Photogs stepping into the videog's turf?

[Yang Wen]

The Nichols Family! on Vimeo

Amazing work..

More important question is, if photographers can offer something like this - Not a true long-form/continuous video like our typical wedding video, but something that offers motion, sound, and intercut with photographs, would many clients be inclined to go with that instead of paying for a dedicated video person?

I think YES, these type of products will be a direct competition to the typical videography offerings. Not in the sense that from our perspective, these are similar things, but to the client, even if they just got a little bit of video, it might satisfy their video needs..

Let us hear you thoughts..

[Joel Peregrine]

Hi Yang,

Seems as though the still camera manufacturers are causing convergence to happen in a way I didn't think it would. I thought videographers would be printing stills way before photographers were doing videos. I believe technically good things will come out of it though - bigger, more light sensitive sensors for video cameras being the most important with shallow depth of field more sensitivity. Far from being in a funk about it I look at the whole situation as beneficial. At present less than 20% of weddings have a pro videographer. The more exposure moving images get, whether its from a still camera or a video camera, can only mean more business for those that work with moving images for a living. I'm interested to see what talented photographers do with moving images. I've always known that the better videographers are experienced photographers that already instinctively know how to work with composition and light. How they interpret that into story telling, with the added elements of timing, natural audio, music, texture and mood will be really fun to watch (and learn from).

[Steve Sherrick]

With Canon and Nikon adding relatively impressive video specs to the camera, it does open up some room for crossover. But keep in mind that a Jack of All Trades at a wedding might not be as effective as you might think. While they do cover similar territory, a photographer and videographer often times capture things that the other doesn't for one reason or another. The two disciplines actually work best complimenting each other, not converging into one role. With Scarlet and Epic from Red, there is the possibility of having cameras with incredible versatility. I suppose time will tell if financially it makes more sense for B+G to just hire one person to do it all. What is more appealing to me is to keep them separate and when the photographer sees a cool moment, switches into video mode and gets the shot and when a videographer sees a good stills opportunity, switches into still mode and gets a good shot. That to me is where it gets interesting.

[Travis Cossel]

I completely agree that photography and videography are complimentary, and I don't see many people being able to do both well. I think most photographers that try to incorporate video on a large scale will find that they need to hire someone who is competent with shooting video (and probably even editing it). That's going to cause the photog to have to charge more to make up for the new service, and eventually you probably get back to the same price point as hiring a separate photog and video contractor. The point becomes moot.

I think a photog offering bits of video is mostly going to appeal to the crowd that didn't really want to spend money on a good videographer anyways. It's the same crowd that will hire a lesser photog just because the photog gives them a disc with all of the original images. For those couples who really want a quality video, I still see them hiring a true videographer.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Yang Wen

[url=http://vimeo.com/2560306]I think YES, these type of products will be a direct competition to the typical videography offerings.

I think NO, the video you linked to showed an image of a great camera, not a great videographer. If tomorrow canon brings out a xh-a2 that can shoot stills up to 100 miljon pixel, do you think the whole photog community will fear we will take their clients? Don't think so, even considering the fact that a videocamera is so much better then a photo camera because it captures 25 frames every single second continuously, no need to wait for the right time to make your snapshot, just pick out the frame that had the best looking emotion.

It takes much more then just a great camera to make a great movie, since the 5d came out I read many of these kind of topics of videographers fearing to loose clients but I can't understand why.

I wouldn't loose any sleep over this, just continue what you do best, deliver great video/sound and let the photogs do what they do best, take photo's.

[John Moon]

I think a large part of this hype will die off when it is soon discovered how much space this footage requires and the time it takes to edit something together to make a wedding story.

[Jason Bowers]

Noah,
I have to agree with you completely. I can't imagine a person using a camera to shoot a wedding and the presentation to people at the wedding. If we think about it as a guest all I can picture is a person at the front of the church holding a DSLR filming the bride and grandma Sally in the second pew with her cybershot doing the same thing. While the 5D can be used as an additional tool It certainly will not be a video killer, and if you are worried about that then you should really re-evaluate your business plan.

[John Edgar]

As a vidographer, you'll never be able to take a photo on the wedding day like a photographer can and still shoot video. It's not your concentration.. just like no photographer can ever produce a full wedding film like you while trying to shoot photo.

Will they be able to provide neat add on services for their clients.

Heck yes.

Will it affect your business? Probably not. In fact, if you're smart you'll use it to add value to the products you already produce. You have post skills, audio, and the ability to tell a story.

As photographers, we only really know about what we do. I don't think Patrick, who is one of the guys who makes the films our company, could shoot a full photo wedding on his own. He wouldn't be prepared for that. I could shoot a small clip well for cinema, but I sure as heck wouldn't shoot a wedding.. let alone edit it!

j.

[Joe Allen Rosenberger]

....here's something to think about. What if you are shooting an event and the professional photographer is shooting some video all while doing stills....THEN, he or she puts something up on their blog within a week or so while your client sits waiting while you(and me) catch up on our backlog. If that video actually looks good....i doubt any of us are going to be thrilled about that besides the b&g and photog. that is a very real scenario.

I can see contracts getting edited in the near future that stipulate no videography by your photographer;)

personally I'm not concerned with all the hype. like some others said, I think there will be a very small market with this and even smaller for ones who do it well.

[Jason Robinson]

Interesting point. I agree that the photographer could be able to cut & render some little clip or two from the footage. And it may even look great. Probably not going to sound great, but they could cover that with a soundtrack of some sort. But I do see it putting a little pressure on those of us with embarrassing backlog times. Might be the motivation needed to kick things up a bit and push through the already p[aid for work.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Ultimately, it's a TOOL, people. Does a charcoal artist worry about oil paint making his craft obsolete??

The real question is how it fits into YOUR creative vision. Does it offer something new and exciting that justifies the cost? Will it expand your horizons? Or will it frustrate the heck out of you because it's not your "video camera"? Conversely, for many photographers it presents the same sorts of questions...

The small Sony AVCHD cameras do OK at "double duty" considering they can shoot stills simultaneously with video. As a practical matter, by the time you're concentrating on framing, exposure, etc., remembering to push the "photo" button is a few too many rungs down the ladder. And they ain't a DSLR. The Canon comes at it from the opposite direction and with apparently outstanding success...

IMO, having a camera which can do "both" disciplines well doesn't necessarily translate into an operator that can do that live... each cam operator needs to know what they are trying to capture and stick to that "under fire". Or be supremely talented at "multitasking"...

Can you shoot some pretty impressive video with the Canon? I'm pretty sure it can be done <wink>. Good stills, check... would this be a great creative "toy"... let's just say you'd be an idjit if you got peeved if Santa left one under your tree. On second thought just send it to me <wink>!

I'd not even bother with the Nikon from what I've seen, but the Canon is a sign of good things to come.

Keep in mind that when everybody's dog has a 20 bazillion megapixel camera shooting full frame 4K video there will be more "competition", for sure, but there's no spec sheet for TALENT, SKILL, DISCIPLINE, VISION, CREATIVITY, etc. You could put a Brownie box cam in the hands of someone with those traits and get brilliance, or that fancy 5DMkII in the hands of someone without those traits and get... nothing.

It's the old saw of 10,000 monkeys and 10,000 typewriters... it ain't Shakespeare... doesn't matter how long you let the experiment go on.

Personally I'll be keeping my eye out for a slightly used MkII, I know there will be a LOT of people who go out and "buy the best", and get it home and discover they'd rather have had a pocket point and shoot. I"m quite certain others will latch onto it and come up with some brilliant stuff... I'd love to spend some serious time with one, even if it was just for "fun", I can see it has potential!

[Jeff Harper]

Thank you for this thread, this is important to me and the future of the business.

I believe the turf, as referred to in the title for this thread, belongs completely to the client. We are guests. Period.

First I respectfully disagree on a point made earlier. IMO this was a mediocre (video)camera being utilized by a good photographer/videographer. They would not consider themselves a videographer yet, but they are. Shots were well framed, and the video experience was outstanding. The reaction to the video says it all. The word love was used in describing the feelings it brought out for people when watching it. A typical client won't care about the fact that it technically wasn't perfect video. It looked good, period. The photographer's use of lighting was outstanding.

For the conventional wedding videographer this will pose a challenge, but only in the relavtively distant future.

I say this for several reasons:

Many brides and grooms would be happy with a minimal amount of video to complement their photos, especially edited mixed with photos.

I currently mix professional photos with video and it is the absolute favorite thing of every single prospect who views my work. They love it. I love it. It is beautiful and artistic.

Plenty of clients really only want a small portion of video anyway. Many really don't even know what they want...this would win me over if I were shopping around. This would win me over instantly. What is it? 90% of brides don't even have a video done? This narrows that gap for a portion of that 90%.

Most photographers would have to be dragged into this kicking and screaming. There are, to this day, still phototgraphers who resist giving CDs of their work to clients, which is understandable since they make the bulk of their money on albums. But that is changing because everything is going digital, whether they like it or not. I would not be surprised if in the not too distant future paper photos will be the luxury of only the well to do. As our natural resources dwindle prices for photo paper will be out of reach of the ordinary person.

The next generation of photographers, in my opinion, will be doing what we've seen in this video routinely. The current crop will fight it tooth and nail, with a few jumping in because they are open-minded and creative.

The wording of the title of this thread is unfortunate. Turf? I hate that word. I know what you mean by it, and you don't mean anything wrong by it, but I still hate it.

IMO: This business should be viewed as about the about the client, not "turf". Someone said they can imagine contracts specifying no video shooting to compete with the videographer.

Won't happen. If it does it won't last for the person that tries it. Photographers would rule out video if possible if they could get away with it, but they would be out of work if they insisted on no video. Most of them hate us there just on the basis that we tend to be an unnecessary distraction and interference. Because the client wants us, we are there. It is not because the photographers allow us to be there. We are all guests, but often times we seem to think it is our domain. It is not.

On top of it all, the video images from that Canon camera would be poor without add-on light. Photographer had what appeared to be a soft box off to side in one scene. For wedding videography purposes the camera technology available on a still camera is insufficient to be useful for most paid situations anyway. As of now there is absolutley no threat to anyone.

In the future the biggest challenge will be for the client who will be challenged with an additional option to consider when selecting a means of recording their wedding day.

Again, I love this approach as I am already doing it more or less as an additional option. It's great stuff.

FWIW, in the next year I have planned to buy my first still camera. This makes me only want it more!

[Jeff Harper]

Let me add: everything Dave B said.

[Luis Rolo]

Already started : the [b] school blog

[Dana Salsbury]

hehe... Maybe photographers will empathize with videographers more...That's always good.