Photo + Video - One Man

[Aindreas Lynch]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Photogs are crazy now ..I have had two stand either side of me during speeches and shoot an estimated 100 - 200 exposures EACH!! Of What? Some guys with a mic stuck in his mouth???

I get this a lot from other videographers also :)

The bride will only receive (generally) 4 or 5 of these pics and they will be the ones with the best expressions. If you take just one pic each time then their eyes could be closed, not smiling properly etc etc so if you take plenty then you can pick out the best afterwards. If you use something like photomechanic then you can fly through hundreds of pics in seconds and pick out the ones you want.

If you ever watch a press conference take notice of the sounds next time. Whenever the speaker's expression changes or anything happens in the conference listen out for the shutters of the cameras. It's like machine gun fire when someone smiles - simple reason - pick out the best expression afterwards!!!

[Noa Put]

Whats so hard about that? Whats so undesirable about that?

Framing is not the issue, that's the easy part, it's maintaining the right exposure if you have strong backlight when your subject is sitting in the shade and changing lightconditions on outside weddings on a partially cloudy day.

Originally Posted by Peter Riding

They cope great on the fly with changes in exposure white balance and focus subject; they do not need babysitting.

I have enough experience in shooting multicam ceremonies on my own with cameras that are good in auto everything if needed but I have encountered several occasions where I absolutely needed to control and adjust most of them all throughout the ceremony to adapt to constantly changing lightconditions in outside weddings, not babysitting the camera's would have meant unusable footage, if you think this is ok that means we have different standards when it comes to video. During those ceremonies it would have been impossible to free up time to do photography as well without this having a negative impact on the video quailty.

[Roger Gunkel]

I think that Pete has answered everything very clearly and I will just add a couple of extra comments.

Steve, you have again come back to this idea of a wide static video camera taking an overview while the group shots are being taken. This is a complete misunderstanding of how I work as I sometimes have a separate camera covering a wide view, but always have the main video and stlls cameras together. I work lightweight with the ability to move and change shots very quickly with stills and video. I always have one eye open for the little things as those are an important part of my videos. There is no point in quoting one instance of something that you caught on video that I might have missed while I was taking stills. I could give you dozens of examples of little incidents that I captured on video during group shots that you would have missed while you were off filming somewhere else. Those offering short form cinematic videos miss or don't include so many of exactly the type of shots that you and i would take Steve, but their clients still seem happy with the results.

You have also misunderstood my point about photographers spending a long time taking completely unnecessary shots. Pete has covered that pretty well, but my point is that photographers will often take continuous shots during the speeches for example which are completely pointless when it is being covered by video. By all means take stills of the speakers, but not continuously. I had a wedding last month with speeches lasting 40 minutes that I covered with two cameras. The photographer using a large and very noisy dslr, shot so many stills that I counted the shutter clicks on the audio and there were 421. Now what is the point of that? Him and the sound of his camera were very intrusive for that whole time. There are plenty of other times during the day when this also applies and it is something that has grown rapidly with the rise of digital photography and the removal of the need to get it right with every shutter press.

I have worked with hundreds of great photographers over the years and in no way suggest that I do a better job than they do. During that time i have also often asked why they take so many apart from the obvious eyes shut thing. One of the common answers is that when there is a videographer present, they feel that they should also be working if the video guy is, and I feel exactly the same. If the photographer is taken endless still shots, I feel I should be taking video to justify my presence. this means that I often take very similar shots of the same people and more footage than I will ever need. When we do the joint package, everything is geared towards what works best with both media in a much more controlled and non intrusive way.

The joint package is an alternative product that will grow in popularity with clients and professionals, but it is a different product. Short form cinematic video is also a different product and there have been similar deep discussions over short and long form that we are seeing here. Joint photo and video packages are just another growing product that some will argue can't be as good and some will feel is a great idea. It's not better or worse than separate photography or video, it is just a different approach. Like any product, the client needs to make their own choice of what they want and it needs to be quite clear to them what they will get. Let's not forget that we are discussing one person packages here which some will argue is insufficient for video only let alone both. There is though every opportunity to offer integrated packages with more personnel involved without the conflict sometimes found with two different companies.

Those that can't or don't want to do it will argue that the client won't be getting such a good product, those that enjoy it and see the positives, will simply get on with it.

Roger

[Noa Put]

Those that can't or don't want to do it will argue that the client won't be getting such a good product, those that enjoy it and see the positives, will simply get on with it.

That's just the whole point, ofcourse you can do both simultaneously but it will always have a impact on the versatility and quality of your end product compared to someone doing photography or video separately, if you can live with that and sell it like this then this is ok. I for instance shoot video alone and that also has a impact on what I deliver compared to the videocompanies that shoot with 2 or 3 persons, their work will always be more versatile in the kind of shots they are able to take and their shots will always have good focus and exposure because they operate their camera instead of letting them run unmanned. I also work around that and for me it works but I know I could deliver a better product if I had a equally experienced second shooter.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

Those that can't or don't want to do it will argue that the client won't be getting such a good product, those that enjoy it and see the positives, will simply get on with it.

Roger

Roger, I really have no problem with you offering something different. It is very important if video and photo to survive to be innovative and try new ways of working.
My concerns is more the idea that those who do offer this service will not accept that they are offering a product that will in some way be compromised when compared to two professionals doing the same job. By all means market it as a different product, but if you're marketing it as just as good or even better because most Photographers and Videographers are shooting more than they need, getting in each others way, taking similar shots, lots of unnecessary arty farty stuff etc etc; this I do have a problem with.
Now why this is an issue for me, is perhaps best explained by an experience I had earlier in the year. A couple who I filmed their Wedding for in April almost didn't go with a Videographer and even when they did were extremely concerned, almost anxious as to how I would work with the Photographer to the point where we had meetings prior to the day. The reason for this anxiety was that the Groom's sister had got married the year before and her Photographer who offered a combined service had dissuaded the Groom's sister from hiring someone separate to do video with lots of horror stories. As the couple I filmed already had a Photographer who didn't offer both, these stories were on their mind when hiring me. I almost lost a good booking and the couple fretted unnecessarily. The Photographer and I worked very well together and within a limited timetable did I feel an excellent job. I'm sure he got some great close ups of Guests reactions during the Speeches, whilst I was busy capturing the person speaking and the Bride and Groom's reactions. Similarly I got some lovely material with the guests arriving at the Reception in an old fashioned bus, whilst he was with the couple at some lake. Something the Bride and Groom only got to see thanks to my video as the bus had left by the time they arrived. An advantage to 2 people doing the job I'm quite sure the Photographer who filmed the Grooms' Sister's Wedding would not have brought up when pushing his video add on service.

[Roger Gunkel]

Steve, you can quote examples to prove a point, I can quote examples to prove the opposite point. None of it matters providing the couple get what they want and expect. A joint package is not a compromise it is a different package, one of the main features being that it is far more discreet and unobtrusive than having multi operators, which is very important to some couples. Some couples love the idea of multi operators, so I wouldn't get a look in.

I had a couple this year who spent £1800 on their photographer and didn't want a video. Mum wanted a video and paid for me to film it. When I delivered the video, the couple were delighted with it and over the moon that Mum had decided to book me. It seems that the couple were taking action against the photographer for falsely representing his business. They decided that only 5 pictures were up to the expected standard so I made an album for them from pictures that I had taken for titling and credits.

Another wedding last year had a slightly different outcome, because they told me on delivery of the video that they had asked the photographer for lots of shots of them kissing, as the joke in their family was that they never stop. They were disappointed to find that they had none, even though he can clearly be heard throughout the video saying 'Just another little kiss please', with lots shown on the video. They were also disappointed that he took no shots of the rings, the bouquet, in the car etc. I took some on the day and you can hear him say in the background 'I don't do cheesy shots'. What about what the couple would like?

Another wedding this year I worked with a photographer that I have never seen before and we worked perfectly together. So much so that we have both been booked by a guest for their wedding next year.

Finally, one of my couples last year were adamant that they didn't want a photographer at all as they said they had been to a number of weddings recently where the photographers had seemed to be running the day and using it as a photo opportunity for themselves. They just had the video and were very happy.

Like I have said on many occasions, it's all about what the couple want, not what we may think is best. I just want to maximise my customer base.

Roger

[Steve Burkett]

Roger you tell some lovely stories, they don't in any way address my concerns regarding joint Photo/Video packages. Which is that with Videography frequently undervalued by couples and with technology changing, more and more Photographers may if only to compete and follow others example, offer video as well. As they frequently meet the couple before I get even a look in, they are in prime position to dissuade the couple from booking a Videographer in order to secure a little extra money for themselves, whether this is in the best interest of the couple or not. Now as long as enough couples still see the value in hiring a Videographer and a Photographer, I have no problem with Video/Photo combi packages as a viable alternative, but if the future of Wedding Videos is to offer both Photos and Video at the expense of quality, I'd be wanting out before we got to that point. There are plenty of other people not getting married who do value Video enough to see it done well.

[Peter Riding]

Lets take a look at what actually happens when you have more than one operator.

Far from improving, the coverage is often COMPROMISED. The exact opposite of your aims.

Take this ceremony room from a wedding I shot a few months ago. I was doing video only as there was a two person photo team:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/907-c/...tham-Hotel.jpg

That photo is shot with a Canon 15mm f2.8L fish-eye to take in the whole of the room, so please excuse the distortion.

The registrars have no problem what so ever with operators doing anything they want. They are some of the most pleasant and easy-going in the country. Aldershot office to be precise.

However it is not feasible to move from rear to front during the ceremony without causing a major distraction by using the centre aisle.

On the day I had one small cam on a lightstand at the rear roughly in the place where this photo was shot from.

I had a second small cam clamped to the speaker bracket in the left front corner - you can see the speaker half way up the wall just above the panelling. It was not practical to use any other form of support because that corner was occupied by a string quartet during the ceremony. Plus two fully kitted out starwars stormtroopers believe it or not! That cam captured the groom facing the bride and the reaction of the guests behind him.

I had a third small cam attached to a wood panel by the window just to the right of the 2nd registrars desk to take in that side of the guests.

Usually I have my main video cam on a tripod in the right corner next to the desk as well. On this occasion I had it on a monopod instead because I anticipated problems with one photographer being anxious to occupy that same very tiny space.

Obviously I could do anything I wanted with the main cam and with the b-cam next to me. But I could not access the rear cam or the cam on the left corner once the ceremony was underway. Thats just a fact of life - nothing at all to do with combined packages.

The view from the rear cam was lovely and I cut to it many times in the multi-cam edit:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/images...earshot-01.jpg

Now lets see what happens at one of the most crucial moments of all:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/images...earshot-02.jpg

Yes the registrar had to move out of the lead photographers way so he could shoot, quote, "what the couple are expecting from seeing my portfolio. And yes that is a his second photographer on the left shooting pretty much the same thing.

And both of them using flash :- (

He could have just as easily shot from the corner as in this photo at the same venue in which I did both the stills and the video:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/907-c/...tham-Hotel.jpg

I like to be able to act quickly to recompose stills so having stills cams on tripods as Roger does isn't suitable for me:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/907-c/...hotography.jpg

Another instance:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/907-c/...hotography.jpg

The MOG bought several extra copies of the video and sent me a note afterwards Thanks for the videos. Fantastic memories of a wonderful day which you captured fantastically thanks very much

if you think this is ok that means we have different standards when it comes to video

To reply in similar passive aggressive vein NO it means you are stuck in your ways :- ) Ceremonies in England are not legal outside unless the couple are under a permanent structure as here:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/828-bj...hotography.jpg

That is the venue's mic on the table by the way, and no it wasn't possible to get a feed or to tune into their frequency. Their audio was rubbish anyway because it was very windy. Fortunately I got decent audio for the most part from the lav I put on the groom. The exposure was changing all the time in this ceremony because of the sun. I had my main cam to the left of the registrar, a b-cam in the same position as this photo was shot from, and a third cam at the rear of the guests. All the cams coped fine. At points when any cam adjusted its exposure I just cut to an alternative cam.

I do turn away requests for photo-video if I perceive that it will not be feasible to shoot both, for example this busy Hindu wedding where I did photos only:

hindu wedding photographers videographers buckinghamshire photography video asha and sandip ashton lamont photo galleries

As regards photographers shooting “too many” stills, particularly of parts of the day which will never end up in print. Yes I agree up to a point. But its also important to realise that the product is no longer prints, its no longer even albums. Its the facility to relive the day in all its parts. As a photographer if you were to only supply coverage of just the parts which are popular in print you would very soon starve.

I love Video too much and I hate doing the formals. I'd rather quit the Wedding Industry than suffer that. Capturing video when they're being done is much more fun, and some of my favourite parts of the day.

I can relate to that. I have the same attitude to silly special effects such as “vintage” which has been very popular in stills. Again we are probably all guilty of our products containing a large measure of what we ourselves enjoy doing rather than prioritising the brides preferences – assuming she knows her mind in the first place.

Pete

[Kyle Root]

Originally Posted by Peter Riding

Now, there are usually 3-4 of us on site to begin with.*

As a client that would be my idea of hell on earth. A major attraction of joint packages with solo shooters is the client perceives it will be genuinely non-intrusive rather than a circus. Thats how they see it.

Pete

It's not that bad. We have one person with the groomsmen who are in one location. Another person with the bridesmaids at the other location. Then we have someone who follows the photographer around. I've always stressed that we are pretty hands off and work to be as invisible as possible on the day. We may do a few staged shots for the highlight reel, but that's about it.

If it's a larger higher end wedding and we are using a 4 man team, I will usually take the task of setting up tripods and working on getting wireless mics set up and audio recorders, and checking all the stuff for the Ceremony to make sure that is ready to do.

There aren't 3 or 4 video guys just hovering around the photographer all the time.

It also helps ensure we get to capture those moments that no one else sees.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Peter Riding

To reply in similar passive aggressive vein NO it means you are stuck in your ways :- ) Ceremonies in England are not legal outside unless the couple are under a permanent structure as here:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/828-bj...hotography.jpg

Exactly what I mean, the auto iris of a camera will not adjust the right way if the sun disappears or reappears, if you have strong backlight and the couple standing in the shade you have to expose manually to get it right, unless you don't mind a over or underexposed image that might not be fixable in post.

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Roger you tell some lovely stories, they don't in any way address my concerns regarding joint Photo/Video packages. Which is that with Videography frequently undervalued by couples and with technology changing, more and more Photographers may if only to compete and follow others example, offer video as well. As they frequently meet the couple before I get even a look in, they are in prime position to dissuade the couple from booking a Videographer in order to secure a little extra money for themselves, whether this is in the best interest of the couple or not. Now as long as enough couples still see the value in hiring a Videographer and a Photographer, I have no problem with Video/Photo combi packages as a viable alternative, but if the future of Wedding Videos is to offer both Photos and Video at the expense of quality, I'd be wanting out before we got to that point. There are plenty of other people not getting married who do value Video enough to see it done well.

Steve I do feel from the tone of your posts that you are more concerned with losing work to someone who does both badly, than anything else. You are also raising unsubstantiated concerns by claiming that video quality will suffer when somebody does both. You may well be right in some instances but the same applies to existing videographers and photographers. You also have no way of knowing if the video quality of my joint package is streets ahead of your own, or greatly inferior as there is no clear yardstick and huge variation.

Firstly, if you are worried about someone else getting in first and persuading their client that they don't want a separate videographer, then you are assuming a number of things without real substance. E.G. the couple are not capable of thinking for themselves and drawing their own conclusions, the person that is trying to take your work away is a photographer and not a videographer offering photos, he may be a very experienced joint package operator that can blow away your own efforts as regards giving the couple what they actually want. If you are concerned about competition, then you need to ensure that what you are offering is well packaged product, that your product is well promoted and highly visible and that potential clients are aware of you.

Just incase you think that I am one of those trying to offer a substandard package and lure your clients away, I have always had a policy of not taking bookings on a visit to clients, always showing them comprehensive examples of our work and advising them to look at alternatives before making their decision. My selling is very positive, not negative and I am confident enough with what I do to encourage people to shop around. Most here think my marketing techniques are against best practice, but it gives me a very reliable and high booking rate.

I am also not a photographer offering a substandard video to keep them quiet, My main business has been wedding video for 30 years and I have a huge library of work and a good reputation, so in no way would let my standards slip. Most of my work is through recommendation and I frequently take bookings on the quality of my video or my photos or both. All clients look at both before they book if they want the joint package. They can also book a joint package with two of us if they wish, both switching between video and stills as required. I can't of course speak for anyone else offering a joint package as the quality of their work is between them and their client.

I have seen some terrible wedding videos taken by 3 man crews as I am sure many here have and I would be embarrassed to present such poor work. I have also seen work that I would not be able to achieve and is in a different league to my own. Both ends also apply to photography. What I offer is a choice of very competent wedding video, or very competent wedding video with very competent photography. If I didn't do it well I wouldn't still be in business.

Peter- one slight correction, I am not restricted to a stills camera on my double tripod mount, as I also have a stills camera round my neck for quick unexpected shots and my video cameras are all quick release or spring clamp mounted.

Roger

[Noa Put]

Actually, when I think about it, the most easy way would be to shoot a entire wedding with max two 4K video camera's so you can have good control over what you are doing the entire day and just extract the frames afterwards in post, so at least they will be getting a good videocoverage and the frames you select can be perfectly timed so they all will be more then sufficient quality for most of your clients. Your 4K camera will become a combined video/photo camera.

[Steve Burkett]

Roger, I'm not attacking your work. I'm suggesting that 2 Professionals doing Video and Photo are in a better position to capture the day and serve both Video and Photo extremely well rather than 1 person. Whether these 2 Professionals capitalise on that advantage and deliver good work is another matter. Competition isn't a problem, a future where you're expected to deliver both Photo and Video regardless whether you can do both very well is. It would be an interesting future where my competition would no longer be other Videographers, but also Photographers too. I suppose they're equally concerned with their work being undermined by Videographers telling Brides that their 4K stills can cover Speeches, 1st Dance and Evening do, so why hire a Photographer for the day. Why not just hire them for the Ceremony and formals. As technology changes, what becomes impossible last year becomes the trend the next. Your business is certainly innovative, offering something new and different to couples. Would it remain so valued if everyone was working to the same model.

Frankly I have no desire to do Photo and as long as your business model doesn't take over the Wedding Industry and force me down the route to keep in, I'm happy. Because if given a choice on adding another Wedding Profession to my own, I'd rather bake the bloody cake. I can whip up a mean sponge.

[Robert Benda]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Exactly my thought, I could shoot video, do photo and play dj the same time as well if I really wanted, like Peter said, just do it, but it's oversimplifying things as if video is nothing more then splashing many camera's all over the place and let them roll unattended while you go off and multitask, it almost makes it sound like a monkey can deliver a quality video..

Ha, LOLz.

As a DJ/Videographer, I agree, multi-tasking stinks. We finally got our prices high enough that when we go do our next wedding with both, we'll have a 3rd person, so my wife will shoot video, James will be my DJ, and I'll float between both as needed.

To do both video and photo *during the ceremony*, I'd probably do a similar strategy as solo video in a big church. Either lots of cameras, or several 4K cameras, so that you can get different looks from the same positions, or have one or two cameras stashed in spots that will get you that random shot (like a camera in front pre-focused for the parents in their seats, or a GoPro to get a wide shot of the whole church).

If I had four 4K cameras, I could almost just press record and not touch them again until tear down, and put together something pretty close to what I do now (right now is without 4K).

[Noa Put]

Ofcourse, playing the dj is also nothing more then autoplaying a playlist of a lot of songs and just take a wireless mike along so you can announce things while you shoot some photos and while your videocamera's are on autorecord. :) I"m joking but actually, it could be done right?

I actually wasn't joking about the shooting video in 4K and take photos from that, I can take good stills from my 4K recordings, you even might reserve the photoshoot for a photocamera only of the couple and their family so you get some decent controlled raw photos and then do the rest of the day like you normally would do a videoshoot and extract all your stills from that, in that way you can put your full attention on what you are shooting and still deliver a quality product. That wouldn't be more effort on the weddingday (only extra work in post) but a reason to charge extra for it. Mmmh, this has got me thinking...:)