Help, I'm Drowning... In DSLR

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Danny O'Neill

Charles Papert doing weddings. I somehow just cant see it.

yeah well, I guess neither could I!! too much pressure there, hence my heading to Hollywood!

Even before that incident, I was hired to do Steadicam on a wedding. (if this story sounds familiar, I think I may have told it here before a long time ago--apologies). I believe that the cousin of the groom had hit it big in the stock market and wanted to show off to the family by hiring a large amount of pro crew to shoot this thing "properly". We had three multi-person crews with either Betacams or 3/4 two piece systems, I forgot which--this was 1986 or so--and I was there with a rental full-size rig, this being before I bought my own. I remember preceding the bride down the aisle feeling terribly embarrassed (I can guarantee that no-one in that room had ever seen a Steadicam before and were completely distracted by it). The priest even started off by requesting that I stay off to one side during the ceremony. We shot the reception and then the party afterwards, which I helped light with a lot of units bounced into the ceiling as the tube cameras were not very light sensitive--the guests kept turning the lights off to dance until the bride made a special request on behalf of the video! It was an uneasy situation to say the least. At one point we were reviewing playback with a small JVC field monitor (anyone remember those?) on a table; the prototypical drunk uncle sat down and turned the monitor towards him. I reached over and swung it back. He responded by sweeping it off the table and lurching back into the crowd...

What a mess.

The only other memorable experience I had with this was showing up to Garrett Brown's son Jonathan's wedding with fellow operator Dave Chameides (one of the best in the biz--http://steadishots.org/shots_operator.cfm?opID=87) and having Garrett unexpectedly plunk camcorders in our hands. When the big man gives you an assignment, you go do it. It was all worth it watching GB wield his prototype JR (which looked uncannily like the eventual production model Merlin) as the proud papa!

For the record: if I was ever to get married, I'd probably want it shot on DSLR's or equivalent. By that time, it will be in 3D, or maybe 4 or 5D, with self-stabilizing cameras floating in zero gravity or something...

[Danny O'Neill]

I think there are some truly inspiration people in this business who have shown how you can tell some beautiful stories with the smallest of kit bags. It is afterall a wedding.

I too was worried at first what guests would make of a Steadicam but in all honesty. Most of the fellas watch football and have seen them on the sidelines. I also break it out during the guest mingling for no reason other than to let people get used to it. If the first time they see it is walking down the aisle all eyes tend to turn. Although this can be good to create the POV of the bride illusion.

I can see how it would be hard to say no to the Godfather.

[Louis Maddalena]

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

Earlier in this thread Danny both hit the point and missed it. This is an event/wedding section; it covers events and weddings in a variety of cultures/fashions/geographical locations and we cope very well with that. But Chris was right, this is not the place for "what DSLR camera shall I buy?" questions - there are sections for that and, like Claire, I am just a little weary of ploughing through screeds of postings which rightly belong elsewhere. Chris Hurd has given us plenty of options, please just use them.

[CENTER OF POST REMOVED FOR SAKE OF SAVING SPACE]

The photographer who produces the stills part of our package uses two Nikon D3s cameras. He's worked with me for over 20 years, on my video shoots around the world because in those days we could afford someone we'd call a Director of Photography except that we were never bothered with titles. So he knows the business of recording images regardless of the medium. His view is that the DSLR enthusiasts are just the current version of equipment nuts we've seen in every generation, except that now they have the advantage of being cheaper. "They'll learn" he says but then he remembers when Amateur Photographer magazine was full of questions like "which lens do you use most?" - that was in the 1970's. For Claire's sake as well as mine, please understand it's tiresome to find them mixed up in a wedding section.

Philip,

As I'm sure it is here as it is there in the UK, this is a business not about us feeling like we make these films for us. We make these highlight films because thats what the clients want. Sure there are people in my market shooting with regular cameras and and they also think that the HD-DSLR craze is stupid and they don't understand it, but those people are making less than half what I'm making per video because in this area thats what the clients want. They like the look of these films and prefer it. You also mention that people prefer the look of everything in focus because thats what they see in the real world, such as television shows. I don't know what shows you're clients are watching but House, and 24 both shot at least part of their shows on Canon DSLRs.

But lets again talk about cameras and wether or not the shallow dof is actually good for what people perceive to be good quality. If "The Social Network" was shot on a pd-170 instead of a large sensor (red) camera would it be nominated for best picture? If last seasons finale "House" was shot on an XH-A1 instead of a large sensor (5D Mark II) camera would people say that it was the best episode shot so far? These large sensor cameras are the future of imagery in the future, they are not going away. Doesn't mean everybody has to use them, but you can not hope that those people disappear.

So do I agree that this forum should be about actual weddings and not about DSLR use? Do I think that if you want to ask a DSLR question you put it in the forum for the appropriate forum? Yes I think that should be the case.. But, Do I think you came off in a way that screams "I'm the only one here worth of working in this industry and screw all of you who use large sensor cameras"? Yes, and suddenly I think I might start skipping over some of what you write because it appears you don't have much to say or much respect for your peers so why should we offer you the same?

[Dave Partington]

Hi Philip, since you're just over the border I'll try not to upset you here ;) BTW - I would like to thank you for the enumerable times you contribute with your valuable experience gained over many years. We never stop learning, and while I haven't been doing this quite as long as you, I'm always willing to learn from other people, because there is always more to learn. Maybe DSLRs are part of that learning for some of us ;)

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

Most UK couples want to enjoy their wedding, meet their relatives and friends and enjoy a day to remember for the rest of their lives, not spend the day or more as unpaid actors. As Claire and Amanda both point out our brides couldn't give a tuppeny damn what we use, as long as we stay out of the way and make programmes which bring their memories flooding back.

+1 The number one question I get is about how discreet we are going to be, not what kind of cameras we are using. In fact only twice have I been asked about camera models!

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

Where I work couples usually expect that we'll capture every salient moment, that everything will be in focus and nicely lit and that it looks like the programmes they usually see on their TELEVISIONS not in the art gallery.

+1 - However, I've found it's actually easier to get well exposed low noise shots in the darker receptions and achieve critical focus in a hurry when using a DSLR over a camcorder.

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

But this is a business so I'm glad there are those who can live with (or blag their way out of) the occasional soft focus shot

Well, that's not just a DSLR problem. I've had soft shots from video cameras too (and thrown them away in post - just like I'd throw away soft DSLR footage). Soft footage is not artistic, it's a sign that you are not paying attention to your job.

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

my clients know they can ask me if I caught Uncle Charles tripping over the carpet and 3 to 1 (video cameras) I'll almost certainly be able to say yes, not try and explain I was getting that cool slider shot of the bride's shoes under the garden seat at the time.

'DSLR' and 'Slider' are not synonymous. Not every one using DSLRs gets on their hands and knees with sliders, just like not every one with a camcorder is shoulder mounted. BTW - there are lots of people with camcorders using sliders too ;) I'm not defending either position, just saying ....... ;)

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

For me, cinematic or highlight-only productions are the indulgence of producers preoccupied with themselves, their "art", the latest fad and dreaming of winning prizes. [.......] Incidentally, we include a highlights programme in our package - to all intents and purposes we give it away - but it's an extra programme not the whole darn shooting match.

+1 We never ever do a highlights only production. They get a short highlights video on the web (usually several weeks) before they see the main production, but the main production includes the entire ceremony (hymns are usually cut) and speeches as well as the highlights. They can pay extra if they want an extended cinematic highlights but most choose not to. Not everyone 'up north' produces sufficiently eloquent speeches at receptions and not all Vicars (or photographers for that matter) are co-operative enough during the vows and ring to allow the audio to be extracted and taken out of context, like most cinematic features seem to use. That does of course assume there are no screaming kids in the background to aid the sound effects ;)

Having read more posts than perhaps I should have had the time to, I realise that views are fairly polarised. There are three camps (not two). The first is the camp that don't like the idea of DSLRs, don't even want to try them and are hoping they are a fad that will go away. The second camp is a mixture of those who have tried them and are as yet unconvinced. The third camp have tried DSLRs, found how to work around the issues (and yes there are quite a few) and have embraced the new way of working. Perhaps there is a fourth camp of those who would like to try them but haven't yet, but they will eventually fall in to one of the other three.

It really doesn't matter which camp you are in because it's very unlikely you are going to persuade the other camps around to your point of view.

On the point of whether we should or should not discuss DSLRs in the wedding forum, I'd say that would have to depend on whether we can discuss any other type of equipment here. If we can discuss camcorders or microphones or lighting then we should also be able to discuss DSLRs as they related to the wedding & event business. It's perfectly reasonable to ask which DSLR may be better in xyz situation at a "wedding" because the masses that have jumped on the DSLR bandwagon as part of the 'amateur short film' brigade may never encounter these conditions so can't give well thought out answers. As an example, I'm so tired of hearing the advice to 'add more lighting' when talking about shooting at high ISO / GAIN in low light receptions. Some people just don't understand the concept of discreet ;)

[Dave Partington]

In the UK the style is still leaning more towards documentary than highlights only. That's not driven by the videographer (film maker if that's your preferred label), it's driven by what the Brides want. We show them both, they get to choose. Most (by a long way) choose documentary style. That may change over time, but as yet, I'll make the film that the customer wants, not the film I want to make because it's 'art'. Those were not your words, so don't take offence, but I've seen some people use that as an excuse to charge $3K for a 12 minute film that really didn't cover the day very well at all. That simply wouldn't work in the real world called 'Yorkshire' where I live and work, nor the real world called 'Lancashire' that Philip works in. If it did I'd probably take their money and run.

[Dave Thomas]

If more people shot what they wanted ... and not what the bride thought was best ... we might all be making more money + better products. Think of it like Independent Film vs Studio ... alil more Trainspotting if you know what I mean mate.

[Brian Drysdale]

In the end, funders select what feature films going to be made, you only make just what you want if you're spending your own money.

[Dave Partington]

Originally Posted by Dave Thomas

If more people shot what they wanted ... and not what the bride thought was best ... we might all be making more money + better products. Think of it like Independent Film vs Studio ... alil more Trainspotting if you know what I mean mate.

I think that's putting the cart before the horse. Making better products doesn't always mean making what 'we' want to make. Better products means making things that other people want to buy, and that's how you get to raise prices. Some people want Short Form, others want Documentary, some want both. The two are not mutually exclusive. They both need to be high quality.

[Roger Van Duyn]

And of course, we serve the customer. The customer doesn't serve us.

[Aaron Mayberry]

(Some) Brides only THINK they want something because they don't know differently. Its OUR job to educate them with all the options.

[Craig Terott]

"(Some) Brides only THINK they want something because they don't know differently. Its OUR job to educate them with all the options."

Sooo true Aaron. I can't count the number of times I've witnessed a client re-formulate an opinion about something during their consultation with me.

[Michael Simons]

I actually give the bride the choice between a conventional video camera (Canon A1) and a DSLR (7D and 60D). I show her sample videos of both. She chooses the dslr EVERY time (at a higher price). So in fact, she is "choosing" which camera she wants me to use for her wedding.

[Josh Swan]

We have always had an array of tools to work with to put out a product. I don't see DLSR/large sensor camera shooters bashing the ones that are using anything BUT a large sensor camera. I don't see how it gives anyone the right, to bring down someone shooting with a camera, different than the one you/anyone is shooting with. If your shooting with an XHA1, don't smash someone for shooting with a DSLR because you don't like the image. Like Michael stated earlier, his brides simply choose the look of the 7D over the A1 footage. He's giving them the choice and it's clear to him which one they choose. Is it because it's a fad? Maybe. But how many people in the world are making their bread and butter, on todays fad or hot ticket item? It's called business. If your not offering what's hot, you may be missing out on potential clients. Not because the want the 5D, or the 7D, but if they see your video shot with a large sensor camera, 8 times out of 10 they will favor it. They don't know what it's shot on, they just like the 'look'. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but offering a higher end product isn't a bad thing. If your trying to defend which camera will be around in 10 years, guess what? We'll all be wrong! I personally like the shallow-er depth of field, low light capabilities that a large sensor camera offers. If you personally like the look of a fixed lens camera, than by all means keep shooting with one.

[Brian Drysdale]

I think it's a matter of using the tools you feel comfortable with. I can understand the need for filming in low light levels and many other factors.

The very shallow DOF is an aesthetic decision,perhaps giving an element of glamour to the event. However, this shouldn't get confused with the story, which can be told with a wide range of cameras.

I suspect using DOF to direct the audiences attention can be a bit of the red herring, because they often tend to scan the people who are talking or moving rather than necessarily the sharpest part of the frame. However, this doesn't mean that losing focus is good practise, but this may explain why people may get away with it. Poor sound is another matter and you can't get away with that.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Claire Buckley

... do I get the feeling that this forum is filling up with DSLR wedding shooter issues/questions?

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

...there seems to be a lot of DSLR technical issues discussed here that should be in the 7D or Canon forum and not in the wedding and events forum?

Technical questions about DSLRs belong in our DSLR-specific forums.

This particular board -- Wedding / Event Videography Techniques -- is
about wedding and event videography techniques *only.* We've had a bit
of a problem with wedding filmmakers and videographers using this board
for just about any old thing, including DSLR questions. Please, use the
entire DV Info Net forum system. EOS 7D questions belong in the EOS
7D forum, etc.

It's not just DSLRs either, but audio questions, etc. I realize that you're
here because you're a wedding shooter, as I too once was. But think: are
you asking a general question that's probably better served on one of our
other boards? Keep in mind that the *entire DV Info Net forum system* is
a wedding shooter's forum. Not just this one board. The whole site here
belongs to wedding shooters.

I've been out of town for the past two weeks, so this thread got a little bit
out of control. If you see a problem with rudeness, trolling, etc. then the
way to handle it is *not to respond to it* but rather to *use the report post
function* which is the little "!" icon to the left of any post, and we'll evaluate
it and clean it up if necessary.

For everyone: just because a person presents a point of view that is opposed
to yours or does not reflect the status quo, does *not* mean they're trolling.
Thanks for understanding,