Hi Guys

Producing wedding films now days seems to involve multiple cameras and often multiple camera operators, piles of fancy gear like stedicams, sliders, drones and gimbals and once you have knocked out a 12 hour session with all your expensive gear and equally expensive assistants, you are still faced with a week of editing. The fact that the bride sees you for a small portion of hours compared to your consultation, prep, and editing makes most videography companies sound expensive! Have we taken the humble wedding video simply too far so what we used to do in the old days for $500 now costs $5000?

In the old days on glorious VHS, I used to film a title, shoot the wedding, in camera, and eject the tape when I left the venue and hand it to the bride ...if I spent 6 hours at her wedding she paid for 6 hours ..it was so easy then and affordable too!!

My mate Alan did a live broadcast this evening of a 50th birthday ..the video was a livestream and the CDN does an automatic online video (downloadable too) that can be instantly viewed ...People not attending can watch the reception/party as it happens and the bride can actually see her wedding video before she goes off on honeymoon ..not "I'll have your wedding film ready in around 3 months"

Seriously are we getting so involved with a wedding film where it has become a severe budget consideration that brides have to wait months for? I would love to be able to say at the end of the night "Well that's done and dusted..on to the next job"

I think it's like Mc Donalds vs a 3 star restaurant like El Bulli, some people like a Mc Donalds drive true and there is nothing wrong with that and some prefer to have to wait for weeks for the opportunity to book at El Bulli for some fine dining. A meal at Mc Donalds is forgotten tomorrow and the experience of a meal at El Bulli will be talked about for years.

A livestream wedding is as boring as it gets, nice if you want to have a CCTV recording but certainly not a engaging memory you want to watch over and over again, some thing are worth waiting for...

Hi Chris,

I often have similar thoughts about wedding video now compared with how it used to be. However in the 'Old Days', we were following on from cine, which for the most part was totally silent and very short. VHS gave us freedom to shoot the whole ceremony and speeches with glorious sound, so the wedding video became a bit like the start of talking movies, but applied to people's own lives.

Now, with HD tv, blockbuster movies and the huge advances in technology available to wedding videographers, client expectations are much higher meaning that they expect to see something akin to a tv programme or movie, but with no appreciation of what goes into creating it. Because we are able to produce to a higher level, we choose to do so but at a cost of time in production. We could go back to a single camera continuous shoot, but that would be like making a car as in the 'Old Days', no heater, no washers, no electric windows, simple engine etc etc. It would be cheap but would it meet customer expectations?

The answer perhaps is to add a basic simple and cheap package to your offerings and see if people want to take it up. Film it all on your phone and upload it immediately for them, after all it's a mobile phone instant image era :-)

Roger

Thanks Guys

Believe me I DO know the difference between a single camera shoot and a multi camera and multi operator shoot with all the gadgets and trimmings much the same as the difference in food choice but you must admit it's getting VERY complicated now days virtually forcing us to buy new gear as it comes out and spending even more time per wedding than we used to. I wonder what will happen in the future? Pick up your 4K iPhone or tablet and go shoot a wedding? Yes we use live stream for funerals and real estate at the moment but not weddings ... the quality and bandwidth hasn't become viable yet so one can do a 4K stream at a reasonable cost. My packages remain as they are but is still is a little disconcerting when a bride prefers another supplier over you because he has 2 assistant cameramen plus a drone operator. I don't think brides appreciate how much time we put into post production. Maybe the answer lies in alive edit? Have a pimple faced teenager that sits at a desk near the ceremony doing the 4 camera mix live and creating an SDE for the bride and uploading a copy for the overseas people at the same time. THAT I would love to do ... How great would it be to pack up at the end of the evening and say "We are Done"

My packages remain as they are but is still is a little disconcerting when a bride prefers another supplier over you because he has 2 assistant cameramen plus a drone operator.

If the packages of your competitor are more expensive then what you offer then it's not the extra cameramen and the drone that makes the difference, it only means their work is better then yours, brides don't care about equipment, it's about what feeling they get when they watch your films.

I don't think brides appreciate how much time we put into post production

As I see it you have 2 type of clients, those that don't have a budget and look for the cheapest around and they just want to have a recording of their wedding and you have those that want to invest in a film that gives them the same feeling they had at their weddingday so they can go through that experience again when they want to. Carefully crafted trailers and highlights give them just that and they are willing to pay for it. I have experienced the past 2 years by almost doubling my prices that I get much more respect for what I do, I have had clients that ask me if I know a good photographer meaning they book me first, that never happened when I was cheaper. That respect you get by putting more time into post production, the client might not know how much extra time you spend on a wedding but they can experience the difference and for that they will wait 3 months if necessary.

How great would it be to pack up at the end of the evening and say "We are Done"
I"m currently able to get a trailer online one day after the wedding, if I would have a person that would do such a live stream edit of the ceremony and speeches on the spot and have that finished at the end of the weddingday it should be able to wrap everything up a full day after the wedding with the online delivery of the trailer. In that way the couple at least will get a compelling short film they can share on facebook and go trough the boring livestream edit that pimple faced teenager put together when it's a cold winterevening. :)

All good points Noa It depends on the bride. I was actually talking about SDE's live not streaming on the last comment ... live feed to the laptop from the cameras and record straight to HDD. It would be nice to edit on site as I really cannot fathom out how guys do an SDE in between the ceremony and reception.

Kudos to you for being able to do a short edit the very next day!!!

Obviously live streaming and a well produced Wedding Video are two very different products fulfilling different needs. I offer a basic SDE on my own as an optional extra, which is really me collating a selection of clips from the Bridal Preps to the Reception entrance into a short 15 minute video. No sound as it is played on a loop during the evening party, where the DJ or band music would swamp the audio anyway. I also, like Noa, do a Trailer. However it's very basic; I give myself only an hour, maybe two to work on it. I apply some grading using film convert and correct some of the more extreme exposure issues, but that's as far as it goes. Audio is just the music, whilst the natural audio mixing I save for the separate Highlights video. It's just a teaser really, to wet the appetite so soon after the Wedding.

As for the changes in standards of Wedding Videos; this is to be expected as technology progresses and allows more to be achieved. The Video in DSLR sparked a new revolution in what was possible for Videographers and there are many who will push it even further, helped by new innovation's such as gimbals and drones.

We all have selected the level of service we feel happy and capable of offering and hopefully have enough clients to match that level. There will be those working to a higher level and those below. That's the nature of business. If you are in the Wedding Video industry purely for money, then these new standards of service would be seen as profit limiting. If you're in this for the chance to be creative and delivering a better product, then the new technology can only be seen as liberating.

There are better ways to make money and if this extra time doesn't suit, then there are other jobs out there. I would have stayed working for a University if money was the only concern. Better hours, paid leave and sick days and less stress. However very little job satisfaction .

Whilst the 'good old days' of knocking out a basic VHS may have an appeal when you're working late on an edit, many clients these days have nothing but praise for the developments in Wedding Video; turning what was once considered a cheesy Wedding Video into something that is now often described as Cinematic.

Great post. The good thing is there is plenty of work up and down the chain and targeting your own section and selling that section is I think more important now than ever. Do you think the terminology between videographer And cinematographer makes any difference today in making that 1st connection with a bride? Meaning she looks at your home page for example and sees videographer never looking at your work. I hate putting labels on things and have always used videographer for marketing because that is what I have always called myself. I just wonder if brides have preconceived notions between the 2 since it seems like I am one of the few "videographers" left! Haha.

Great post. The good thing is there is plenty of work up and down the chain and targeting your own section and selling that section is I think more important now than ever. Do you think the terminology between videographer And cinematographer makes any difference today in making that 1st connection with a bride? Meaning she looks at your home page for example and sees videographer never looking at your work. I hate putting labels on things and have always used videographer for marketing because that is what I have always called myself. I just wonder if brides have preconceived notions between the 2 since it seems like I am one of the few "videographers" left! Haha.

People will have widely differing opinions on this, but personally I think cinematographer is a term that is often misused in wedding videography to suggest that someone is offering more than just a video. It has become fashionable to use cinematography to describe what is frequently a highlights or shortform video using a number of shot variations. They can range from slider shots, to cranes, focus pulling, drone shots etc. It's still a wedding video whatever you call it, although some like to call their work a wedding film or cinematic production. If you research what a real cinematographer or DP does, you will find it entails much more than making a nice wedding video, but borrowing the term cinematography suggests that your product is film like.

Some modernn videographers possibly feel that the term 'wedding video' sounds a little dated and is linked to the old VHS days. Whether brides are the slightest bit interested in what you call it is open to debate, although wedding video is immediately understood by everyone. Looking through photographer's websites shows a similar desire to sound more upmarket with terms such as Boutique Photography, Wedding Stories, Artistic Wedding Imaging, and the list goes on.

A wedding video can be as film like as you are able or choose to make it, whatever the length and it is entirely up to you what you call it. The important thing is to engage with clients to make sure that they know exactly what you offer and you know what their requirements are.

Roger

I would say very few of us can actually be a cinematographer as we don't have camera crews to direct like in the big movies.


A cinematographer or director of photography (sometimes shortened to DP or DOP) is the chief over the camera crews working on a film, television production or other live action piece and is responsible for making artistic and technical decisions related to the image.
Cinematographer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinematographer

However from a marketing viewpoint it sounds WAY posher than "video guy" as does wedding film (as opposed to wedding video) so why not use the phrase if it gets you better clients or helps sales. Sadly half our business is marketing and half is technical and it's hard to be good at both!!

A week of editing? I can usually turn around a solid 15 min feature film and snappy 3-4 min highlights in a day :)

Hi Luke

I actually allocate 10 hours for edits on a basic ceremony and reception but I have seen people talk about 40 to 60 hours ..How they make a profit is anybody's guess but it cannot be much. The old issue still remains that brides will look at your costing for a simple 6 hour shoot and then do the maths to work out your "hourly rate" and then wonder why you charge so much!! If I stick to 6 hours at the wedding, 10 hours to edit and 4 hours for travel and seeing the bride/attending rehearsals I'm lucky to make $75 an hour. Of course I COULD double my prices but then I wouldn't get much work as every Tom, Dick and Harry with a DSLR is now a wedding cinematographer who would easily undercut me.


I wonder if anyone here would be brave enough to actually cost out a wedding and see how much they are really making ??? You have to include onsite time, travel time, bride consultancy time and edit and media creation time in hours and THEN factor in your insurance costs, vehicle fuel and road costs too. If anyone dares to do it and be honest I think they might get a shock as to how low their actual hourly rate drops to!!

To the original post:

I've often heard couples remark about how dull older style videos were. Most aren't interested in watching the entire ceremony. The new era/style of highlight video offers a chance to relive the FEELINGS of the wedding day much better than sitting down and watching the 90 minute ceremony (I'm editing a Catholic wedding right now). Heck, the actual ceremony that day didn't feel all that exciting, other than the entrance and vows.

Of course, the rest of it, drones, sliders, etc. is all tools and whether we each choose to use them is a whole other thing. Personally, as a solo shooter, I use 3-4 cameras so I don't miss anything, and can still offer the most interesting and effective view of any given moment (I hope).

When I first picked up a camera many years ago the first thing I was taught was how to move from shot to shot and edit "in camera" to make editing easier which I do to this day. If I were a bride I think that all I would want would be a highlight clip ..even a so called 15 minute feature film (I don't see how a feature film can be 15 minutes but never mind) A 6 -10 minute for me gives a great overview of the day and doesn't bore you to tears BUT brides still seem to want highlights, short films and then the works as well.

Considering that a large proportion of our time goes into post production (and we have to cost it out too) it would be great if we could just film the important bits ..bridal entry ..go sit down until the vows..get the signing and you are done ...probably 5 -10 minutes of raw footage is how it should be but you know that some bride is going to come back to you and will want to know "where is my Aunt Mary doing a reading"

Yes Rob I would say they MIGHT watch the complete ceremony once then it's never watched again but we STILL have to edit it even if she only watches it that one time

The majority of people on here seem to feel that 10-15 minutes is the length of wedding video that clients want to watch and I have to agree that weddings are incredibly boring when taken as a whole. I have for most of the years filming weddings, offered full length documentary with full ceremony and speeches etc. Only over the last 2 or 3 years have I added the option of a short form or highlights version.

I find the opposite to most of you guys in that my clients prefer to have the full length version with a short 5 minutes highlights as well. You can argue that clients come to me because they know I offer doc style, but with the option of both, they almost always choose full length. When I ask why, they say that they want all the details and sounds of their day recorded including readings in the ceremony, shots of family members etc etc. They also like the option of skipping parts like hymns etc, but want them left in as they like the close ups of guests and family members during those long boring bits.

I have found increasingly that the norm has become short form video, and many clients that enquire with us don't know that anything else is on offer. So I find long form as boring as the rest of you, but when it is a special day in your own life and possibly the only chance to see all your family and friends together, I do understand why we are always being taken up on it. If all my clients chose short form though, it would certainly make my life a lot easier. I also wonder why it is that so many wedding video producers only offer highlights because they find weddings boring, but so many photographers are taking more and more photos of the bits that we want to leave out, guests during the ceremony, individual family groups, reaction shots during speeches, dance shots etc.

Roger

Hi Roger

My clients are the same as yours ..they expect you to cover everything especially speeches and ceremony but they do love the 6-8 minute high light that they get as well and I would suspect that that's what friends and family watch whilst the bride will watch the whole thing maybe once or twice probably even the groom wouldn't sit thru it. If of course I leave something else I know I will get a comment like "Why didn't you include the full mass footage"

Brides will respond to what the market says they should be looking for and if everyone shows a package with a 29 minute wedding "film" that's what they expect to get. However I will be doing a couple of "no-edit" Live broadcasts this season (ours starts in September) so it will be interesting to see if they like it as much as a long form DVD that has been carefully edited. We essentially use two cameras with broadcast encoders that connect wirelessly to a laptop that runs the live switcher and also sends out the signal worldwide but also records it too.(so I can still make a edited copy) plus we get an automatic cloud copy of the stream. It might too be a solution to rid ourselves of the pesky weekend warriors who buy a discount store camera and then attempt weddings at cut throat prices as the setup is a bit more complex than the basic stuff the beer money clan work with. Only time will tell and we might change the operation but we have tons of work for the broadcasting setup whether we do weddings or no

I do both the feature length and short highlight (3-4 minutes) for everyone.

If anything, I find the 10-20 minute highlight length kind of awkward. Too short, so you only get scattered chunks. Too long to be easily digested and watched over and over.

There's clearly demand for both. I've got a Marryoke and Highlights video Wedding this Saturday. A booking I almost lost as the couple mistakingly thought they had to book my full length video package to get the Marryoke. However I also meet many who do want the full length, so it's not going to be dropped from my services anytime soon. Like others I'm adding shorter videos as I do think in the long run, they are what the couple will watch on anniversaries. Though I've heard that a few of my full lengths were enjoyed years after, even my 2 hour epic edits.

A Highlights video does make for easier viewing especially for family and friends, but there's so much that is lost; some of the detail that I'm sure the couple would value, even if no one else would.

There's clearly demand for both. I've got a Marryoke and Highlights video Wedding this Saturday. A booking I almost lost as the couple mistakingly thought they had to book my full length video package to get the Marryoke. However I also meet many who do want the full length, so it's not going to be dropped from my services anytime soon. Like others I'm adding shorter videos as I do think in the long run, they are what the couple will watch on anniversaries. Though I've heard that a few of my full lengths were enjoyed years after, even my 2 hour epic edits.

A Highlights video does make for easier viewing especially for family and friends, but there's so much that is lost; some of the detail that I'm sure the couple would value, even if no one else would.

I think you make a good point here. The highlights video is what people will most likely show friends and those not interested in the small details, but if that is their only version, there is so much detail that is lost for ever from that one special day, quite often things that they hadn't even noticed. I also often meet up with couples that I filmed years ago, at current weddings or with friends at wedding shows. I always ask them if they still watch it and the answer is always yes. What they often comment on is how they are able to see and hear older members of the family who may have passed on, but they are captured forever just talking, laughing etc. I really think that the value of long form increases as the years progress and memories fade, whereas highlights are for quick and convenient viewing.

Roger

I think TV drives what we do, especially with weddings. I'm convinced that the David Tuteras of this world are the one's cracking the whip on what we do. Ok, that's a little mellow dramatic, but it's like the lighting we typically see at weddings which is a nice color but is about as useful as toilet paper in a hurricane. Bride's go to dyilighting.com and think that 300.00 is going to get them 5k lighting that ol'e D. Tutera's lighting engineers use.

So while I think most of us see the complexity of what we do and think, 'wow, how can I simplify', the brides want what they see on TV and expect wine from water.

On a personal level I've been wondering why I get more stressed at weddings than I used to - my first few years seem stress free compared to recent ones. My conclusion of course is that I have a lot more equipment and am always trying to squeeze more quality from what I do.

When I started I had 2 camcorders, 2 tripods and 2 audio recorders - nothing else. Now I have 5 cameras, multiple lenses, 2 tripods and 3 light stands, 8 audio recorders and associated microphones, a slider, a steadicam, a ninja recorder, a smallHD monitor, lights, clamps.....and the list goes on. More gear = more to think about, more to set up, more to turn on, more to turn off more to tackle down, more to move from one location to the next etc etc etc

Now I will only take on church bookings if the wife is free to help, and In future I can see myself turning these down in favour of hotel weddings simply because they are easier, especially since I am starting to develop a bad back which I'm putting down to this

Now don't get me wrong, all this extra kit and thought and planning etc has improved the quality of my work no end and I am never short of bookings (more and more through referrals) but the cost has been more stress. I'm doing an inner city church wedding solo tomorrow and am already anxious about it :/

I have tried going down the second shooter route only to be burned badly as the two I tried turned out to be unreliable - resulting in yet more stress!

My sympathies Pete ..I know the feeling! I added 2 x Action Cams to my already 3 cameras last year and trying to control everything was a nightmare! I dropped down to just one cam on a tripod for the couple and priest and a 2nd to shoot cutaways and the register and it made life a lot easier! At receptions, apart from speeches I use just one camera now ..easier and less stressful! I dumped the stedicam too ..got tired of lugging the rig up and down stairs! Now I just do a handheld shoot at 50P of the couple ..slow it down 50% in post and get the same result.

I seriously wonder if we would actually get less work or would brides abandon us if we went to a single or maximum 2 camera shoot ....Do they even look at the technical side of the shoot ? I personally feel we are tech junkies striving to get more and more gear so our films are better and better in our eyes BUT what do brides think?? Maybe you need cameras all on tripods with remotes going back to a desk and you sit on your bum and control everything from there ?? I don't think I will go upwards again as I'm getting to old to lug all this gear around ! You will get to the stage when you will HAVE to simplify and have your entire kit in a back pack!

I'm leaning towards mixing in more DSLR video. I currently run two tripods at the ceremony, and mostly my steadicam and a tripod a the reception. But I'm considering mixing in flying a DSLR rather than my XF300, then maybe just go to tripods with DSLRs and maybe get my Figrig out of mothballs. I dunno, I agree Chris, in then end, I'm not sure if the bride cares about how many cameras, but more of the special moments we capture and how it looks on the pixels.

Maybe you need cameras all on tripods with remotes going back to a desk and you sit on your bum and control everything from there ??
That's how they do the Royal Weddings that the brides aspire to.

My sympathies Pete ..I know the feeling! I added 2 x Action Cams to my already 3 cameras last year and trying to control everything was a nightmare! I dropped down to just one cam on a tripod for the couple and priest and a 2nd to shoot cutaways and the register and it made life a lot easier! At receptions, apart from speeches I use just one camera now ..easier and less stressful! I dumped the stedicam too ..got tired of lugging the rig up and down stairs! Now I just do a handheld shoot at 50P of the couple ..slow it down 50% in post and get the same result.
The last few weddings that I did before hanging up my gear I used a couple of MFT cameras. One was a Panasonic G6 for the wide unattended shot while the other was an Olympus OM-D E-M5 with the brilliant stabilisation used handheld. It was amazingly liberating to carry all my kit in one small shoulder bag. If I were to shoot wedding today I think that I would probably go for a couple of Sony RX10M3s with that amazing 24-600mm equivalent zoom & shoot 4K but deliver 1080p so I had plenty of scope for cropping & re-framing in post.

My sympathies Pete ..I know the feeling! I added 2 x Action Cams to my already 3 cameras last year and trying to control everything was a nightmare! I dropped down to just one cam on a tripod for the couple and priest and a 2nd to shoot cutaways and the register and it made life a lot easier! At receptions, apart from speeches I use just one camera now ..easier and less stressful! I dumped the stedicam too ..got tired of lugging the rig up and down stairs! Now I just do a handheld shoot at 50P of the couple ..slow it down 50% in post and get the same result.

I seriously wonder if we would actually get less work or would brides abandon us if we went to a single or maximum 2 camera shoot ....Do they even look at the technical side of the shoot ? I personally feel we are tech junkies striving to get more and more gear so our films are better and better in our eyes BUT what do brides think?? Maybe you need cameras all on tripods with remotes going back to a desk and you sit on your bum and control everything from there ?? I don't think I will go upwards again as I'm getting to old to lug all this gear around ! You will get to the stage when you will HAVE to simplify and have your entire kit in a back pack!

I'm with you on this Chris (sounds familiar),For the ceremony I use one FZ1000 on the main tripod, with usually a small Panny HD cam on a clamp on the same tripod for a continuous wide angle that I can vary. If space allows I have a second locked off HD cam on the other side for a different angle or a GoPro on a clamp if there is no 2nd tripod space. For speeches it's one tripod with the FZ1000 to cover the speakers and one of the HD cams on a clamp on the same tripod for reaction shots from B&G. I can change the clamped camera to any angle or zoom level for variations. The rest of the day is one FZ1000 only which is ideal for me with the great zoom and good low light.

I love using clamps on the tripod for a second camera or on a screen etc as it is so easy to unclamp and chuck in the bag in seconds. Speed for me is essential, especially if I am also doing the photography.

I don't think it matters how many cameras you use, providing you get the shots that you want, good camerawork and an eye for detail are king, but there are times, particularly in periods of continuous action, where extra camera/s are always useful.

Roger

I seriously wonder if we would actually get less work or would brides abandon us if we went to a single or maximum 2 camera shoot ....Do they even look at the technical side of the shoot ? I personally feel we are tech junkies striving to get more and more gear so our films are better and better in our eyes BUT what do brides think??

I don't think Brides care at all about tech. However fancy gear isn't about individual shots being noticed. Think of it as ingredients, much like baking a cake. The chef won't expect those eating the cake to identify each ingredient, but each plays a part in the enjoyment of the whole. I wouldn't say that gimbals, sliders and lots of cameras are essential to great Wedding Videos, but they're useful additions for getting certain shots. Having edited Weddings shot without such gear, I do find it harder to create more cinematic style videos when you don't have the shots to match.

However how far you wish to take Wedding filming is really down to you. I know we all can get caught up in others work and feel the need to match. I for one don't use Drones or use RAW for my footage. Do my Wedding Videos suffer from this absence, no, but neither do they benefit from it either.

Ultimately it is for me to set the standard of my work, not the Bride. That's why they come to a Professional in the first place. Just as I wouldn't want my car mechanic to provide a service that just meets my knowledge and understanding of cars, which is nil, but to give a service that matches that of other Professionals. I see it therefore as my job to give my Professional best, regardless of whether the couple are knowledgeable about video or not. Sure I could downscale, but would I be happy with my work, probably not.

So I use the equipment I use because that is how I want my videos to be and as part of my style, it is what I hope my customers will come to me for, rather than say the next Videographer they meet.

My guys and I talk about this all the time.

When we started, we each had 1 camera and 1 tripod. So, on the wedding day, there would be 3 of us each with our camera and tripod. Then we added 2 wireless mics. That was our set up for years and years.

I took a short break and got back into it around 2008-2009. Using the same method. Then in 2013 I took Ray Roman's course, and ended up buying a bunch of stuff.

Now just my arsenal consists of 2 Peilcan Cases and a monster Tenba backpack, plus all the tripods, slider, glidecam, monopod. I literally have my Toyota Camry trunk full as well as most of my backseat on a wedding day.

Not to mention, now my two main shooters also show up with about as much gear as me.

We occasionally do photos only at a wedding and it's so easy compared to video... Just sling two DSLR's over your shoulder and you are ready so trying to trim down my video gear has always been in my mind ...I used to lug around a stedicam, dual arm and vest to the photoshoot venue just to be able to get 10 minutes of couple footage before the photog whisks them away ! With advances in OIS technology I found that just doing the same thing handheld with a simple fig rig (mine is just a plate under the camera with two foam handles each side) does just as good a job and there is no lugging huge amounts of gear any more. Now what I really need is a simple lighting system that I can pick up with one finger and use for the speeches and things will get lighter and handier!! As you get older, the gear feels heavier and doing trips from the car to the venue becomes harder so super compact outfits are worth looking at!!!

You are so right on the photography part. We started shooting wedding photos for the first time this year, and it is such a blessing to be able to get everything I need in 1 backpack

2 DSLRs
3-4 lenses
2 flashes
batteries

We began outsourcing our photo editing, so literally all the time we have into it is on the day of the shoot.

And people aren't haggling over prices either so that's nice. lol

I am still going strong this year with over 50 weddings done ( edited and delivered) and another 15 or so left before Santa shows up. Reading over these threads and many other similar ones and seeing many new videographers/cinematographers getting into this business lately, I see the many different ways of going about it in terms of what the final product delivered kind of looks like. My approach, and I am sure is not like many others, was to offer an affordable one-camera shoot that would be edited and ready for pick up within 7-10 days after the event. I understand there are many that do a 2-3 or 4 camera job with fantastic editing and cinema look ( with a price to match). I understand that there were/are many that scoffed at my utter simplicity of my technique ( mostly in cam editing like being very selective), delivery, editing etc. But I believe that on the long run ( in my case) I have managed year after year to : have no backlog of editing, minimal new equipment costs as well as repair maintenance, no new editing software purchases, no assistant or extra salaries to pay, no re-editing ( it's in the contract directly on top of where they sign). As a comparison to a few of my competitors ( I have none actually as they do the big ticket jobs), They charge 3-4 X my rates, have backlogs of editing left ( goes even back to last year or two) have fewer events per year that I do, pay salaries ( those 2nd and 3rd shooters aren't cheap), have clients always calling and not to mention all that huge inventory of sliders, cranes, lenses, dollys, robocop steady cams, equipment rentals etc. The bottom line is the year's end PROFIT. Guess who makes more profit year after year ? Granted there are many that do extremely well and I envy their work and dedication in those cinematic results but the few that I know are either struggling or are contemplating lowering their prices and going back to basics, like me. I am not saying my way is best but was good for me allowing plenty of leisure time not being chained to the editing desk.

It might depend how you look at it, someone charging 4 times your rate would only have to do 16 weddings a year vs your 65 to make the same kind of money and if they spend twice as long per wedding to edit compared to you they still will be ready 2 times faster then you. :)

I personally find weddingvideography not a good choice if you have to make a living out of it, that very likely would be very different between countries but if I had to choose between weddingvideo or photo tomorrow and if that would be my main source of income I'd choose photography without much thought, the good ones where I live can charge more then a videographer and they can finish the image processing in 2 days, a lot of times couples don't choose a weddingalbum anymore and they just take the digital photos. Wedding photographers also get a lot more requests for photography compared to videographers + they have it much easier the day of the wedding carrying only 2 camera bodies and a few lenses.

There's more "demand" for photography, but there's also more photographers & competition. Oddly I've found alot are also friends/acquantances. Alot of people 'know someone' who does wedding photography. Or at least just photography, and their willing to attempt a wedding for some cash.

As for not wanting 'albums' and just the digital files, a photographer told me she won't offer that, because they end up going to Walmart or Target for 'Instant prints'' and says their printers are terribly calibrated, and the pictures and color just look terrible. Sortof like giving away raw footage (300 clips) of video. She'd rather print them using her home printer.

As for not wanting 'albums' and just the digital files, a photographer told me she won't offer that, because they end up going to Walmart or Target for 'Instant prints'' and says their printers are terribly calibrated, and the pictures and color just look terrible. Sortof like giving away raw footage (300 clips) of video. She'd rather print them using her home printer.

Here it's just the other way round, they don't offer the wedding album as standard but as expensive add on, all photogs I have worked with the past 2 years are already expensive and from what they told me almost no couple takes the album, only the digital photos on a usb stick and they also get a online password protected viewing gallery. Most photogs tell me they like to deliver digital files only as they can finish a job in 2 days and move on to the next, some also do corporate, advertising or other kind of shoots during the weekdays. Based on the cars they drive when they show up at a wedding I can say they make good money :)

Hi Arthur

I think I would also prefer the variety of doing multiple weddings like yours rather than a highly complex multi-camera work of art as they are harder to sell and a lot more post production work too. However 65 weddings is a bit much as far as I'm concerned as our typical season is September to May down here and it means you are doing 2 weddings each and every weekend ..that's a huge amount of effort as you technically only have 5 days after each weekend to edit maybe 2 weddings from the weekend just past so you don't get a backlog. Our main basic weddings we now do as a live broadcast and edit/mix the footage with a second wide angle cam and titles etc etc on site as it happens. That way our week is essentially free and we at least have a break. I see Noa was doing some calculations based on 16 higher end weddings versus your annual 65 single cam ones ..what base price do you charge for one of your weddings??

From a business point of view, from a better balance of work and leisure time and from general ease of minimum equipment to transport on the day, Arthur's approach has merit.

That said, whilst there are customers who are just looking for a plain Wedding video at a cheap price, there are other customers who expect a lot more. Time and again I have had brides noting how the modern Wedding video is a far cry from the cheesy and poor quality Wedding video their parents had. Single camera is just old fashion these days and all my clients appreciate the value of multi camera. So many venues can be very restrictive to film in from old churches to small rooms for civil ceremonies. Multi camera has worked wonders where I've been forced by the vicar into a small corner with minimum view.

Now for a 20 min highlights videos a single camera can work, but when you deliver a 90 min to 2 hour video, multi camera really plays it's part in keeping the video visually interesting. It's part of delivering a quality product. Couples have this video for the rest of their lives, assuming the marriage last that long. Why rush to deliver something so quickly, when with a bit more time, the quality can be so much better.

Perhaps Arthur is in an area where there are an abundance of high priced Wedding Videographers but few working at budget prices. Where I am, I have competition that is more fiercely priced but still offering multi camera, and graded footage. If I was to downgrade to 1 camera, I would fare much worst I'd expect. Plus there is satisfaction knowing I'm delivering the best product I can.

Maybe Arthur takes no pleasure working with gear like sliders, jibs, gimbals and the like, but it's part of why I love doing the job I do. Even if it can put a strain on the arms carrying this gear to and fro. Seeing the footage at the end of the day is reward enough.

Hi Steve

You have to remember that us "old buggers" grew up with single cameras and VHS tapes that lost a good 20% of the original quality if you copied them ... With the best resolution being "400 line broadcast" you had to learn to shoot so a minimum edited was required so we probably feel more comfortable the way we shoot which doesn't lend itself to stedicams, sliders and jibs. As stunning as today's wedding films are, there still are a lot of brides who want just a record of their day without (what they call all the fancy stuff)

I think there is room for the budget shooters still, along with the creative film makers ..it all comes down to what the bride wants and how much she is prepared to pay for it. Sadly video is still a LONG way down the list of what she wants compared to photography so budgets for those sort of brides are tiny to say the least People like Arthur are filling that gap in the market very nicely!!

Having never done wedding video by myself, I'm fairly new to the game and don't have a frame of reference to know how far wedding videos have come. I mostly do photography at weddings, but the videographers that I've worked with and the videographer I've worked for all seem to be following this trend of bringing an increasing amount of equipment to the wedding.

My opinion is this - if something is worth doing, then do it well. Even if the results of your extra efforts have diminishing returns. That may mean shooting with two cameras instead of one if you're a solo shooter. Or it may mean spending extra time before and after the ceremony to set up and break down. I don't think that great video necessarily requires jibs, sliders and steadicams. However, some weddings that I've shot don't have much action, so having some shots with camera movements adds value to the final product.

Having said that, I try to minimize the equipment that I bring along. Thus far for wedding video jobs, I've packed two cameras, two lenses, two mics, two LED lights, a tripod, a monopod, an audio recorder and headphones. I would bring even more if I were shooting solo (to ensure that I have backups of everything), but even then it would be manageable. Especially if I hired an assistant for the day. Perhaps I'd sing a different tune if I shot with bigger camcorders instead of the diminutive DSLRs that I use.

The trick, of course, is to know how to sell this higher value product to your clients.

I think there is room for the budget shooters still, along with the creative film makers ..it all comes down to what the bride wants and how much she is prepared to pay for it. Sadly video is still a LONG way down the list of what she wants compared to photography so budgets for those sort of brides are tiny to say the least People like Arthur are filling that gap in the market very nicely!!

The problem is Chris is that there is no consistency over low budget and low expectation. Some of my hardest customers have booked my lowest priced packages and my easiest customers have booked my more expensive packages; the reverse is also true but I'd say less so than the former. Those who pay less don't always have the expectations of service to match. They want it all, but just don't want to pay for it. In fact, I've gotten away with reduced number of cameras for top packages that I've never been able to enjoy with my low package option. I've since taken to brand my low price package as basic filming and editing and this has helped to see some upgrades being made to the next package.

The simple truth is, adding an extra camera or two to the Ceremony and Speeches can pay enormous dividends without compromising a simpler edit. It can help when the Vicar confines you to the back and you can arrange for an unmanned camera at front, helps where views are restrictive and also take care of those moments the Photographer or Priest stands right in front of you at a crucial moment. It also removes the need to grab flower arrangements, windows and statues footage just to cover moments when you have to move your camera. It allows for a timeline that is more true to the running order of the event, without including time shifted moments to compensate for a 1 camera shoot.

Multi camera is a skill and some old timers just can't adjust. Then again not just old timers; one of the first Videographers I employed was younger than I, but could not get his head around multi camera setup and found it stressful. It was his loss as I let him go as my clients demanded multi camera and he couldn't deliver.

I would say that Arthur is lucky in that his low prices helps his single camera service to flourish, but he'd enjoy less luck where I live. Competition and prices are more fierce and couples expect a lot more for the minimum amount they expect to pay. When I get undercut by a Videographer charging £400 for full days coverage, editing and a Marryoke as well, my service and what I offer for my price counts for a whole lot more.

Hey Steve

I certainly can't argue with that point of view ...I too have had over demanding clients who also expected the lowest of low prices and the reverse too, so if they are going to hassle me I would rather they pay me handsomely to do so rather than miserably! We still shoot 3 cam at the ceremony and 2 cam during speeches but apart from those everything else is single cam. I really cannot see where there is very much extra work involved by adding a 2nd camera for ceremony and speeches (apart from post being trickier)

I still take my hat off to Arthur though! 65 shoots in a season would kill me, regardless of how easy they were. My target has always been around half that figure which for me working solo is quite manageable but to keep ahead with 65 weddings one would have to have a very slick operation indeed. WE often forget that we are running a business so the bottom line still has to be "Am I making a decent profit" ..not "I'm scraping by and usually end up giving the client more than they paid for ..but look at my stunning work" I seriously doubt if the "fancy" wedding videographers actually cost a wedding correctly from a business POV .. A little while back I issued a challenge to those here to actually do an honest costing and not one replied. With Arthur's straight forward style he has a way better chance of making a healthy profit than the fancy guy who spends 3 weeks on editing to achieve the perfect wedding film. Sure his product is outstanding BUT did he make any money?? I doubt it!!

Hi Chris,
Thats a good point about making a profit and it's easy to delude yourself into thinking you are. I had another big wedding show last week and spoke to another couple of videographers there. One of them said that he was part time as he couldn't make enough to give up his full time job and the other said that he was a full time professional. His work was very competent and he obviously enjoyed using lots of gear. He listed a small crane, steadycam, drone and various cameras and lenses, sliders etc, much of it on display, and spent a couple of weeks editing each video. He'd given up his day job about 18 months earlier but did say that his wife was a senior NHS manager and that her income certainly helped pay the bills.

Therein lies the difference as far as I am concerned between calling yourself professional because you have no other work and actually earning enough to really support a home and family as it is the main income.The guy clearly enjoyed what he was doing, but was fortunate in having a wife with an income to support them and probably wasn't aware what if any real profit he actually made.

Roger

Hi Roger

That only makes sense ... Most self employed people around here cost out at $100 an hour (so around GBP50 an hour in the UK) The way I see the guy you are talking about doing a couple of weeks editing means he has his shoot (with travel lets say 10 hours of his time) Now the editing ... Taking just say 3 hours a day for 10 days (we must assume he either does weddings on the weekend or takes time off) makes another 30 hours of his time. So I wonder if he actually charges at least GBP2000 for a wedding?? and that's no taking his other time for bride consultation, delivery. media, transport costs, insurance ..and the list goes on. For his time spent it's probably closer to 3000 !! If he doesn't charge at least GBP3000 per wedding then he is only fooling himself and doing, as you say, a hobby while his wife pays the bills!

I should add that I have plenty of gear, sliders, jib, lots of lenses, gimbal and the like and my Business does not rely on a wife to support me. Okay I've no kids either but I have been supporting my Brother through difficult times these past 5 years. So my business has paid for his living as well as my own.

I think for a Video Business to thrive, you have to be as good at business as you are with your video work. Wedding fayres aren't the best place to evaluate the effectiveness of the local competition. I've stopped doing Wedding fayres now; useful I think if starting out or if offering Photography, but not worthwhile for Video. If others are the same, the only people you meet at fayres doing video are those starting out and they're making all the mistakes I made when I started. Showing off your gear to potential clients, spending too long on each edit and not managing the workload. They'll either adapt or go under.

I'm not really sure why many here seem to be opposed to wedding shows, but I find them the only way to be able to talk to large numbers of brides in one day. The particular wedding show I mentioned has already given us 8 confirmed weddings in just under a week which I consider a very good return. I will continue to get enquiries from it for months, sometimes longer. Apart from the videographers I mentioned, there were two others there, one who I have seen regularly at wedding shows over the last 15 years, another who I hadn't seen befor but had been filming weddings for 20 years and me exhibiting at shows for over 30 years.

I also get a steady flow of new bookers form Facebook and of course recommendations, but for a maximum of £200 for the shows we attend, I think they are good value. Last Sunday had about 400 brides, but you have to work them correctly or you are just another videographer.

Roger

To be honest Roger, working the fayres takes a whole new level of skill. The ability to chat to couples comfortably about their Wedding without really bringing up Business. Its the salesperson technique; the ability to quickly bond with a customer face to face. I alas do not have such a skill. My social skills not being all they are cracked up to be. This makes securing bookings via face to face more difficult. Others I think may have the same affliction. If I was to invest heavily in Wedding Fayres, I'd ask a female friend to do the idle chat and leave me to close the deal.

However more than that. I'm doing rather well with getting bookings just by working Google and that at least requires no day from my busy schedule to attend a fayre, travel time and effort. I think if I was offering Photography, I'd have to reconsider. However given that this year alone, I grabbed 35 Bookings for this years Weddings since February, shows how much dividends there is in being patient and waiting on the last minute enquires via Google. I haven't missed those Wedding fayres.

I must admit I haven't tried them as the cost has put me off ... they seem to want an arm and a leg for a tiny stand and then it's often a two day affair so apart from the actual cost of being an exhibitor, you essentially lose a whole weekend that you could be shooting a paying wedding or even two. Yes we do have cheaper ones but those tend to be right in the middle of the busiest part of the wedding season and more often than not you are booked. I had the opportunity to do a "free" one in November but it's a good hour's drive out of the city on a Sunday and do I really want to do my usual Saturday wedding the night before then haul my weary backside out of bed in the wee hours of Sunday morning to set up stands and suchlike??

Hi Arthur

I think I would also prefer the variety of doing multiple weddings like yours rather than a highly complex multi-camera work of art as they are harder to sell and a lot more post production work too. However 65 weddings is a bit much as far as I'm concerned as our typical season is September to May down here and it means you are doing 2 weddings each and every weekend ..that's a huge amount of effort as you technically only have 5 days after each weekend to edit maybe 2 weddings from the weekend just past so you don't get a backlog. Our main basic weddings we now do as a live broadcast and edit/mix the footage with a second wide angle cam and titles etc etc on site as it happens. That way our week is essentially free and we at least have a break. I see Noa was doing some calculations based on 16 higher end weddings versus your annual 65 single cam ones ..what base price do you charge for one of your weddings??

Hi Chris, my price was raised up from $1300 US dollars to $1400 this year as I had no price increase during the past 7 years. Easy to calculate that I rake in, on the average year, very close to 90 grand, not factoring in the income tax ( around 25% ). I used to have packages ranging from $750 to $1800 in the past but most wanted the mid point package and so I dropped the low and high end ones, also because I did not want to commit to a low package and refuse a higher priced one if it happened on the same date. I do not take 2 jobs on the same date as I don't want to pay a cameraman $750 to shoot a job that might result in lots of editing time to correct mistakes. I don't take that risk. My competitors charge much more as I have mentioned but their overhead expenses and salaries are huge and that cuts deeply into their bottom line. They push all that multi camera shoot with bokeh stuff, special effects, steady cam, crane at reception venue, etc. I get the feeling they enjoy the attention of distractiing guests. They ( my competitors) also contract photographers that bring in their share of 2nd and 3rd shooters that add to the confusion. It is not uncommon to see 3 videographers and 3 photographers on the same event. Sure,they charge around $5k and average 30-40 jobs a year but take away their expenses and they might see $2K profit per job..and that is before income tax kicks in.

Hi Arthur

That's pretty good but of course some would rather do only 20 x $4500 shoots to get a turnover of $90K ..I do agree than what you do makes sense as you can edit quickly and easily where the higher end guy has staff to pay and will take a week or more to edit .. I see Roger does just a single "all day" package for a US$ price of $1055 and he also adds photos included for $1320 ... Our base video package is around the same here with bride prep thru to first dance for AUS$1099 ..and I can do them solo. I often wonder if the high end guys are offering "what I want to give you" rather than "what you really want" ..hence the title of the post ... Unless they are rolling in money most brides simply want a record of the day and whether you do it on one cam or with 3 video guys and 5 cameras, do they REALLY care?

I guess if one has the expertise to sell the bride a Cadillac when she really wanted a Toyota we must take our hats off to them for their marketing skills. I still prefer something I can wrap up and deliver in a couple of days with minimum overheads. I fact I'm trying to convince brides to have a live broadcast wedding which we actually edit live too (it does take two people though) That way when we leave the venue after the first dance is over ..the wedding video is finished and we have almost zero post work to do. However trying to sell new technology to brides is hard work but we have booked 3 so far!!

I often wonder if the high end guys are offering "what I want to give you" rather than "what you really want" ..hence the title of the post ...

I was following one of your other posts where you talk about the streaming a wedding, not that I would consider doing something like that but I do find it interesting, there was also a link to a website that contained these type of live streams but there was one particular film which was a interview with you, the woman who interviewed you, who also got married recently, said that weddingvideography is all about capturing moments and then asked you what your favorite moment was that gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling and before you answer she says "mine is the first look".

You then say, "for me not" and say it's the romantic photoshoot with slowmotion shots because that's the first time of the day they get a break from the panic from getting ready, getting through the ceremony etc.

I actually only hear you talk about what "you" find important in that interview, you say you only find the ceremony the most important part of the day and ask why anyone wants to watch their drunk friends who cost a lot of money on food and drinks, or why anyone would spend a lot of money on their wedding instead of having a ceremony only and a few drinks after that and be done with it and save some money which they can spend on important parts after their wedding.

Actually you are the one that is offering a "what I want to give you" rather than "what you really want" because all you say in the interview is targeted to the service you are offering. There is not one moment where you are giving me the impression that you care about what brides actually want.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying what you offer is not important, I can imagine that the interest for having live stream weddings in large countries where family live much further distances apart from eachother and are not always able to attend wedding is much larger then in a tiny country where I live in. The possibility to follow a ceremony live or watch it later for anyone who cannot attend sounds very appealing and there certainly is a market for that. It also is very appealing for brides with very limited budgets who just want to at least have the ceremony captured.

About one camera documentary shooters and "high end cinema" 3 shooter teams with all the toys. As I see it it's all about budget, those brides that have a small budget often end up in the "weekend warriors" zone, eventhough there are talented people operating in that area at very low prices there is a lot of crap being offered as well and from my own country I find many operating in that area, they don't care about sound, they don't have the technical skill and they don't have the talent, and they just care about making a extra buck.

If I would get married and have a big budget I would hire a guy like Rob Adams without a doubt, his films are beautifully crafted and would be worth every cent because that would be the only real memory left from my overly expensive wedding. If I don't have the budget I would end up with a weekend warrior knowing that the possibility of hiring a talented guy would be very very small, not non existing, but just very difficult to find and if my budget was very limited I probably would have my ceremony only filmed but would expect it to be at least a 2 camera coverage with good sound, if that was not possible I rather have a family member on the front row hold a camera and just point the camera towards the altar.

I guess if one has the expertise to sell the bride a Cadillac when she really wanted a Toyota we must take our hats off to them for their marketing skills.

A few weeks back a bride wanted to hire me, she wanted the film package which is a full day coverage, when she visited me to watch a finished film and talk about her wedding she said to me she changed her mind and just wanted to have a ceremony coverage only. I said to her "I don't do that, I only offer full day coverage", I saw she was disappointed but then said to her; "just watch a finished film from such a full day coverage and see what you could be missing."

When the film was over she didn't say a word but the look on her face when she turned to her boyfriend was telling a lot, she said that the reason she was in doubt and eventually changed her mind was because she had a feeling that weddingvideos where long and boring and was surprised now to see my 20 minute highlight.

A few days later she send me a email with a signed contract attached for a full day coverage, what is important here is that I did not have to sell anything, I have not applied any marketing skills but I just made her feel what it's like to drive in a Caddilac ;) and by this offering what she really wants.

Hi Chris,

I think that things probably vary according to the area that you are in. Although we do travel further afield, the majority of our weddings are from around a 50 mile radius, which is a fairly low average income area. There are cities like Cambridge which are about 90 minutes drive from us which have an above average income, but in my experience they are more likely to be already married and established in life, as Cambridge is just too expensive for most young couples starting out in life with some exceptions of course.

Our basic all day wedding video package has now been overtaken by our joint video and photo package, which accounts for about 80% of the bookings. We can do both without any particular increase in pressure on the day because of the way we work and equipment we use. We also added a more varied package with pre wedding shoot, and a fun booth in the evening. We started to push that more this year and although there is only a small amount of extra work for considerably more money, it has already gained a lot of bookings. We have also seen an increase in take up on the photo only package which is the same price as the video only.

As Claire and I can both work solo on any of the packages and also edit individually, that means that when we have two of our top packages on the same day, it gives a very good income return.

Steve, I hear what you say about interacting with people at wedding shows and I suppose that because both Claire and I were entertainers for many years, we are very used to that side of talking to people and don't have a problem with it. Perhaps that's why we enjoy the wedding shows and are able to make them work.

Roger