10 videographers at a wedding!

[Warren Kawamoto]

I chatted with a still photographer who told me his horror story here in Honolulu. Recently, he and his assistant shot a wedding and had to deal with 10 videographers! The video guys virtually surrounded the event with 360 degrees of coverage at all times! Needless to say, photographer was completely frustrated and was about to quit shooting as he constantly got tapped on the shoulder because he was in someone's video shot. We often hear of photographers getting in the videographer's way, but isn't this pushing things too far in regards to professional videography?

As the owner of the video company, how can you pay all these guys and make a profit? Secondly, how can something like this be edited in a timely manner? A story like this sounds almost unbelievable.

[Adrian Tan]

I've heard of people using 8 or 9 videographers for very large weddings. (In contrast, I think Stellios on this board has talked about shooting Greek island weddings for 1,000+ people... perhaps just by himself.)

The main problem might be getting in each other's shots... My friend and I get in each other's shots enough when there's just two of us.

Presumably you'd need to have all the cameras synched by timecode, or have a good idea of what each camera is doing. Not sure if a single editor would have time to scroll through all the footage, but maybe it's more a case of just thinking to yourself, "I want a close-up of groom. Now I want a reaction shot from his dad." Etc. And having the freedom to just switch to that track.

[Don Bloom]

I've worked with a fellow and we did a couple of weddings where we used 4 to 5 videographers at the ceremony HOWEVER we had done TV work before and we weren't in churches we were able to draw up a shot sheet for each person. Not one that you carried but more of "OK you stay on the groom, you stay on the bride, you get the center aisle shot to the altar, you get the tight shot of the B&G from the center aisle, when the person goes to the mic to do the reading, you come off the tight shot of the altar and goto the person speaking"...etc. It worked out very well and we had very little footage of the other camera operators and the photog (whom we knew) knew what each camera was shooting because we told him. Overall the job went very smoothly but 10 guys shooting? Was it The Bachelor wedding being shot for TV? Otherwise me thinks it's overkill and frankly can lead to negative reviews of videographers for weddings. "HEY, Everywhere I looked there was another video guy pointing his camera at me!"

[Allan Black]

A growing problem mentioned by a pro shooter in another thread here is, too many ppl in the congregation turning up and shooting video with DSLRs,
iPads and iPhones. Even to standing up during the church ceremony and blocking others view of the ceremony.

Some clerics now announce that ppl shouldn't shoot in church, wait till they get outside.

The OP says he won't ever use a DSLR, ppl think he's a stills photog and ask him to take shots of them.

Cheers.

[Warren Kawamoto]

Just in case my original post wasn't clear, there were 10 videographers representing one company to shoot the wedding.

[Nigel Barker]

I cannot believe that there were 10 camera operators all working at the same time. It's a large number of crew though even if a couple are gofers plus one or two sound guys unless each camera operator had a focus puller.

[Jeff Harper]

There are companies whose prices begin at $7K and go up much, much higher, but I had no idea they used so many shooters.

[James Manford]

Sounds believable.

I've heard Asian weddings tend to have many videographers.

[Eric Coughlin]

I've done a few weddings where we had four videographers and two photographers all working under the same company. Since we all use DSLRs, it basically looked like there were 6 photographers.

[Long Truong]

Were they trying to achieve a Matrix bullet time shot at a wedding? lol

[Al Gardner]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

There are companies whose prices begin at $7K and go up much, much higher, but I had no idea they used so many shooters.

I don't think the number of cameras equates to high prices. I think that's more artistry and you don't need that many cameras.

What I've seen is videographers with too many backup cameras. The same as today's photographers might 3hoot several thousand shots. Why?
I think often times talent is substituted with equipment and redundancy. It's the way of the world now.

Al

[Rob Cantwell]

about 8 or 9 too much!!!





:-)

[Vince Baker]

Originally Posted by Long Truong

Were they trying to achieve a Matrix bullet time shot at a wedding? lol

Would have made the throwing of the bouquet something quite unique!

[Chris DeVoe]

I shoot a concert with seven cameras these days...by myself.

I'm astounded that more wedding videographers aren't using remote control cameras. I can see so many potential shots in the ceremony that are basically fixed positions to get specific events, requiring only minor adjustments. I can imagine that coordinating all those shooters would be much more trouble than dealing with a far larger number of fixed/remote cameras. Start them all at the same time, don't stop until the ceremony is over. Edius can handle 16 cameras at once.

[Al Gardner]

You know Videographers are always wondering why brides have more respect and willingness to pay Still photographers so much more for their services. One reason is because photographers are leaders and not followers.

I know a couple of still photographers that charge between $3500 and $6500 and they work alone. So I take they are not making money on abundance of equipment. Nor the latest greatest equipment.

Sadly I now some still photographers who work in herds of 4 and 5 shooting thousands of snaps and average $1500 to $2500.

And to think that videographers for whatever reason want to shoot in 5, 6 and more cameras is turning a wedding into a circus. and I think at the end of the day the average bride has to look at you like a clown. Mainly because all that matters to them is the end result. Not how you got there, what you shot with or how many cameras and people involved.

I would have to ask why? Are you unable to tell a story otherwise? Are you charging so much money that it warrants this? Are you doing it because others are doing it.

And this whole notion that the camera is unmanned is bull. it's still cost, equipment, time, work, before, during and after. And it's also multiple locations. I would bet you that most any videographer using 5 or more cameras would be embarrassed to tell how much they get for the job.

And just in case I'm wrong if anybody is willing to reveal what their getting for this type of service I'm listening?