Main reason brides prefer photography?

[Waldemar Winkler]

Originally Posted by Peter Ralph

what is the main reason most brides would rather forgo video than photo?

Since I do both, I would offer a rather long variation of what has already been said. Still images, if they really capture the "moment", offer the viewer the freedom to wander into their own memories or imaginations as they carefully scrutinize the picture before them. This is one of the things I love about the still image that video can not reproduce.

Video is a linear story line that demands the viewer have a dvd player and TV as well as the time to sit down and be entertained. That story, when carefully assembled is much more powerful than the still image, but by no means a competitor.

Video demands more equipment to capture as well as a lot of critical decision time to make that smooth flowing narrative. Digital photographers are finding themselves spending a lot more critital time producing their final products as well, but I personally believe their work remains much easier.

Cost. Video costs more to produce, but average wedding clients can't seem to understand. Their eyes widen at production costs of big feature films but that somehow makes sense. They can not, however, recognize wedding videographers, who use the same basic concepts and processes to produce wedding videos, have massively streamlined the production process to make it cost effective. In my experience, clients who have seen GOOD videos both know what they want and are not disturbed by cost. Those who only have an "idea" that is most often based upon the ignorant comments of some slightly savvy family computer nerd can't comprehend.

Longevity. Production format compatibility and the longevity associated with it lacks assurance. Can my DVD videos of five years ago still be viewed 25 years from now? 50 years from now? 100 years from now? The very first photos made almost 200 years ago remain viewable with no additional assistance. My great grandfather's American Civil War tintype, like my wife's photos of her grand mother's wedding in the 1920's, as they sit comfortably displayed on the mantle, demand nothing more than my eyes to view. Backward compatibility is probably the most important and least considered issue by any manufacturer of any electronic imaging company in the world.

Third, production quality. IF the electronic display manufacturers can promise longevity in terms of backward compatibility, then I think wedding video producers have something to offer in terms of long term value. IF there is reliability there, then I feel natural market processes will shape a widely acceptable standard of quality that all event videographers must accept. If not, event video production will always be first and foremost, a battle for "todays" short term market instead of the building of an industry that has archival gaurantees.

Lastly, video is quite the newcomer in the wedding arena of possibilities. I'm not even sure video, as we currently understand it, will be the standard of the future. In any case, as a marketable item, video must elevate awareness so it has a budget priority that is in the top 50% instead of the bottom 50%.

Personally, I prefer video over photography. It tells a story better in so may ways. I do photography more because it is more in demand.

[Rick Steele]

Originally Posted by James Klatt

It's funny, since I shoot weddings, but I prefer photos to video too.
They are less literal, and allow more for the imagination.

Exactly. Photos add a sense of mystery which stimulates the imagination.

[Rick Steele]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Actually you could these days, but few people are likely to do that. A more intriguing issue is the question of portability, with some interesting possibilities relating to weddings and other events. If a bride could pull out her cell phone and watch herself saying her wedding vows or dancing with her husband (and dad) at the reception, how cool would that be? Videography is finally in a position to take on photography as a practical means of sharing memories, and if we can start demonstrating that to people we might make some headway in terms of popularity. It will likely be many years yet before video becomes as common as photography for weddings, but hopefully we're moving in that direction.

But all this high-tech is readily available to photogs as well. Technology alone will never distinguish video from photos. And I dread the day when cell phone footage becomes "acceptable" in this YouTube society.

And as far as people using stills for pics... I used to think this might be a possibility as video cams continue to improve in resolution. But a photog pointed out to me the obvious which is the different aspect ratios used. Unless one were to start filming with the cam on its side it will be difficult to reproduce an 8x10" portrait.

[Peter Jefferson]

I consantly shoot "on the side" for many corporate clients who attend trade shows and prefer vertical plasma placement as opposed to horizontal (like everyone else)
In fact Nvidia have preset settings for this so u can run vertical video straigh off the laptop...
as for weddings doing this.. umm.. no... lol

[Peter Jefferson]

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

I consantly shoot "on the side" for many corporate clients who attend trade shows and prefer vertical plasma placement as opposed to horizontal (like everyone else)
In fact Nvidia have preset settings for this so u can run vertical video straigh off the laptop...
as for weddings doing this.. umm.. no... lol

I should point out that stills from video for pix IS a viable option.. but not a replacement. ive had many clients lose almost everything in fires or robberies, wedding pix includedso we replace them with our archives...
Others prefer my stills from video compared to their own photographer. It is a viable add on to video services, but i wouldnt make an issue of it.. not until cameras hit the 6mp mark and have decent sized CCD's with at least 1.8f stop.
DoF is the first thing u will notice on a DSLR pic compared to a video grab.

If however your running an XLH1 and u throw on a 50mm 1.4, turn the cam to its side (RC322 ball head), u WILL get a VERY nice looking shot in 3mp with a VERY decent shallow DoF

[Noa Put]

And I allways thought the weddingvideo was a much bigger business then weddingphoto's in the states? In Europe it's exactly the same tradition, photographer comes first, often hired a year in advance, and videographer sometimes a few weeks in advance. :)

I allways hate it when I arrive at the bride in the morning before the photographer and when the bride's mother opens the door and says: "The photographer is here!!"

[Andy Wason]

Watching a video requires the input of time and attention, which is tougher to commit to. Browsing through a photo album, can take seconds or minutes. You decide.
Also, many of todays bruides are put off by the cheesy videos their parents got.
But, would you rather have your grand parents wedding in pictures or high quality video?

Andy

[Jason Wong]

I'd like to add, in where I live, most people do think that video = stills with added time dimension. Now, while technically it's true ;), let me give you an example of what I often encountered in my work :

The bride was sitting on a bed, talking with her mom while waiting for the tea ceremony (It's a Chinese custom of having a tea ceremony on wedding).
They were talking normally, with the bride were pulling and fixing her glove once in a while. I thought it could make into a good candid shot, so I fired up my camera and recorded them.
Few seconds later, the mother noticed that I was shooting and she told the bride. Right away, they both stood freeze, putting on their "camera face". Both looking perfectly still, with faint,nervous,fake smile, staring at the camera, as if my camcorder were a still camera :P
And they held that pose for like 5 seconds or so.

Now, what would happen when they look at the video later, were I didn't cut that "freezing pose" in the edit? (which of course I did). It'd be boring and they'd start thinking "This is so boring. Photographs are better to look at".
And then they'd start spreading that idea around.. in which, I believe, in where I live, it already happened since many years ago.

So, aside from what others had already mentioned (photographs are easier to access and you can look at photograph without electricity ;) ), this should be taken into account as well.