Most cliched wedding highlights shots

[Jim Snow]

What is your "vote" for the most cliched wedding highlights shot? My vote goes for the shot where the bride walks up behind the groom and taps his shoulder.

I do have some ambivalence about how far to go to "keep it fresh." B&G's and families don't see many wedding highlight videos so they aren't sensitized to the cliches. On one extreme is the totally templated production which is just thrown together with little creative thought; the other extreme is the totally "fresh" production that misses out on some great shots simply because they were used before. Maybe there are terms that are more appropriate than cliched to describe the repeated use of elements of a video productions. For example restaurants sometimes use the term "signature dish". Maybe a similar term can be used to change the complexion of a "cliched" video.

[Vito DeFilippo]

Jim,

This kind of thing seems to be a pet peeve with you, as you seem to start a new thread once in a while about some repeated thing that bugs the crap out of you.

As long as we continue to move forward and improve as an industry, try new things (though it's all been done before, trust me), and keep the B&G happy, we're doing our jobs.

Sure, some things will be overused, but nothing lasts. Seen a page turn transition lately, or a star wipe? Shudder...

[Jim Snow]

Vito, I'm sorry that you feel that way however you have misjudged me. Unlike some of the participants in this forum, I have been involved with videography for only about two years. To some, from their self exalted "expert" position, I'm a newbie. What I am doing is learning. I have a great deal of respect for those who share their knowledge and opinions. The question I posed is one of the most relevant ones a videographer should ask. How do you balance the old with the new with respect to the elements used in a wedding highlight production? A number of people can benefit from an exchange of ideas on this subject including those that have been at it much longer that I have. It's easy for anyone to accidentally get stuck in a rut.

[Vito DeFilippo]

Hi Jim,

Originally Posted by Jim Snow

Vito, I'm sorry that you feel that way however you have misjudged me.

I wasn't trying to judge you. I was pointing out that there seem to be some things that bug you about wedding videography, hence your posting about it.

To some, from their self exalted "expert" position, I'm a newbie.

I have yet to come across any videographer here acting in a 'self exalted' manner. Au contraire.

The question I posed is one of the most relevant ones a videographer should ask. How do you balance the old with the new with respect to the elements used in a wedding highlight production?

The way you've phrased it here comes across as much more positive, in the sense that it makes me want to engage you in the discussion. The other way just looks like you're looking for people to complain with you.

A number of people can benefit from an exchange of ideas on this subject including those that have been at it much longer that I have. It's easy for anyone to accidentally get stuck in a rut.

Agreed. And to reply to your question, I feel myself getting stuck in a rut once in a while. Then I realize it's time to try something new, to watch some examples of work I admire to get some inspiration, to find a way to feel fresh on a shoot or during an edit.

As far as a clichéd shot goes, that's a tough one. I've certainly cringed to see stuff I've tried in the past, thinking that it's just cheesy now, but at the time I liked it. I can look at shots now from others that I thought were mind bogglingly great, and now just look overused because everyone has copied them. But that's the way it works. It's up to us to realize when it's time to move on.

Perhaps that why I try and remember that it's the basics that count the most. If you can do your best to convey the story using well shot, creative video, edited in a way that does not distract from your intentions, you're most of the way there.

[Jim Snow]

Originally Posted by Vito DeFilippo

Perhaps that why I try and remember that it's the basics that count the most. If you can do your best to convey the story using well shot, creative video, edited in a way that does not distract from your intentions, you're most of the way there.

From my more limited perspective, that says it very well. I think it is wise to stick with a core style and sprinkle in some new inspiration to add some freshness. I think the cliched shots are OK because as I indicated in my first post, they probably aren't cliched to the B&G. Another example is the typical wedding dress and shoes shots in the prep shots. But to the bride, that wedding dress and shoes are very uniquely special.

[Vito DeFilippo]

Originally Posted by Jim Snow

I think the cliched shots are OK because as I indicated in my first post, they probably aren't cliched to the B&G. Another example is the typical wedding dress and shoes shots in the prep shots. But to the bride, that wedding dress and shoes are very uniquely special.

That's something that we forget a lot. For example, you see posts about videographers complaining about using a particular song in an edit, cause they've had to use it a million times and they hate it now.

Well, so what? The B&G will have it in only ONE video. Theirs! And they're the ones that count, and pay your bills.

[Dimitris Mantalias]

Originally Posted by Vito DeFilippo

That's something that we forget a lot. For example, you see posts about videographers complaining about using a particular song in an edit, cause they've had to use it a million times and they hate it now.

Well, so what? The B&G will have it in only ONE video. Theirs! And they're the ones that count, and pay your bills.

I hope my point of view will not be misunderstood, since it's only a personal thesis and not an undeniable fact. I think it's wrong for the videographer to go with every couple's demand about inserting a favourite song in a critical edit, for example a highlights video. Favourite the song it may be for the couple, and an excellent piece of music too, but not every song is made for editing with wedding video. Of course, it makes sense that the couples don't understand what you mean if you tell them about it, they still want it. But I think it's a mistake to try to adapt your video footage on a song that may be not suitable for editing, for various reasons. Ok, if the videographer thinks that the piece is something he can do a good editing on, then why not do it? But usually it doesn't happen (to us) and we always try to make the couple understand why it can't be realized.

I will admit though that I am also newbie in the wedding videography (just 3 years), so it's possible that I am maybe wrong on that and many other things.

Regarding cliches though, I am tired of the two rings running around a random surface. Overused is a nice word to put it.

[Philip Howells]

Jim again poses a thought-provoking question. I compliment him on his first, restrained response.

In my experience Jim the problem is that most of us secure one job by showing one or more previous jobs. If the product we produce is significantly different then we risk the client's rejection.

On the other hand constant repetition of the same style becomes formulaic and risks sending us barmy.

The trick I've found is to apply modest amounts of creativity to the less important sections eg the introduction, the first dance, the meeting and greeting etc and maintain a moderate consistency through the key moments, the vows, rings, kiss and the speeches. So far I've not been rejected.

I also discuss the look of programmes with clients at the first meeting so they have the opportunity of telling me what they especially like and dislike.

Finally, at the risk of upsetting other posters, I think that part of the pleasure is meeting the challenge of clients' requirements like their choice of music for the summary, music which we think might not work as well as other pieces. We always get these details from the client before the job so we shoot to the requirement.

Those who recall Torvill and Dean's Ice Dance to Ravel's Bolero at the 1984 Olympics in Sarajevo will have witnessed people, geniuses really, taking music which most would regard as unsuitable for their application and making it into one of the defining five minutes of ice dancing ever. So too with "unsuitable" wedding summary music.

Most of us would be grateful for a fraction of T&D's talent in our own field, but it's the client's choice and they're paying; if any editor feels he or she isn't up to the demands of the job, maybe they should try a job more suited to their talents.

[Dimitris Mantalias]

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

Most of us would be grateful for a fraction of T&D's talent in our own field, but it's the client's choice and they're paying; if any editor feels he or she isn't up to the demands of the job, maybe they should try a job more suited to their talents.

I see your point, and although I don't remember the particular Sarajevo event, I understand what you say about flexibility. But I'd like to give an example. One of my clients wanted Iron Maiden's "Number of the beast". I grew up with Iron Maiden and I understand their music, still I could never do a proper -the way I mean it- getting-ready or highlights video. I could do a video that would be nice in terms of editing (at least I suppose so), but wedding video is not only about proper (technically speaking) editing but about offering a final product that will still retain videographer's personal point of view, but also reflecting the B&G's personalities. Anyway, I finally chose myself a nice heavy poser song with groovy rhythm, and everybody was happy.

The real challenge is not the editing on a -many times- inadequate for the job song. The challenge is to select and edit based on the couple's personalities (and yes, their general music tastes) and events that happening during their wedding day, and be correct about your choices, regardless if you edit using romantic neoclassical or an explicit song by Pink!. Yes, the clients are paying, but we always have conversations about issues like those in advance, so they can easily select another videographer that will do their demand justice, it's perfectly alright by us. But that's my 2 cents though, and as I said, I am too young on the job to feel sure that I'm right on the above. Maybe in many years, I'll think different. For today, this is what I believe.

[Philip Howells]

Dimitris, whatever differences we might express, and disregarding the inexperience you claim, I think you have the right approach in seeking to express yourself (which is part at least why your clients chose you) and their perceived personalities - as their response to your music/edit shows. My response was really only valid if your clients' stuck firmly to their choice of music. If you can persuade your clients to accept your alternative I'd stick with that as the solution.

I'm not sure I could define a "proper" edit; my personal view is that the editing gear is, like the camera, merely a device that enables us to use a particular art form. Beyond that it becomes a matter of "peeves" - for example I find extended L or J edits (ie in which the edit points are widely offset) really annoying but that's just me.

[Dimitris Mantalias]

I agree that nobody can say for sure what proper editing means (of course there are some limits on this, we can't handle shooting and editing of a wedding like we'd do at the beach with our friends), it's just a subjective point of view.But yes, storytellers is a proper word for this form of expression, at least as long we (the videographers/storytellers) show the proper respect to our clients and to ourselves as professionals.