Video Shot By A Guy Referred to My Client

[Thomas Hollyday]

Here's the deal

Someone referred a guy to one of my clients to shoot a red carpet event out in the hamptons a few weeks ago. Sent out by the client with a Sony PD150, He came back with this:

YouTube - Video Shot by a Guy I Referred

Here are a few questions that if people could take some time to answer, would be very helpful to this self-styled "Video Ographer." What is your opinion of the technical quality of this video footage? Would you be happy if you were the paying client and this footage was brought back to you to use on your Television Show and WHY? Do you think this Video Ographer is of a professional skill level and Why? What suggestions do you have for this video guy for future paying job?

The "Video Ographer" swears that his zebras were 70% on the subjects face and that he did everything he could possibly do to expose correctly.

Thank you for any comments. BTW I'm not disrespecting Videographers --- I am one --- it's just that this guy insists on telling clients that he is a ---- " Video --Ographer"

[Edward Carlson]

The first thing I noticed was the poor tripod. One was used, but it was either not a fluid head, or was and was still locked. The most glaring problem was the use of manual iris. He actually opened it up more when there was an all-white background. At one point he had it perfect, then opened back up. He also rides the iris the entire time, constantly changing it, but never making it good (or even legal for broadcast I expect!)

[Bob Hart]

I am a little confounded by the purpose of this post.


Is it a name and shame with no name? The footage speaks for itself. The camera operator is his or her own best motivation for your client to be encouraged to revisit you next time round. I assume this is the point of this post.

There is no need to rub it in. It does not make good business sense. Your client now becomes the focus for negative attention, not the camera operator, so might just go elsewhere rather than come back all chagrined and face the music with you.

People no matter how loyal, can be like that and you would never know, except maybe observing your client base wither a little. The customer is always right even if as wrong as all hell, the exception of course being when no business is better than bad business.


That said and the cliches finished and clear - my own observations :-


The camera operator is apparently using substandard camera support, does not appear to know how to walk around a tripod ( or was bumped by humble public ) and is not fluent on two fronts.


With the camera itself.

In preparing for events - as in prior research of the best places and viewpoints for best composition and flow of action.


Skilled or nay, the camera operator may have simply had a very bad frustrating day.


Whoever planned the event and designed that background panel was not exactly the most inspired either. It had lookaway built right into it and may not have helped a live audience because of glare, let alone media coverage.

[Andrew McMillan]

Well the camera work itself looked like pretty classic E news footage (sans bad tripod and iris riding) which could be a good thing if that's what your going for. Even the shot of the camera people.

But the iris riding was unacceptable the footage is for the most part ruined
He might of had the zebras set to 100 and not 70 Which are on the same switch on the pd 150. or he might have been trying to get to zebras on the whole face and not just high lights.

Wouldn't pay for this, but maybe if he got it right.

[Thomas Hollyday]

Originally Posted by Bob Hart

I am a little confounded by the purpose of this post.


Is it a name and shame with no name? The footage speaks for itself. The camera operator is his or her own best motivation for your client to be encouraged to revisit you next time round. I assume this is the point of this post.

There is no need to rub it in. It does not make good business sense. Your client now becomes the focus for negative attention, not the camera operator, so might just go elsewhere rather than come back all chagrined and face the music with you.

People no matter how loyal, can be like that and you would never know, except maybe observing your client base wither a little. The customer is always right even if as wrong as all hell, the exception of course being when no business is better than bad business.


That said and the cliches finished and clear - my own observations :-


The camera operator is apparently using substandard camera support, does not appear to know how to walk around a tripod ( or was bumped by humble public ) and is not fluent on two fronts.


With the camera itself.

In preparing for events - as in prior research of the best places and viewpoints for best composition and flow of action.


Skilled or nay, the camera operator may have simply had a very bad frustrating day.


Whoever planned the event and designed that background panel was not exactly the most inspired either. It had lookaway built right into it and may not have helped a live audience because of glare, let alone media coverage.

Shame with no name definitely

My wish is not to name names --- but only to let the footage stand by itself ---

and be tried in the court of public opinion

the reason being that the guy that shot it ---cursed me up and down that he had done everything he says he could have ---- to expose the shot properly ----

and it's pretty clear that this is Certainly NOT the case

By The Way ------------- I fired the client weeks ago ---

not even the point ----

The point was: The Video Sucked --- and it was done by someone who thinks they're pretty good at it. Go Figure.

Red Carpet Events are always staged like this with plenty of bright logos everywhere

Not too hard to shoot if you know how -- and this guy didn't


Thanks for the replies

[Dean Sensui]

Well you know the footage is bad.

In today's technology where what-you-see-is-what-you-get, I don't understand how anyone can come back with horribly mis-exposed material.

I come from a background where you didn't see what you got until after the film was processed and the prints made. And by then hours or even days had gone by. So a "pro" HAD to know how to get it right.

The best news guys could be shooting without a meter and be able to tell you what the exposure needed to be within a stop -- and in the days of Tri-X and D-76 that was pretty darn close.

[Don Bloom]

Ah, TriX pushed to 1600 (or more)! Big dots of grain and the newspapers all loved it! Brings back great fond memories.
NikonF (original F camera) with the lens of choice and a Singer/Graflex or Metz flash-TriX to 1600-shutter 1/60th-f/2.4 zone focus and GO FOR IT! :-)
Ah the good ol' days! Hah!

Thanks for the early AM memories
Don

[Mark L. Whalen]

Originally Posted by Don Bloom

Ah, TriX pushed to 1600 (or more)! Big dots of grain and the newspapers all loved it! Brings back great fond memories.
NikonF (original F camera) with the lens of choice and a Singer/Graflex or Metz flash-TriX to 1600-shutter 1/60th-f/2.4 zone focus and GO FOR IT! :-)
Ah the good ol' days! Hah!

Thanks for the early AM memories
Don

'Tri-X, f/8 and be there' was the mantra for the guys I worked with at my first job. Funny, I still have an old sweatshirt with fixer stains on it.

Nikon FM with a Metz or Lumedyne with the shoulder battery pack. Ahhhhhh... I can smell the Dektol now......

[Scott Hayes]

no pay. he ruined footage of a still hot Christie Brinkley

[Bill Pryor]

She is definitely hot. But so is the footage. Clearly overexposed.

The guy does not know how to read zebras, obviously.

All the whites are blown out. And it appears he was using a still camera tripod. Just because a guy can afford to buy a video camera doesn't mean he knows enough to use it. From what you're saying, his attitude is typical--not MY fault. Scratch him off your list. If you're using FCP and are conversant with Color, you might be able to tweak the footage a bit to make it within the realm of acceptability. Good luck.

[Shaun Roemich]

OBVIOUSLY, buddy was going for the "Infinite White" background made famous by Apple. You guys SERIOUSLY need to get with the times! Film, FM and Metz... BAH! Dinosaurs all...

<Tongue planted so VERY firmly in cheek I think I bruised myself>

I used to teach and my STUDENTS never came back with anything THAT awful. Blue? Yes. 190 IRE whites? Never.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Dean Sensui

Well you know the footage is bad.

In today's technology where what-you-see-is-what-you-get, I don't understand how anyone can come back with horribly mis-exposed material.

The shooter probably doesn't even know the difference. I can see the thought process now...
"Yeah, this looks just like a music video! I wonder if this thing goes whiter? Wow, it does! Awesome! This looks wicked!"

[Gary Nattrass]

A definite case of where leaving the camera in auto mode would have done a better exposure job! (insert smiley)

We are really lucky here in the Uk we never get any sunshine so exposure for dull cloudy overcast is our std pre-set (insert another smiley)

[Jim Andrada]

Dektol/D76/Tri-X. Still available from Kodak. Original Nikon F - still have two of them in good working order. Great camera. One of them is sitting on my desk at the moment. I still remember how to use a light meter! I even still have my nearly 40 year old 5 X 7 Linhof - in fact I just sent one of the shutters off to be cleaned and re-calibrated by a guy in Providence R.I.

That's what I find lacking about modern photography - no chemical smell, no magic moment watching the latent image appear under the safelight, no fixer stains on my clothes.

[Gary Nattrass]

I love the smell of hypo in the morning, to me it smells like........ victory!!!