partnership. Photo of yourself isn't necessary but a photo and specs on the camera is essential as well as an extensive portfolio of your work"

Might as well go for broke and get a REALLY talented lass.

Chris

It's so tempting to run that ad; it's such a totally bonkers idea that it could actually work. You hear all sorts of weird stories at Weddings at how people meet.


I think that given the skill to shoot good stills or video separately is not just a matter of taking both lots of equipment along, it is about rethinking your whole set up and working methods. It is not difficult if you have both skills but you need to practice and be very confident before taking on a dual assignment, and as I said, certainly not for everyone.

Roger

You also have to be emotionally invested in both professions and not just offer it to compete. I'm just not feeling the love for Photography as I do Videography. I did Photo/Video for a Corporate job yesterday and I'm not as happy when I'm shooting Photos as I am doing Video. Odd as I was a passionate Photographer 12 years ago.


So Steve, you either shoot alone OR we find you a wife ..that's about the size of it. I'm sure Roger would be glad to shoot your wedding too!!

I'll keep you posted. :)

Hey Steve

The ad is an age old joke I adapted about a farmer who advertised for a wife with a tractor and said, please send picture of the tractor. Then again who knows? You might end up with a stunning blonde, and with all the gear and the talent. Maybe there IS someone out there thinking "I wish I could meet a nice video guy" .... Let's face it, shooting weddings is very anti-social for girlfriends or wives as they get stuck at home every weekend BUT find an avid photog with good looks and you are made!!

Funny I was a photog too for nearly 15 years (all film and 6x7 format mainly) and when video became practical I moved to the medium as I always had a burning desire to make movies...it's so much more than taking boring stills!!! To have a photog that I take with me is the answer.

Honestly, although I have done both I never liked it as it's simply too much trying to switch mindsets and do both!

OK, run the ad and let us know what happens ?? Seriously, If I was single and put an ad on a dating site I would certainly mention the photo side, working together etc etc rather than sitting at home being the equivalent of a golf widow. You never know!

Steve - I suppose because I only offered the add on photography package comparatively recently, I can get emotionally involved in the stills aswell as it is something I love exploring. I still really enjoy the video, but after over 2000 weddings, it's great to add the excitement of photography with the closer interaction with those at the wedding.

Noa- I certainly wouldn't expect a videographer moving into 4k or 8k to just continue to work with his video head on and just lift stills from the video as a duel package. But there is absolutely no reason why the romantic poses that I would normally expect to take with a still camera, couldn't be taken by a 4k/8k video camera, without the faff of separate cameras and lenses. You would also be able to switch instantly from a nice pose to an establishing shot, or a pull back from a closeup to show more of the scene, movement etc. It needs a different approach as I said earlier, but certainly achievable.

I have lost count of the number of stills I have been asked to lift from HD video when the photographer failed to get a shot and I had not been thinking stills at all. There are a lot of crossovers in framing and shooting stills and video and it wouldn't take a lot more to be more specific about the stills to lift, providing you are competent at knowing how to pose people and frame for stills.

roger

Hi Leon

The only reason we do dual packages is that brides always book the photog first so we get looked at earlier which means there is a better chance of being booked and secondly we always know we have our own photog at the venue not some arrogant guy who thinks the entire wedding shoot is about him!!

Chris

You know what! I said to myself last week that I will start pushing photography and videography packages more because what you just said is true. Just to think, two weeks ago, I was debating dropping photography all together.



I have yet to see a trailer from someone that does both by themselves that captures the raw emotion from throughout the day in a compelling way, that's just not possible when you need to do both simultaneously, there often will be moments where you will be forced to choose to either take a picture or shoot video from a unexpected moment that won't repeat itself and which can make the difference in getting that killer photo or videorecording. It always will be a compromise, ofcourse it is possible but it will never be of the same standard compared to someone that dedicated his time to one thing only. I think this much we should be able to agree upon.

I haven't looked that far for those that do both solo, but I would lean towards your opinion on the matter.

Hi Leon

I would say that pretty much 90% of my enquiries are for the dual package now so brides do like the idea. I think I did a grand total of 2 dual shoots on my own and they are VERY hard to do. It's tough having a video camera on a tripod, one on your shoulder and 2 DSLR's around your waste during the ceremony and still try to get video cutaways and stills that are half decent.. Even if you just have an assistant at the ceremony it helps as you cannot do both and capture the emotion. The photoshoot is easy to do solo as I do a stedicam shoot on video and all the rest is photography but with my wife, she takes the rest of the bridal party to one side and does shots with them while I'm doing the video shoot. I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to try to do both on their own!!

Chris

I certainly also wouldn't advise anyone to take on video and photos solo unless they are very competent at both disciplines and are geared up equipment wise to work solo. It is not a simply a matter of taking both lots of equipment with you.

As regards Noa's comment about it not being possible for anyone to offer a joint package to the standard of someone who is totally dedicated to one discipline. I would have to completely disagree as I have seen work from dedicated videographers and photographers that I would be embarrassed to put my name to. There are certainly those in both disciplines whose work I would not try to compete with however I worked, but that is as much about not liking their style and methodology as anything. What I do, I do well and clients are very happy with my work after comparing with other offerings. I also don't do trailers and would never post a video on the forum as I am not interested in what other professionals think of my work, or in having my ego massaged, they don't pay my bills. only clients and potential clients do that

Trying to compare one style with another is a pointless excercise as the only thing that matters is what your client wants, whether you can provide it and whether they can afford it. Opinions on this forum are interesting and sometimes entertaining, but in the real world the only thing that matters is whether the work is coming in, and after 30 years of weddings I'm very happy still :-)

Roger

As regards Noa's comment about it not being possible for anyone to offer a joint package to the standard of someone who is totally dedicated to one discipline. I would have to completely disagree as I have seen work from dedicated videographers and photographers that I would be embarrassed to put my name to.

Those I would like to see, do you have a link? (or even pm them to me if you don't want those other videographers site appear publicly) I also think that showing your work is not about having your ego massaged, I mean how else do you present your work to your clients if you don't share anything?

Sorry, ignore my previous message as I misunderstood the first part, it is this part I am referring to:

There are certainly those in both disciplines whose work I would not try to compete with


So if that person would be the hired photographer at a wedding where you would be as well as videographer, would that mean that if he would send you home and take on your job as well on his own, he still would be doing a better job then you, how can one person doing 2 disciplines at the same time be any good or even better then someone who is dedicated to one job only?

Hi Noa

There seems to be some confusion here? Roger shoots video and Claire shoots stills. We do the same thing except during the stills photoshoot ,after I have finished my stedicam shoot I grab the second stills camera and help out a bit so I act as the assistant photog ... That's the only time we both do stills as I see it being pointless me sitting on my butt while she takes the stills.

With our weddings there is no time ever where either one of us is trying to shoot stills and video at the same time. I have a dedicated photographer and I'm a dedicated videographer ..I simply help out during the photoshoot and take some stills that might be used in her final batch or might not

That is a huge difference compared to a solo guy trying to do both

Chris

I was under the impression we where talking about one person doing video and photo simultaneously, was that not the case Roger? When you work as a man/wife team that's completely different, in that case you have one person dedicated to each job.

There is lots of confusion going on here.

Noa, you have turned upside down my point on the dual package and the abilities of some photographers. There are photographers that use a lot of very sophisticated equipment above the level of most wedding photographers that I have worked with over the years. That may include assistants with various reflectors and lighting, indoor setups with studio facilities, collections of cameras and lenses beyond the norm, various assistants etc. They would also use props and poses beyond those used at most weddings. I wouldn't attempt to compete with that type of photography, neither would I want to do that sort of photography. It is what I would call top end and top price. Most photographers that I do and have worked with, would have no idea about shooting video so wouldn't be able to match my video whether they did it with or without photography! The same applies with top end video with multi operators, cranes, jibs, rails etc, not my thing I am afraid and not what I want to do or compete with. If I was shooting video using that type of setup, I wouldn't have time to do the stills, but the very quick and mobile way that I work and the setup of my equipment enables me to do both efficiently. Perhaps someone can suggest a typical wedding scenario that I would struggle to cover properly.

I produce to a level that I would expect to see from typical UK mid priced ordinary video and photography producers- competent video and photographic coverage. No matter how many ways you try to justify that I cannot possibly match the typical offerings of videographers and photographers, it is my clients that are the judge of what I offer and they are able to compare and make their own choice.

I can't give you any links to poor video and photos, and wouldn't if I could as it would not be ethical, but I see both at some wedding shows. I am not interested in spending my time looking at other people's sites, although I did see one a couple of months ago that showed horrendous video as a demo. I don't show any video on my site, I only show directly to clients at shows and on personal visits, showing complete videos rather than put together demos.

Chris I shoot dual packages both solo and with Claire, she also does the same. When we work together sometimes we swap video and photos, sometimes we concentrate on one and sometimes, Claire shoots video and stills at the bride's preps, while I am shooting both with the guys. It depends on the day and the circumstances, but if we only have one wedding booked, we both attend.

Roger

What is happening here is that most that think it is impossible to do both well, are looking at how they normally work with video, then imagining trying to also do what the photographer does. There is also a lot of comparison with top end videographers and photographers, which is not what I am talking about.

Working solo or with Claire, we are in total control of what we are doing and how we fit into the day. There is no fitting around the photographer, no competing for space and no trying to get a decent shot while he is working with his group or romantic shots. We can set up romantic and group shots when we are ready and take whatever time is necessary within the overall wedding schedule to fit in all the casual and formal shots, scene setting etc. Even during the groups, while people are getting in position, I am busy shooting what is going on around while I am waiting. The pace of the day within the fixed times of ceremony, meal, speeches etc is totally controlled by us.

When the couple exit the ceremony when a separate photographer is present, he will normally move quickly into getting group shots, making it a rush to pack up equipment without missing video footage. With the joint package, that is just one of the typical problems that is removed along with others too numerous to list. There is a lot to do for sure, but for me, I find it far less stressful than working with a photographer.

Roger

I always work solo doing video only but I know my work is also a compromise in certain situations, I am able to deliver a decent product but I am very much aware I would be able to deliver a better product if I would have a dedicated second shooter with equal experience. If I would have to do video and photo combined by myself that would be a even bigger compromise in both areas, you can find a good balance but it would never be as good as having more dedicated persons, that's all I"m trying to say. I never will say I can do an equally good job as a team with 2 or 3 experienced people by myself, I just can't.

Roger, I don't doubt you do both very well, but I think you're buttering your arguments a little too much. I do both a Wedding Video and Marryoke as a sole operator and have an inkling of the issues involved in balancing 2 things. Now I'm very proud of those days where I've pulled off both, but there are some days better than others. It really falls down to the things in the day that even the Photographer can't control. A Bride being late to the church, sometimes very late, stubborn caterers refusing to delay meals to accommodate, transport problems like the coach taking the guests from the Church to the Reception, dinner taking longer to serve, over-long Speeches, key guests disappearing when it's their turn to be photographed. Well perhaps the last one doesn't affect me, unless they've disappeared because they're being filmed for my Marryoke, in which case I make a quick exit to the loo.

But these issues I speak of, are hardly rare, or at least not in my case, maybe your experiences are different. Weddings never go according to plan and some go so far out of plan, it's all we can do just to keep up. I've seen toastmasters set a good pace for a day; I've met few Photographers who've kept the day moving, they're more interested in getting their shots. I think it's the moments where the day does go to pot that the compromise of offering 2 would show. It's certainly where it can show in my work when I do both Marryoke and Wedding Video. Do the clients notice, no of course not. I work too hard on the day and in the editing suite to let that happen, but it's there all the same, only noticeable to me as the Bride never ever sees what might have been.

Does it bother me that my Wedding Video is slightly compromised as a result of doing a Marryoke as well? Not really. It's business first, creative second. If there's such a thing as a hell and damnation for Wedding Videographers, perhaps I'll be judged harshly and confined with all those Photographers offering a Video add on service. On the other hand, my Bank Manager hasn't had need to call me in as of late, and he's much more frightening than anything the afterlife can conjure.

Steve, your last line sums it up well :-) last year was my best for 30 years and I am now getting confirmed bookings through 2016/17/18 which I have never experienced before. I have just returned from a video viewing tonight which turned into a booking. I was there for 90 minutes at their request and they had viewed 9 other video companies without finding what they wanted.

I won't bother to go into why the others all missed out because it will just cover old ground again, but suffice it to say it wasn't the cost. I'm very happy with our product and if clients continue to feel the same I will remain a very happy man :-)

I find it interesting that you are able to manage a Marryoke on the wedding day, because I would find putting the time into that impossible without severely compromising my video. Maybe your abilities enable you to do that successfully without noticeable compromise to the video, just as my duel package does with me.

Roger

I find it interesting that you are able to manage a Marryoke on the wedding day, because I would find putting the time into that impossible without severely compromising my video. Maybe your abilities enable you to do that successfully without noticeable compromise to the video, just as my duel package does with me.

Roger

Doing both can compromise both, if you have a Wedding that doesn't give you room to breath. I've got one this Saturday. I'm not sure which side this one will fall into; it's hard to tell. Timetables not as good as I'd like. If the Bride is late to church, the Photo Session video coverage takes a knocking. A few less beauty shots of guests drinking their drinks, chatting and having their photos taken. It's flavour shots, mostly to give the Bride and Groom shots of Guests who'll have starring roles in a music video anyway. You lose a few nuances, but maintain the substance. Personally I prefer doing just the Video, but it's market to be tapped and I do it well so I've been told. On the one hand it's an insult to my creative side that hates those sort of videos, on the other hand it's given me the best laughs when filming and pushes me out of my comfort zone.

Thing is, if people say either my video or Marryoke are compromised when I'm doing both, I say yes, but filming Weddings alone are themselves compromised; it's just a question of degrees. As long as I have some Weddings where I can give it my all, I'm happy. Besides if people are willing to pay me to compromise my work by juggling 2, I'm not going to say no.

Hey Steve

Just for interest at what stage of the wedding do you shoot the MarryOke?? I'd love to do one but I cannot see a slot where it would work ...with someone else doing the photos I doubt whether I would find any time as photogs seem to want all the spare time for photos. I could do one maybe at a photo venue as long as wifey is doing the stills.

Chris

Just for interest at what stage of the wedding do you shoot the MarryOke??
Chris

There's a sweet spot between the Speeches and the First Dance; obviously different countries may not adhere to this and some of my Weddings have this at a reduced time. Here the room for the Wedding Breakfast has to be turned around for the Evening Party, with the DJ setting up his equipment. The Guests mingle. Rarely any photo sessions. If I get 45 minutes for this, I've got a good chance as long as I have a guest on tap for help (prearranged). They can round up some guests and tell me who I should and shouldn't go to.

However the Photo sessions aren't a waste too. Not all guests are having their photos done and then during the Bride and Groom formals, I've got say 15 minutes of the Guests all to myself. I run it like Guest Messages, go up and ask Guests for lines; later when they're drunk I just play the song and grab snatches of their dancing and miming. Then have it played on the dance floor and get the DJ to grab as many Guests as possible to come up, which fills in the gaps. If the latter doesn't cover it all or the dance footage of them all dancing to the song is crap, I just plug it with random dance footage from the evening and shots during the day. Results are wide ranging, as its down to the Guests how entertaining the final video is, but you work with what you have.
There was one I did that I hated, as filming went badly; then I return to the venue I had filmed it at and the staff there are saying how they saw it and thought it excellent. So there's room for margin with quality in results.

That's really neat Steve ..do they have music to sing the lines to or do you let me do it blind and hope they keep roughly in time. We did one at our home Christmas Party a year ago and getting people to actually sing to the music was a nightmare so I could imagine how hard it would be to go to a bunch of half drunk guys and tell them ..sing these lines for me!

I really think you are a star for doing yours so well ..this took us ages to do and do over!

Merry Christmas from Perth - YouTube

Thing is, if people say either my video or Marryoke are compromised when I'm doing both, I say yes, but filming Weddings alone are themselves compromised; it's just a question of degrees.

This is a very often forgotten point, whether you are filming video only, combined package or working with many assistants, you can never capture everything that happens at a wedding unless you have a camera person on everyone there. It's all a balance of influencing the flow where you can, maximising quieter moments to your advantage and keeping your eyes open. You could have ten camera operators and something can happen that none of them catch.

There are always the obvious points of the day that have to be captured at all costs, but even if you miss some of the other things that happen you will still get more than the couple see, so it's lose some gain some no matter how you work.

Roger

do they have music to sing the lines to or do you let me do it blind and hope they keep roughly in time.

Bit of both really. I use music to grab longer sections when I get a group of 4 to sing along to the chorus. If you get enough groups doing the same, you can mix between them in the edit. Tried the yt vid, but blocked in the UK on copyright grounds. Shame.


There are always the obvious points of the day that have to be captured at all costs, but even if you miss some of the other things that happen you will still get more than the couple see, so it's lose some gain some no matter how you work.
Roger

I think the nub of peoples arguments here are that in providing as full a coverage as possible for a Wedding Video, a 2 person team will have greater advantage over a single shooter, just as a single shooter will have an advantage over a joint Photo/Video operator. That doesn't mean an automatic down slide in quality. If 2 guys, new to Weddings, end up covering one, the disadvantage of their lack of experience will more than out-way their advantage of being a 2 man team. Obviously this same principle works from solo to joint Photo/Video. However the advantage is still there for a proficient 2 man team to capitalise on and produce work that stands a better chance of exceeding mine as a single shooter. That doesn't mean I'm delivering a bad product, just one with an added restriction.

Frankly, unless we all compare videos, what is and isn't a compromise in our work becomes a theoretical exercise and probably one that's been debated enough. Your only problem Roger is you've now got 2 Professions judging you on your work. There's something I like to call Creative snobbery amongst Photo and Video Professionals. Even I'm not immune to this. The fact you do both will be held against you by some Videographers and Photographers too regardless of quality, simply to make their own work seem better in their own eyes. You'll need a thick skin.

Your only problem Roger is you've now got 2 Professions judging you on your work. There's something I like to call Creative snobbery amongst Photo and Video Professionals. Even I'm not immune to this. The fact you do both will be held against you by some Videographers and Photographers too regardless of quality, simply to make their own work seem better in their own eyes. You'll need a thick skin.

Surely though Steve that is the point, I'm not being judged by these two professions, only by my client. What other professionals may or may not think of my work is of no real interest to me, as my potential clients have the chance to compare my work with other professionals at every wedding show I do, before they make their choice.

Just coming back to your observations about solo combined packages as against solo video only or video with more than one camera person. I have never subscribed to the view that more is better as I have never had a problem getting the money shots on my own. I do agree that more than one person lightens the work load and gives a backup if there are unforeseen camera problems, but preparation and experience reduces the risks and makes you adaptable and able to react instantly to the unforeseen.

I do find that many of the multi camera person shoots that I have seen, seem to use the other shooters for different angles or positions during the ceremony, speeches, dances etc, but for the rest of the day just seem to cover general action shots that really can be covered by one person who knows exactly what they want. Unless they are working to a carefully pre planned shot list, they end up covering virtually the same things.

Different angles, camera positioning etc can be covered with judiciously placed locked cameras in most instances and in my case I also have two video cameras on my main manned tripod. That enables me to capture different framing and subjects at the same time, while concentrating on my main camera and regularly changing the shot on the tripod B cam. It is not something that I would suggest everyone should try, but I am very used to working that way and can easily also add a stills camera to the mix. A number of videographers seem to work with frame mounted DSLR cameras, which would make using a stills camera at the same time extremely difficult if not impossible, which is why I have been at pains to say that is essential to work in a totally different way for the dual package. You can't work in a double mode, it is a single mode geared totally to a dual product.

I have found the input on this thread very interesting, at times dismissive and others constructive, but always interesting :-) Whilst on interesting, I have worked with one photographer on many occasions over the last 12 years and have watched him progress through always having a second camera person, to working on his own with a variety of full frame DSLRs and interchangeable lenses. I worked with him a couple of times recently and he now takes virtually all his photos with a small high quality bridge camera. He still carries a Full frame with him, but says it is more for image now than use. He feels that he has much more flexibility on shots and can work far more quickly and efficiently than he ever has before. That is my philosophy also, small, light and very mobile. The quality of his work is very high and I have booked him for my daughter's wedding next year, over the many other very good photographers that I have worked with.

Ways of working are constantly changing and will continue to do so as fashion and technology moves on, for videographers, photographers and clients and this will inevitably lead to more combined packages in my opinion. Hopefully also to video having a higher profile with couples and an increasing percentage of weddings. Just as in dedicated packages, there will be good and not so good, but the client will be the final decider in what they want.

Roger

Hey Roger

That's it in a nutshell really! If the bride loves what you do then that is all that matters...If you are shooting video with one hand and stills with the other or doing the video just with two GoPropros then so what?

If the client is happy then I couldn't care less what self professed video/photog professionals think ... I'm getting good jobs with great couples and I'm happy with the end result.

We spend far too much time looking at perfection from a technical point of view that brides cannot even see. That is one of the reasons why I never post clips here for comment. (I think you have the same attitude too)

I just know that we now get a heap more enquiries and bookings because we offer video/photo packages and we are running a business so better sales means that we doing something right even if we are breaking technical rules by doing something ourselves that should be done individually.

Roger, I still think there's an advantage in having a 2nd guy, not important for all Weddings, but some. I use multi cameras as you do, 3-4 Cameras, one camera on top of the other, different angles - Ceremony, Speeches, 1st Dance plus other parts of the day too if I can. I make the most of my equipment to ensure the disadvantage of being 1 guy is minimal. Yet I can't be in 2 places at once. Can't be at the church filming the Groom and the Guests and also at the Bride's House filming her Dad's first look at his daughter in her dress, can't be with the couple at their romantic photo session at some ruined abbey and also at the venue filming the Guests arrival. I do have to sometimes ask the couple what focus they'd like between the church and the venue - their perspective or the guests perspective, and I'll get different replies and priorities from each.

As I say, it's not an issue at every Wedding and multi cameras can achieve a lot, but they can't tell a Guest to get out of the way if they stand in front of it (oh how I wish I could add that), nor move back into position if knocked. Nor change camera angle mid way, if perhaps the initial setup proves less ideal. A 2nd guy is a resource as useful as an extra bit of kit; who complains or says they could never benefit from an extra resource. It still makes it an advantage over a single shooter. Less so as the day goes on, which is no doubt why some 2nd Photographers naff off after the formals.

Hi Steve, no need to disagree with your points about a second shooter as what you say is quite right on many instances. You could of course make a good case for a third shooter and a sound engineer, but we are talking weddings not film productions, so we have to draw the line somewhere re cost and convenience. I don't disagree with anybody using a second shooter, as I frequently do myself when Claire doesn't have her own wedding to shoot.

There are always odd times when something may be missed the less people are involved, but if it is not something that the couple would notice or worry about, then neither would I. The example you mention of the B&G having romantic shots at an Abbey while the guests are off to the reception is one where I would plan very carefully if I was doing a solo dual package. I work quickly on those kind of shoots and I know from experience, as I am sure you do, that the guests take for ever to get from church to venue, so there would be very little missed. I would also get the couple arriving at the venue with the guests greeting them, so swings and roundabouts really.

There is room for every type of offering but the client is King, or in this case Queen.

Roger

I think the argument diminishes when you start talking third shooter and sound engineer. A 2nd shooter has a strong case for Bridal and Groom Preps and the couple photo shoot and guests arrivals. I sometimes wish I could be in 2 places at once, never felt the need to be in 3. As for sound engineer, that's a whole other level of Wedding Video. But for my level, what I shoot and deliver, a 2nd guy would have been useful in some cases. Anyway if we're talking advantages here, I'd say you and your wife working a Wedding together will potentially achieve better things than I working alone with an uncooperative Photographer spoiling my shots.

Good morning Chris.

Yes my attitude to posting clips is the same as yours, it is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. To me the forum is great for exchanging ideas and solving problems! but having my work criticised or admired by fellow professionals has no bearing on what my clients think.

I totally agree that it is easy to get obsessed with technical and artistic perfection, whilst losing focus on what the bride really wants. I mentioned in an earlier post that a couple that I visited a few day ago had seen nine other video companies before booking me. They and the parents, told me that I was the only company they had found on line and at wedding shows that offered a whole day documentary! I was amazed to hear that, and asked them what other people were offering. They said that all the companies they had seen or spoken to were offering short form recordings, with the longest being 45 minutes. The majority were 4-15 minutes with two companies offering unedited ceremony and speeches for an extra price. They said that most were nicely done with highlights set to music and some seemed to be in a jumbled order. Dad said that they were like film trailers, leaving him wanting to see the full event.

I explained that the highlights style of video was a different product that was very popular with new companies and photographers moving into video. Their own worrying conclusion was that if they hadn't seen me, they would have assumed that all wedding videos were like that. I do feel that it is easy to follow fashion, admire other people's work and force a market that was not previously there, while ignoring an established existing market. Developing new ideas is great, as with the dual package, but ignoring what many people want when we already have a very small percentage of the market, strikes me as risky.

Roger

Roger, your post to Chris has brightened my day. I confess to being worried the impact Photographers offering Video would have on my Business and how I could respond to that. It only occurred to me in reading your conversation with that couple that the answer is to market more strongly my service as a full length documentary video. I tend to just say Wedding Video, forgetting the term covers a broad range and therefore has the potential to be misinterpreted as something much shorter. In brochures, online and ads, I need to make a point of saying what type of video they're getting.

I think the argument diminishes when you start talking third shooter and sound engineer. A 2nd shooter has a strong case for Bridal and Groom Preps and the couple photo shoot and guests arrivals. I sometimes wish I could be in 2 places at once, never felt the need to be in 3. As for sound engineer, that's a whole other level of Wedding Video. But for my level, what I shoot and deliver, a 2nd guy would have been useful in some cases. Anyway if we're talking advantages here, I'd say you and your wife working a Wedding together will potentially achieve better things than I working alone with an uncooperative Photographer spoiling my shots.

I love working with Claire as she has the same sort of eye that I do and we know exactly what each of the other's requirements are. Claire always does the preps, because the rapport between her and a group of girls is something that I could never get close to. She has been very interested in this particular thread, as she also does the dual package solo, and one of the things that she has pointed out is that although she also really enjoys us working together, we very often get almost identical shots of things. While I am filming the Bride, she is filming guests, then a few minutes later I end up taking similar footage of the same guests. We discard a lot of duplicated footage on a two person shoot and practically nothing on a solo one.

That doesn't mean that I think a second shooter is pointless, but I do think it has limited advantages, particularly if you are having to charge more for the extra person. That of course is the advantage of having your wife involved in the business, she sees it as a social day out as much as it is work and of course the chance to be around dresses, shoes, hats, jewellery ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

Roger

Roger, your post to Chris has brightened my day. I confess to being worried the impact Photographers offering Video would have on my Business and how I could respond to that. It only occurred to me in reading your conversation with that couple that the answer is to market more strongly my service as a full length documentary video. I tend to just say Wedding Video, forgetting the term covers a broad range and therefore has the potential to be misinterpreted as something much shorter. In brochures, online and ads, I need to make a point of saying what type of video they're getting.

Steve I think you are spot on and it is something we picked up on a few months ago. At the last few wedding shows we have made a point of telling all interested visitors to the stand, that we specialise in full length documentary video and that they need to be aware that many companies offer a much shorter highlights video that is a different product. I just advise them to be aware of what they are going to end up with, which ever way they choose. We also point out that we are always happy to also supply them with a short highlights video of a few minutes length if they want one.

The fact that so many seem to be going down the highlights route because it is more artistically satisfying for the producer, seems to be bringing us in a lot more enquiries, perhaps I should just keep quiet about it :-)

Roger

The fact that so many seem to be going down the highlights route because it is more artistically satisfying for the producer, seems to be bringing us in a lot more enquiries, perhaps I should just keep quiet about it :-)

I actually provide a 3 to 5 minute trailer, a 20 minute highlight and then full length versions of the ceremony, speeches, acts by friends and first dance as a standard package now (only charging extra for the trailer)

The 20 minute highlight however is not to satisfy the producer but not to bore the client and their friends when they want to relive their day, that's how I see it and how I find my clients experience it. The long boring parts like a one hour ceremony they still will get but will only be watched by the couple and maybe their parents and then just only once, the highlights however will be watched much more and a trailer will be watched every time they have the possibility to show it of to their friends on their iphones or ipads.

I also find that my clients (the brides) still want to have it all, including the long versions, and they are willing to pay for it but they enjoy a artistically edited 20 minute version way more then having to sit through a 1,5 to 2 hour version of their weddingday, especially if it's with their friends, when I started out I did offer a long version only as well and my clients come and look at the film in my office, back then they started talking to me at the longer segments like the church and I often would fast forward those parts, now they sit silent for 20 minutes and I don't have to touch the playback :)

Noa, it's fascinating the totally different feedback that people get from their clients. I find that old clients of mine regularly watch the full length video as they love to see and hear all the people, speeches etc. I had a wedding last year where there were seven couples who were previous clients of mine and I just had to ask them if any of them still watch their wedding video. They all said that they frequently watch them and several now have children who also watch them.

I do agree with you that casual friends would not be interested in 'boring' speeches, but family members and those who were at the wedding don't seem to find them boring at all. They also have numerous chapter points that they can jump to if they want to move on.

We also are very happy to offer a short highlights video if asked, but that is quite rare. I'm not suggesting Noa that you or others offer a highlights video just for your own personal satisfaction, but it is a very frequently repeated view on this forum that the highlights/cinematic shortform gives much more scope to satisfy the creative and artistic desires of many producers here, which they can't get from a full length doc style without putting massively increased and prohibitive time into both filming and editing.

Roger

I have offered the highlights only for over 2 years with the long versions, like I described above, as a paid option and every single wedding I sold the bride did choose the long version so for me that definitely showed they want to have it all.

I think if you only sell the long version and nothing else your client won't know any better and ofcourse they will be happy with that but if you sell the highlights only and nothing else your client will be missing out on important parts of the day, some might not care but my experience tells me that the clients that contact me do.

Much depends how you set up your business, I spend more time working the way I do compared to just deliver highlights or long version only but I find it important that I can give my clients a nice memory which they can enjoy by themselves and together with their friends which is why I deliver from short to long version.

I know some people do video to make a living and try to make it efficient as possible so they can enjoy their free time and other hobbies more but weddings is actually my hobby so I want to deliver something as well that is satisfying for me also, teh only problem I have is that I have taken on too much work the past years leaving too little time for family and friends and that needs to change. :)

We discard a lot of duplicated footage on a two person shoot and practically nothing on a solo one.

Roger

I have Weddings where if I had another guy filming, I would probably get this, and others where it would be less likely to happen. I've got a Wedding in March where I have a 2nd shooter at the clients requests. His coverage of Receptions differs to mine. He uses a glidecam to do a walk through, pausing with each group to focus on them. Some work better than others, but his best really gives a feel of walking through the venue and meeting people, some even say hello to camera. You get random conversations, then move onto the next. No cuts, just continuous. It's quite a nice effect, but not one I do as my glidecam skills suck. I tend to prefer close ups, detail shots, capture little moments hidden away, which is less his thing. The results of us both covering a Reception with our different styles I think will make the most of having 2 guys covering the video and probably where it works best outside of moments when you need to be in 2 different locations.

I also love closeup work, but I also do a walk through which sounds very similar to what you describe. I understand what you are saying though, if the clients wants two operators and you don't do a particular style, then why not take advantage of the situation with the other shooter.

Roger

Thanks Roger

Yes we do get most brides that book us without question and often, if not always, take us on the basis of our online clips and photos. We do long form and don't pretend or try and change or compete with the short form "cinematic" guys and brides like us for what we do.

Would we get more business if we shot video on our Nikons and make a 20 minute "film" ? I have no idea but what I do know is we are comfortable with our end product in both shooting, post production and presentation ... we might not be as arty farty as the cinematic wedding film makers but a lot of brides still want the wedding covered traditionally (if I can use that term) so they can see everything that went on during the day. We don't do trailers either because our edit process is quick enough to have the end result out in a week so no teaser is needed (often before they even get back from honeymoon)

I think in the last 10 years I might have been asked once or twice at most for a highlights disk but brides are 99% happy with just the main event on disk. We do cheat a tiny bit and do a 3 minute stedicam shoot set to a nice romantic song but apart from that it's all "documentary style"

I see no need to get other professionals to critic or praise/condemn my work ..my brides are happy so I'm happy so there is really no point at all in posting clips to anyone but the bride.

I'm quite sure that the creative cinematographers would shudder if they had to produce a Marryoke like Steve does as it's more fun than serious film making ..it would actually fit in nicely with our packages (secretly I'm quite envious as I'd love to offer them) We of course do the formal group photos on the stills side but also do fun shots often bordering on the crazy and also do an open photobooth at the reception with silly props ....serious fim makers might poo poo the idea but brides absolutely love it and she is the client!

I'm sure there is room in the industry for the creative geniuses as well as the documentary shooters and each to their own as long as we are all getting bookings and making money but it's still great to see we are not the only ones not moving to serious cinematic films!!

Chris

Between the hussle and bussle of today's musings, I've realised I forgot to say that you've also gone and spoilt my day Roger. I've been really marvelling at how this conversation has so far been spared from the 'what the bride wants' speal and you go and slip this little line in. Shame on you.


I totally agree that it is easy to get obsessed with technical and artistic perfection, whilst losing focus on what the bride really wants.
Roger

How can we possibly lose focus on this when it's mentioned like, oh 10 times a week on this forum. :)

Sorry Steve :-( How about - I totally agree that it is easy to get obsessed with technical and artistic perfection! :-)

Roger

Great comments guys!

Funny, I have always wondered if film makers who post stuff here take extra special care to make the clip as pixel perfect as possible as they know that they will probably get harsh words about every tiny wobble ?

I always remember a quote from a friend of mine who says " There comes a time during editing where you have to say "That's good enough" otherwise the editing will simply go on forever" Wise words when you are running a business. I still shudder at posts here where the person proudly says "I have spent 60 hours already on this wedding with the edit" ...He is also the one that shoots the entire wedding for $1500 and fails to realise that he would earn more money flipping burgers at McDonalds!!

Especially for you Steve I won't put in the Bride comment but I will say, that a lot forget, and that is "It's all about the content"

Chris

I can't speak for others work, but my Highlight Trailers are a bit like Macdonald's Burgers. When I have the time, my best work will see them look like that lovely picture on the wall, but everyday, a fast turn around and high workload means they're more like the burger you actually get given. Makes them sound worse than they're are, but it's the best analogy I can come up with first thing in the morning.

'It's about content' is alas another forum cliche I'm afraid. Sorry Chris. :) I spend all day hearing from Brides what they want and discussing content with them; I come here to escape all that and discuss tech. It is a Videographers forum after all, not a Bridal one, so it's no surprise it's that side of the work that gets the most focus here. Outside though, that's completely different. I don't have time to pixel peep on Wedding work; I save that for my own personal projects. That said, I still work to ensure my videos look as good as possible.

Back to the subject on the convergence of video and photo, does anyone think Canon's new addition to their range feels like a small knock back in that goal. They're making a clear statement, you can have top quality photo equipment and top quality video equipment and never the twain shall meet. Perhaps the Mark IV will address that, but as the 5D is by far the most popular camera I've seen Photographers use, it'll be interesting to see how many jump to the S (or R). I can't see them making much of video if they did.

Good morning guys! your question about the new Canon cameras Steve and the lack of video/photo technical integration brings up a whole new area of discussion really. As the video take up for weddings is so low compared with photography, are we seeing the new wave of shortform and highlight videos being driven mainly by photographers? The very fact that still cameras are not the best choice for long video clips for solo shooters is very much about the lack of facilities and difference in lenses that you would find on a dedicated video camera as I see it.

I know several photographers who have changed over to videography as they felt that wedding photography was becoming very overcrowded. It would certainly be logical for a photographer changing to video to utilise both the equipment and techniques that he is already very confortable with. This would go some way to explaining the rise of companies offering videos with much of the style and hallmarks of the photographer. There are also many young guys starting up who have come from film schools and courses training for media production, who have learnt many of the skills used in the film making industry and want to apply those skills to their own productions.

If we we are going to see new cameras being released which concentrate on the photographic side, but with secondary acknowledgement of the film makers needs, then we may see more of the wedding video industry following the capabilities of the camera rather than the requirements of the genre. The other side of the coin is perhaps that the development of video cameras may be more at the pro and broadcast market end, now that most of the consumer video market is satisfied by smart phones. I don't see any of that making much difference to the growth of dual photo/video packages, but I do see it as affecting the type of video that is on offer. It will also have more impact in the European market, where cameras with recording limits, such as stills cameras are not subject to the same tax levels as dedicated video cameras.

Roger

Hi Roger

I have yet to see a camera that does both successfully! Just by design, a DSLR is an awkward bugger to handheld for starters! The audio is still pathetic so users resort to recorders instead plus they still have short clip lengths which are not easy to overcome when doing a close to 60 minute Catholic ceremony!

Sony went the other route with the EA-50 of which Pete Rush has and I have too...the concept is brilliant as it's either a handheld or shoulder mount video camera with pro audio, all the normal features like focus peaking and the rest PLUS it has a DSLR sensor and lenses you can change (I use my Nikon lenses)
This gives you DSLR attributes with video camera form factor. Now it is also a mean DSLR still camera, has 16.7mp images and has TTL flash features from a dedicated hotshoe .... Do I use it for stills? Nope I use my Nikons because as good as they are it's still no the "right shape" for stills work whilst my Nikons are prefect for stills but IMHO useless for video...so I end up with both!! Even if the 5D IV does have XLR audio and limitless record time it STILL has the form factor issue unless you dump it on a fancy rig..if you do then you are back at square one when you try to take still with the cam on a rig which is just awkward.

I honestly cannot see a dual use camera design coming out that will have a perfect form factor for stills and then also be able to magically transform into a shoulder mount video camera and back to a still camera in an instant. Hmmm James Bonds engineers might have some ideas but until then we are stuck with having one for camera for each function which is tricky for a solo operator

Chris

H Chris,

The short clip lengths are one of the most annoying things for me, and I really can't see the logic of it apart from forcing two different markets for the manufacturers. So many film makers use DSLRs that it just doesn't make sense to impose artificial restrictions.

The DSLR form factor is not that much of a problem for me as I don't do shoulder mounting, preferring a lightweight tripod with quick release. I do love using my Lumix fz200s for filming when length is not an issue and the light levels are within acceptable limits. The up to 24x zoom at F2.8 is so convenient with no lens change necessary, and a bigger sensor and improved low light is still making me look at the FZ1000 with the 4k option. For a joint package, the idea of a 4k, zoom lens, big sensor bridge camera that can take dslr quality pics in all lighting conditions is probably the way that I would go. I think the FZ1000 doesn't quite get there but certainly closes the gap and I will almost certainly get one to use for some parts of the day.

Roger

Sony went the other route with the EA-50 of which Pete Rush has and I have too...the concept is brilliant

It's only too bad Sony doesn't seem to make any improvements on that camera with a mark II version, the ea50 is bound to be yet another "thing" Sony does and then quickly goes off designing 10 more different camera's. Only camera's that sell really well, like the rx100 get updated.

It's all about money Noa!

No manufacturer is going to pump money into a product unless it has awesome sales figures. Sony actually did come out with an updated EA-50 with the shorter E-Mount lens (18-105 I think) ...they supposedly changed the sensor as well but no one could ever confirm it but the spec did say new sensor.

I would say they would look at the A7S if they were going to add an extras to a camera as that took the world by storm!

I think that both Canon and Nikon seem to want their still cameras to be used primarily for still photography. I think that will be the case with the 5DS and 5DS R since they removed several video features that were on the 5D Mk III. Canon seems to want people who are serious about shooting video to purchase from their EOS Cinema line because they'll make more money and they won't have to try to cram amazing video and stills capability into the same camera. Canon has done their research and believes that forcing people to choose either video or stills will make them the most money (if I was a large international corporation I would probably find the best way to make the most money too). I've heard that the 5D Mk IV may have 4K video, but my guess is that either by providing a weak codec or leaving off features they will make sure that it doesn't undercut their Cinema cameras.

I'm a huge fan of the Canon Cinema cameras but have not been impressed with the video quality of my Canon 70D, so it doesn't bother me that Canon is doing this as it doesn't really affect my work. However, since lots of people have been shooting primarily video on their Canon DSLRs I've read tons of comments by unhappy users who are furious with this new approach.

With all of that said, I think that if anything we are all pretty lucky that we get to shoot with some amazing cameras and lenses for relatively low prices compared to what was offered even just 10 years ago. I suppose the best thing to do is just enjoy it and not worry about what each company offers so much because they're just trying to stay alive like everyone else.

Hey Michael

Exactly! That's why Canon have the C100 and C300 as cinema cameras ...I have always wondered why they still keep all the video features on the 5D when they could make it a dedicated still camera which is their major market. I guess the unique photog will still use the 5D for stills only and the C300 will be the choice for primary video? I'm not a Canon person but does the C300 have the same sort of features as a 5D for taking stills.

I guess there is still a market for cameras that do both even though it might do one better than the other??

Chris

My C100 has a photo button but it only takes stills at 1080p which is like 2 megapixels, so it's pretty much useless as a still camera. I'm not sure about the C300 but I imagine it does the same thing. Because of this you won't see any photographers walking around with a cinema camera shooting stills at a wedding any time soon lol.

Sony will have to decide if they want to include internal 4K in the next A7S because if they do then that will strongly discourage people from buying the FS7 since the two cameras will both shoot internal 4K but the A7S sensor is actually much better in low light than the FS7. Since Panasonic did not create a successor to the AF100, there's really nothing that they sell which will be affected by the GH4 (or the next GH camera). The Varicam HS is around $45K so there aren't too many people that will be considering both cameras for a shoot.

I'm excited to see which new cameras come out this year but I'm starting to feel like these new cameras are all so good that my clients (especially brides) really won't be able to tell the difference between something shot on a GH4, FS7, or C300 Mk II. I think now more than ever, it's really not about the camera.