Why do brides value photos more than video?

[Peter Riding]

I would be very careful about marketing a photo-video rather than a video-photo approach unless you are already an established photographer. SEO - search engine optimisation - is highly developed, pretty much mature - among professional social photographers whereas its almost non-existent among videographers. This means that its easy to get high rankings for video searches (at present) but it is a whole other ballgame for stills. There is a lot more to it than simply optimising your home page for your home town then sitting back to wait for the bookings to roll in. You could kill your whole business if you are not very careful simply because of people not finding you. Recommendations are all well and good but you do need fresh blood coming in regularly as well.

Maybe have a separate new site, even a different trading name to give it a whirl?

I think too many posters are paying too much attention to the photographer-visible part of the day. Important though that is, it is a very small part of the whole. You have to be able to do it but too much and you will put people off not impress them.

This whole approach that many videographers are taking - the equipment to impress, the obviously scripted shorts etc, are a million miles away from the approach which got wedding photography out of the gutter. A decade ago photographers were something clients barely tolerated, a necessary evil at weddings. Even now many clients perceptions are that the formals will take hours and hours of boring standing around interspersed with brief moments of saying cheese to the camera. Photographers largely turned this perception around by good storytelling of the whole day whilst maintaining almost complete invisibility. Think about that next time you are chasing guests around with your steadycam your shoulder rig and your LED light, and when you are getting couples or guests to do something they wouldn't otherwise do or repeat something that has already happened.

Photography fees peaked around 2008 and have fallen a long way since then. Keep that in mind. Are you taking the word or a photographer who talks the talk or who ..... well you know the rest. One of my local competition did just 4 weddings last year and only 10 the year before that. Another who I recently shot with, it was their first wedding for 5 months.

Pete

[Arthur Gannis]

I think it is a "fashionista" thing, like women, much more then men, like to be "posed" in front of a photo camera in that they do not have to act or say something. Unlike a video camera that when you point it at someone it kind of forces a reaction/dialogue/movement of sorts. Video tends to make the subject more camera shy as it takes them by surprise and they have no clue how to react to that shiny lens pointing at them.It is mostly that microphone that is the scary part. Tell any young women that you worked for Vogue or Harper's Bazaar as a primo photog and you will instantly be asked for your business card. Say that you are a primo class video guy and they seem to think you're a schmuck. "What, you wanna tape me, for what ??"
You see, my opinion is that a photog is considered in an elite class to be looked up and respected as a pro, he/she can pose, direct position, facial expression, move the subject around etc. The bride believes she is the center of attention on a red carpet on the opening emmy's with all that glitz and glamour that is prevalent in them high society's extravaganza's. At least only for a day.

[Roger Gunkel]

Arthur, any wedding videographer who points a video camera at someone expecting to get a reaction to record, is going to have a very short career. Discrete video is the only way to get genuine results unless something set up is specially requested. Photography on the other hand is expected to be much more up front for many shots and is expected by couples and guests, even though many stills mey also be discrete and casual.

Roger

[Roger Gunkel]

Hi Chris, in answer to your question, I do quite often get asked by couples whether the add on photography package will mean that they have very limited still photos. As I always meet up with clients prior to booking, I am able to show them examples of my photography work in addition to video and allay their fears about missing out on anything.

Roger

[Chris Harding]

Thanks Roger

Yesterday was the first time anyone has asked me, hence the question. Like yours she was happy to book once she was assured that she would have my wife on still cameras thruout the day doing just photos.

Concerning your response to Arthur, since I always do a "video guestbook" during pre-dinner drinks that does require interaction with guests there is no way you can be discrete and it's much like stills ..I also interact during my stedicam shoot as that also requires some instruction ...however apart from those two events, yes I stay discrete. As one priest says to photo/video guys "You are here to record the wedding not be part of it"

Peter? I see your point and I'm trying to make sure that clients realise that on packages they do get a exclusive photog (same as Roger) and an equal emphasis is put on supplying both media. It's probably a delicate balancing act but the bias is still towards video as you suggest .. I simply don't want brides to get a mental picture of a video guy walking around waving a discount digital still camera whilst trying to do a professional video job, or even worse, giving the client still frames from video.

Chris

[Arthur Gannis]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

Arthur, any wedding videographer who points a video camera at someone expecting to get a reaction to record, is going to have a very short career. Discrete video is the only way to get genuine results unless something set up is specially requested. Photography on the other hand is expected to be much more up front for many shots and is expected by couples and guests, even though many stills mey also be discrete and casual.

Roger

A bride wants attention and lots of it. But in her mind the classic photographer is a must just like the cake and the rings. Photos are a classic ingredient of recording a moment in time. Almost all art form is a still. Sure a ballet an art form and so is music but a picture is something you keep, a tangible. Take a painting by Vermeer, a sculpture by Bellini, a picture by Ansel Adams, they cannot be conveyed to the eye as motion and cannot be displayed as movement. Even if it were possible, it would destroy the art. Can you see Vermeer's " the milk maid" doing something other than pouring milk and still consider the motion as art ? How about Adam's Yosemite scenes with moving clouds ? Video or motion recording can definitely be considered as an art form as was photography as of recent. Also because photography was always associated with fashion and glamour in it's heyday, Garbo, Dietrich, Monroe, it was at the same time being used to PRESERVE the moment, to freeze and CAPTURE it for posterity and history, to "write it in stone" so to speak. It has that permanence to it that makes it the unquestionable choice for a wedding.
Video was a secondary consideration as an add-on once it came to being, and so stayed that way. Sadly but true.

[Peter Riding]

Fellas you really need to stop obsessing about what photographers do during the formals. Its an important part of the day but just one part.

Look at any mainstream photographers site who is actually busy rather than pretending to be busy and you'll soon get a handle on what brides are actually looking for. Photographers have been shooting well-lit well-posed formals for decades but that is NOT what propelled the industry into much higher fees. Rather it was a natural, reportage, photo-journalism, candid, documentary - call it what you will - approach which involved the shooter blending into the day almost unnoticed.

You do need to be able to nail the posed stuff but that does not of necessity mean multiple off-camera lights and a fashionista style - that is just one genre.

And you do need to nail the posed stuff quickly. At that point you need to break cover and be assertive. No-one will thank you if they feel they are standing around like a spare *&^ck at a wedding :- ) Then disappear again. Brides do NOT want photographers or anyone else directing their wedding.

Pete

[Roger Gunkel]

I think we are missing another important point here, which is that photography has been around for over 150 years, basically as long as the traditional wedding. It has also become part of the tradition along with the wedding dress, the flowers, the car etc.

Decent quality video with sound on the other hand is still the new kid in town and home produced video is only now becoming common place with the advent of smart phones and youtube etc. In time, video images will probably be as traditional as photographic images, as people understand them better and come to realise that it is not the camera but the operator that counts.

Roger

[Arthur Gannis]

If brides do not want any directing, she better be posing herself and the bridal party as well as with her family and her guests as well as her husband. Most of them are not highly paid fashion models that instinctively pose themselves. The photographer's job and responsibility besides capturing the key moments is to pose and make the subject(s) look their best while at the same time provide that artistic romantic touch where needed. It is very easy for the bride to assume the poses herself but the photog should be aware that he/she is responsible for the results for allowing that. The brides have no clue to what appears in the viewfinder and vantage point from the photographer's perspective. Allow the bride extra rope and she may very well hang you with it at the end. And then there are the brides that cut out photos from wedding magazines and ask if the photog can do the same poses. Right, only that them photos were taken on ideal days with controlled lighting at a day when there was no real wedding going on but set aside just for the magazine's ad pages for some bridal gown designer. "I want my photos to look just like that" she says.

[Peter Riding]

Arthur, you seem determined to miss my point. I said that brides do not want photographers directing their wedding and at the same time you must be able to nail the posed stuff, that the formals are important but are just one part of the day.

Posing and lighting can be learned relatively easily both online and at seminars from out of work former "high-end" wedding photographers :- ) Whether the couple are willing to devote the time to it on the day and whether the venue has suitable areas then come into play. Lack of time is a huge issue in the UK.

But being invisible does not come easy to videographers. They seldom have to do that and don't see the point especially as it conflicts with how they are used to working, plus they perceive it would compromise the style and depth they believe their clients expect.

But anyone who wants to properly break into the stills market needs to look at what busy photographers are actually delivering. Not the photographers who you currently work with because that is a self-selecting sample unrepresentative of the mainstream couples for whom stealth is hugely important.

Pete

p.s. anyone else getting a jumbled mess when trying to view this forum in Chrome? I've switched to Firefox for this.

[George Kilroy]

I'm using firefox and also getting the jumbled mess.
It only seems to be the Wedding / Event Videography Techniques page. I can't get the postings list.

[Arthur Gannis]

" Brides do NOT want photographers or anyone else directing their wedding."
So what, exactly did you mean by that ?
Obviously there is a lot of directing going on in a wedding.

By the Maitre D, because that's his job to direct. By the wedding planner, she makes absolutely sure that things are done to the agreed contract with the bride and plans the events and direction of the day beforehand with the bride, by the DJ who can direct the dancing crowd to do congo lines, chicken dances etc.,

"posed stuff" is only possible by "placing/moving them around/ repositioning them, making them look this way and such in other words "directing".
Without directing or perhaps a better word is "controlling them", there would be mayhem and disorder along with confusion and the eventual music the photographer will hear from the bride after the honeymoon. If there is a lack of direction, then the photographer becomes a snap shooter just like a guest.

"nailing the posed stuff" I wish I have a wedding that they would pose themselves.
Would make my job a lot easier.

[Peter Riding]

Its simple Arthur, you direct during the posing part and thats how you nail the posed stuff. It would be ridiculous to expect most clients to know for themselves even though quite a few pretty young things have some idea of what appeals to them personally.

For the rest of the day a photographer striding around taking charge is a most unwelcome intrusion. That is the job of other staff.

In the UK there is generally a duty manager at civil venues who tasks include ensuring things run more or less to schedule. Usually there would not be a duty manager and a wedding planner / co-ordinator on duty at the same time - there would be no point. Sometimes most of the duty managers tasks are taken up by a red-coated toastmaster but that is an extra cost so not that common.

The DJ would not even arrive to set up until early evening and would most certainly not start corralling guests into chicken dances. Oh dear, what a dreadful thought! Their duties start when they announce the couples first dance and after that they let the music do the talking. On the rare occasions I have experienced a pro-active DJ the reaction from the guests has been "WTF."

Perhaps our weddings are more relaxed in the UK. We don't for example have that awful contrived "first look" or ranks of groomsmen and bridesmaids standing to attention alongside the couple blocking our cams throughout their ceremony - not unless there is an American connection anyway :- )

If you spend some quality time on galleries of busy US or UK photographers I'm sure you'll find that there is very little setup stuff out of the whole. Indeed most go out of their way to reassure prospective clients that this is not their way of working. So many now take this approach that you would be hard-pressed to find what may be regarded as a "traditional" photographer of the late Monte Zucker species (whose workshops I attended). They do it when appropriate but certainly not at other times.

Pete

[Tim Lewis]

Adrian, it all goes back to cave paintings!

[Adrian Tan]

Random "Go, video!" anecdote: friend of a friend, working as a nurse in London, already had her legal wedding, but, for her proper wedding, was prepared to save for years to get the particular videographer she wanted, Jason Magbanua. Videographer came second on her list after dress.

To be noted though: she's Filipino.