Wedding highlights video open for review (XF100 and 6D)

My wife and I have recently started our own videography business. I have shot and edited weddings for family and friends over the years and decided to really get into it. Its something we can do together and we love it! We are shooting with an XF100 and 6D and are learning to make the two compatible, especially in low light situations where color and noise can be a bit of a problem with the XF. This video was shot freehand, before i aquired a shoulder brace for the 6D so you may have to excuse a slight shake here and there! That problem has recently been solved!

Any comments and suggestions are appreciated!

Jolene and Javier Wedding Highlights on Vimeo

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

I have never had any client say that their video was too long or boring in about 2000 weddings

Clients have different expectations and yours want a long form, "I want to have to all" kind of wedding documentary style kind of video, nothing wrong with that, but you make it sound like this is what everyone wants and all videographers that don't supply that are just preoccupied with themselves.

My current style is to edit a 20 minute film that includes all the highlights throughout the day, but I supply the ceremony and all speeches completely as well if that is what my client wants, and they do request that, every time.

My clients love the fact that they can show a short form film to their family and friends because they don't want everyone to endure a 2 hour long film. But in case there is a "die hard" that says, to bad I can't see the ceremony completely and then "surprise!", they select that part on the dvd.

My clients also love the fact they can have a 5 minute film online to share through their facebook contacts, they love it contains all the emotional bits with all the eyecandy shots a glidecam, slider and shallow dof shots can provide. This is also the best marketing tool ever which, beside the hosting cost on vimeo, doesn't cost you one cent.

Most of my clients actually pick me because of my online trailers and there is quite some steadicam and shallow dof footage in there. Those are not the most important tools but they do contribute into the way people experience their film if used at the right time.

Like the moment when everyone has taken their seat in the venue and the couple is doing their first entrance. I"m with them behind close doors standing right behind them, you hear the dj announcing the couple, the bride looks back at me, into my camera with a big nervous smile,you see them squeezing hands looking at each-other, you hear the crowd cheering but from a distance as the doors are still closed, then they open, the cheering sounds swells and they walk or run inside, holding their hands high in the air as if they just won a competition, the crowd welcomes them like they have just returned from a victorious battle and while that is all going on, I"m right there behind them, capturing every single moment in one continuous smooth flowing shot, I raise my glide cam up high as well so you can look over the cheering crowd.

That moment and that moment only, is worth the investment of my steadicam that you can never capture in a right way with one camera on a tripod or handheld, that my friend, is a very short moment of pure cinema...

[Noa Put]

Derek, about the part's I found that where dragging to long and some other bit awkward editing choices I might have better pointed out what I meant. When they went of to sign the register, you see them moving from the position where they got married to the table where they have to sign, the camera pans and follows them, you see them sit down, next shot is another camera angle following the moment the bride that is sitting down, then again another camera shot, we still see the bride sitting with a bridesmaid putting her dress in order. That sequence alone is much too long, for me as a viewer there is nothing interesting into the fact that the bride is sitting down.

Then we see a person saying something and the couple looking and then the signing starts, here I also would have used live sound to hear what was being said, maybe just a very short part of something meaningful.

The signing parts should also be cut shorter, like teh moment between 2 persons signing, here we are waiting, looking at the person putting ready another sheet to sign, and that again is not interesting to the viewer, they only want to see the action. At the end of the signing you see a guy putting the pen back on the paper, again here this doesn't add anything interesting.

Then you see the couple walking up to the table to light the candles, again here the part where they go to the table is not needed, just the part where they light the candle.

Also at 01:35 you make some very quick short edits cut to the music, those shots that you add are first of all to short for the viewer to see what is going on and they seem to be out of their place as well with some random quick inserts of what is going to happen.

These are just a few of the parts which did not feel right to me, editing is even more difficult then to handle your dslr :) Everyone can cut a video but only a few manage to get to the point where they have the feeling there is nothing more to take out, only then you will know you have a great film. Also I am trying to reach that point in every edit I do, sometimes I almost get there, sometimes I don't but I don't give up trying :)

[Rob Cantwell]

I know the handheld was mentioned and not too bad really either, but anyway my big thing and it's a personal taste thing is the little blurry bits at the start and end of some clips, call it arty or creative, i'd call it crap sorry!
The only other thing that annoyed me was around 1:40 it looked like it was running out of control a bit and jumping in and out of sequence which to me appeared slightly confusing.

overall pretty nice tho!

I've used a 5D to take video shots on a few events i was covering as a stills photographer, I found it very difficult to prevent the OOF shots and the all the other challenges that the DSLR presents, when you do manage to get everything right it does look great! but it takes loads of practice then more and more again to master it. So if i'm doing video only the 5D is my C cam and i think i'd have it on around f11 or something!!!

I'm like some of the above in that I provide a full long movie of the whole day with chapters - it usually is around 60 -70 minutes (thats for the B&G and immediate family) I edit this footage down to around 15/17 minutes short movie no chapters (this is for when friends come and the B&G can show the wedding that wont bore the pants off everyone!) and i edit this down to 3/4 minutes and deliver it on whatever format suits their favourite social media site or smart phone etc.

just my ¢2

[Chris Harding]

Hi Rob

Oh dear..another lamb to the slaughter ! It seems that here blurry bits are considered cool and artsy. However surely the bottom line is does the bride like it? I was shown a competitor's sample DVD by a bride who was totally disgusted with the fact that her face was "clear" but her flowers were blurry ...another bride might of course consider the same clip as stunning so it's really what the bride wants rather than what we think she wants.

Don't get me wrong, I have great admiration for the guys who are spending huge amounts of time getting focus with tiny DOF absolutely perfect and achieving clever rack focus shots and if that's what turns your client's on then great. My brides are obviously different and seldom like the commonly used white flash transitions used in between shots and will tolerate reasonable DOF shots as long as important shots are all in focus and not overdone.

The biggest problem here is that your submitted clips are being reviewed by fellow videographers and not by brides who are really the client and should be be the ones saying what they like and don't like.

All we can do here is give technical comments here and hope it helps the OP in achieving a better result

Take all comments posted as useful despite the bickering and learn from them.

Chris

[Clive McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Like the moment when everyone has taken their seat in the venue and the couple is doing their first entrance. I"m with them behind close doors standing right behind them, you hear the dj announcing the couple, the bride looks back at me, into my camera with a big nervous smile,you see them squeezing hands looking at each-other, you hear the crowd cheering but from a distance as the doors are still closed, then they open, the cheering sounds swells and they walk or run inside, holding their hands high in the air as if they just won a competition, the crowd welcomes them like they have just returned from a victorious battle and while that is all going on, I"m right there behind them, capturing every single moment in one continuous smooth flowing shot, I raise my glide cam up high as well so you can look over the cheering crowd.

BOOM - you just knocked that right out of the ballpark as the Americans like to say. I'd also like to add that all my cinematic style shots are also sprinkled throughout the documentary style sections of my dvd where they chronologically happened. This spices up the dullness.

Another thing that I was thinking about is this. I reckon guys like Roger will always get clients who want guys like Roger. But I don't think us cinematographer types are treading on his ground. I actually think most of my clients are people who were going to 'not bother' with a 'boring video' - that is until they realized it could be something slick, exciting and make them look like superstars. I believe what I do encourages doubters to in the end opt for a wedding video.

[Daniel Latimer]

Originally Posted by Clive McLaughlin

I reckon guys like Roger will always get clients who want guys like Roger. But I don't think us cinematographer types are treading on his ground. I actually think most of my clients are people who were going to 'not bother' with a 'boring video' - that is until they realized it could be something slick, exciting and make them look like superstars. I believe what I do encourages doubters to in the end opt for a wedding video.

I agree with this. If a bride looked at Roger's work (or any documentary filmmakers work, not picking on Roger) and wanted a cinematic style then they would never call Roger. If that's the style they wanted then they would call Roger. You're going to attract the brides that like your style.

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Clive McLaughlin

Another thing that I was thinking about is this. I reckon guys like Roger will always get clients who want guys like Roger. But I don't think us cinematographer types are treading on his ground. I actually think most of my clients are people who were going to 'not bother' with a 'boring video' - that is until they realized it could be something slick, exciting and make them look like superstars. I believe what I do encourages doubters to in the end opt for a wedding video.

To some extent Clive, you and Daniel are right because 60-70% of my weddings are recommendations, so those people will want want they have seen of my previous work. I also promote the documentary style simply because I feel it has the longer lasting appeal, but not to the denigration of cinematic.

I do think that my outspoken belief in the importance of documentary style though, has led a number of members to feel that I am opposed to cinematic per SE. This is absolutely not the case and if a potential client saw my work and asked if they could have a cinematic short, I would be delighted to provide it.

What I am concerned about though, is that for practical reasons, the wedding uploads on this forum are primarily cinematic short form, which can easily lead new members, particularly those new to filming weddings, to feel that this is the only way to go. There is no doubt that a large proportion of wedding videographers cover this section of the market, and my own experience from wedding shows, websites and client visits, is that cinematic is what most couples tend to see when they are looking for ideas. So bearing in mind that 90% of couples don't have a video, the more options they are offered the better in my view.

Creating a competent cinematic style is very satisfying from a creative and artistic point of view and involves a number of skills, some identical and some different to doc. When done well, it creates impact, has the WOW factor and can be very impressive. What it doesn't do is capture emotion, personality and atmosphere as a historical record. So I really believe that Doc and Cinematic together could widen the appeal of wedding video, without needing to be mutually exclusive or divisive. Think movie trailer and movie, the two are inextricably linked. Some of the trailers shown on the forum have encouraged me to start offering them as an addition to clients, so I certainly don't oppose them.

I believe that those offering both, or a choice of either, are covering a much larger slice of the market and people new to the forum and to producing wedding video should be encouraged to experiment with both styles without a greater emphasis on either.

Roger

[Noa Put]

My dad used to make long form weddings which lasted 1,5 to 2 hours and even longer and he never changed his way of working untill the day he died. It is also my impression that people who are in the business for many years (+ 20) tend to be the ones that are reluctant to change, they have found a way that works so why change? They also started in the business when long form doc style weddings where the only type of shooting style. Just that you know, my dad had been shooting wedding for over 30 years.

I am sure that strictly documentary that goes on up to 2 hours is much appreciated by the couple that chooses this kind of video because it's their choice and they will watch and re-watch their video, but you can also be sure if they invite their friends to come over and watch that video people will start to talk during the film or the remote will be taken to fast forward through certain parts, I have seen it happen many times in my circle of friends that got married.

You could say that you are working for your client and not for other people but those could be potential clients, also, once you loose attention, the purpose of the film is gone.

That's why I started to make 20 minute highlights and they do contain all emotional parts and include cinematic elements, in these 20 minutes there is no time to fast forward because there is always something going on but it never drags on meaning you don't loose attention.

So I don't agree that cinematic wedding videos are not showing any emotion or personality, in fact, they show it even more then a documentary style film and I know since I have been shooting and editing strictly documentary for several years when I started out. Since you don't need to work chronological with cine style you can use the emotional parts troughout your film and you can change the tempo whenever you want from emotional, to fun and back and that all in a very short time while with doc style your are bound to whatever happens at that certain moment in time. With a cine style you can be much more creative which will give you a much more fun film to watch.

I do deliver the longer parts like speeches and ceremony as well but they are separate files, in the short highlight I take the most important parts but give the client the chance to see it all, from the reactions I get the long pieces only the client and their parents watch, but the short version is being showed to everyone else.

[Roger Gunkel]

Noa. I have seen examples of your cinematic work and I think that it encapsulates the best of both, but from what I have seen, your's tend to be the exception that others may strive to emulate but rarely do. Most seem to have lost that connection with the actual emotion of the day and I think that is a shame.

I would like to think that any shorts that I may do would put an emphasis on the natural feel, complimented with good editing and cinematic style. You have perfected that method and I have always said that people who aren't close members of the family will have little interest in the full length version. That doesn't change my opinion on it being the essential record of the day, but I do agree that a short version will be of interest to friends and more distant family members as an overview and selecting the cream. That is why I feel that the option of both is maximising the market appeal.

Roger