Some hd100 wedding stills

Tim Holtermann · May 9th, 2006, 12:27 PM

Exactly Jonathan!

I often see event photography/videography that is no different than someone shooting with their home camera. Sure the quality of the picture and resolution might be better but the shots don't "say" anything.

Since this thread is on Weddings I'll use this as an example. After your big day is over and you have had some time to get back to normacy, you may have some friends or family over that may or may not have attended your wedding and you want to show them your nifty wedding video that you payed 4-8K for.

Do you think most people want to sit through an hour of ceremony footage watching a wide shot of the church with a few close ups of the vows? You will bore them to death. Now throw in a 15-20 minute highlight reel with footage that really says something, conveys the mood, and lets everyone relive what they were all feelign during the actual event. The eyes are the window to our soul, they say much more then most ever notice, yet most wedding shooters never get close ups of this? Why?

Shoot something that isn't intrusive, but makes the viewer see and feel what we are thinking, not just watching another home video.

Here are a few of my engagement photos - these should give you and idea of what I mean about shooting the world around us as Jonathan said.

http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_1073.jpg

http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_0881.jpg

http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_0656.jpg

http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_0394.jpg

http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_1199.jpg

Miklos Philips · May 9th, 2006, 01:09 PM

Which lens did you use on the camera? (to the original poster Steve)

Jonathan Ames · May 9th, 2006, 01:57 PM

Tim is exactly right. There used to be a time where "Wedding Photographers" were looked down on in the heirarchy of production. It was due principally to the limited availability of tools out there with each con-or prosumer camera pretty much the same as the other. There was no opportunity to differentiate yourself; to dream up and execute artistry. Today, however, with the availability of performance cameras, the wedding photographer has the opportunity to distinguish him- or herself in an arena that, quite literally in the forum of life-importance, dwarfs the movie industry. The wedding shooter now has an opportunity and an expectation to create a film; a memory that will last far longer than Mission Impossible or American Idol; a movie that really does survive through the years. With today's cameras, you're limited only by your own imagination and desire to learn your craft and tools. And with that, unlike before, comes money, something that wedding shooters have historically had a hard time requesting. The creation of a wedding reel that shows a fine DP's use of his tools, painting with light, framing with focus and camera movements with thought and finish and the shooters ability to explain in simple but discriptive terms why his reel is the way it is and others' aren't can elicit in the prospective client an understanding of why $25k is an acceptable charge that, unlike the theatre ticket, they can amortize over a lifetime each time they relive the memory. They spend that for food and drink, flowers and music and other expendables that only live on in memory. Wedding films don't wilt and blow away like flowers or turn to urine like food and drink. A finely crafted wedding video shot like their client's own favorite movie can provide the rightful foundation for a high price where the audience can afford it. And with a finely crafted reel marked in the right place, the audience makes itself because there are so few out there that are making the wedding video an art of rememberance. You couldn't do it handcuffed by the technological limitations of the past but with the tools available today and an understanding of those tools and the light that brings those tools to life, a wedding shooter can make a very comfortable living and that's why I commend Steven for what his stills show. Heck, I paid $10k for my wedding videographer back in 86 and it's nothing compared to what today's technology makes possible.

Jonathan Ames · May 9th, 2006, 01:59 PM

Excellent examples, Tim.

Steven Polley · May 9th, 2006, 07:36 PM

I used the Standard Fujion Lens on the Camera. I have not had a problem with split screen yet.

I agree with you Tim on your observations. I only wish Wedding Videos in the South were looked at the same as in New York or Cali. Here in Mississippi, the photographer gets precedent. But, all that is changing every year I do this. Especially with the advent of High Def. I am excited about the future of wedding videography as my profession.

May 9th, 2006, 01:09 PM	#17
Miklos Philips Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 104 Images: 12	what lens Which lens did you use on the camera? (to the original poster Steve)

May 9th, 2006, 07:36 PM	#20
Steven Polley New Boot Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Tupelo, MS Posts: 24	I used the Standard Fujion Lens on the Camera. I have not had a problem with split screen yet. I agree with you Tim on your observations. I only wish Wedding Videos in the South were looked at the same as in New York or Cali. Here in Mississippi, the photographer gets precedent. But, all that is changing every year I do this. Especially with the advent of High Def. I am excited about the future of wedding videography as my profession. __________________ Steven Polley www.yourinfocus.net

May 9th, 2006, 12:27 PM	#16
Tim Holtermann Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 184	Exactly Jonathan! I often see event photography/videography that is no different than someone shooting with their home camera. Sure the quality of the picture and resolution might be better but the shots don't "say" anything. Since this thread is on Weddings I'll use this as an example. After your big day is over and you have had some time to get back to normacy, you may have some friends or family over that may or may not have attended your wedding and you want to show them your nifty wedding video that you payed 4-8K for. Do you think most people want to sit through an hour of ceremony footage watching a wide shot of the church with a few close ups of the vows? You will bore them to death. Now throw in a 15-20 minute highlight reel with footage that really says something, conveys the mood, and lets everyone relive what they were all feelign during the actual event. The eyes are the window to our soul, they say much more then most ever notice, yet most wedding shooters never get close ups of this? Why? Shoot something that isn't intrusive, but makes the viewer see and feel what we are thinking, not just watching another home video. Here are a few of my engagement photos - these should give you and idea of what I mean about shooting the world around us as Jonathan said. http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_1073.jpg http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_0881.jpg http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_0656.jpg http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_0394.jpg http://66.34.47.146/temp/img_1199.jpg

May 9th, 2006, 01:57 PM	#18
Jonathan Ames 2nd Unit TV Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 509	Tim is exactly right. There used to be a time where "Wedding Photographers" were looked down on in the heirarchy of production. It was due principally to the limited availability of tools out there with each con-or prosumer camera pretty much the same as the other. There was no opportunity to differentiate yourself; to dream up and execute artistry. Today, however, with the availability of performance cameras, the wedding photographer has the opportunity to distinguish him- or herself in an arena that, quite literally in the forum of life-importance, dwarfs the movie industry. The wedding shooter now has an opportunity and an expectation to create a film; a memory that will last far longer than Mission Impossible or American Idol; a movie that really does survive through the years. With today's cameras, you're limited only by your own imagination and desire to learn your craft and tools. And with that, unlike before, comes money, something that wedding shooters have historically had a hard time requesting. The creation of a wedding reel that shows a fine DP's use of his tools, painting with light, framing with focus and camera movements with thought and finish and the shooters ability to explain in simple but discriptive terms why his reel is the way it is and others' aren't can elicit in the prospective client an understanding of why $25k is an acceptable charge that, unlike the theatre ticket, they can amortize over a lifetime each time they relive the memory. They spend that for food and drink, flowers and music and other expendables that only live on in memory. Wedding films don't wilt and blow away like flowers or turn to urine like food and drink. A finely crafted wedding video shot like their client's own favorite movie can provide the rightful foundation for a high price where the audience can afford it. And with a finely crafted reel marked in the right place, the audience makes itself because there are so few out there that are making the wedding video an art of rememberance. You couldn't do it handcuffed by the technological limitations of the past but with the tools available today and an understanding of those tools and the light that brings those tools to life, a wedding shooter can make a very comfortable living and that's why I commend Steven for what his stills show. Heck, I paid $10k for my wedding videographer back in 86 and it's nothing compared to what today's technology makes possible.

May 9th, 2006, 01:59 PM	#19
Jonathan Ames 2nd Unit TV Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 509	Excellent examples, Tim.