Photo + Video - One Man

[D.R. Gates]

Some of the worst so-called 'professional' videos I've seen are by those offering more than one service, particularly DJ's. They add $500-600 to their disc jockey package, and then have some schmuck assistant tape the festivities.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Ger Griffin

Can I just add that while I think fair play to anyone doing this, I would advise any others to think very carefully before offering it. Its a guaranteed way to get the photographers in the locality pretty peed off :) Expect some very aggressive counter punches...

Where I live it's just the opposite, I see several photogs starting to offer video as well as combination package, very basic stuff, no sound, shaky footage, extreme shallow dof and vintage colours is the easiest way to describe what they do and they have the nerve to charge premium for it.

[Roger Gunkel]

I was at a wedding show a couple of weeks ago where there was a wedding car company offering photography to their clients. With the technology available, everyone is going to be offering video and photography soon, there will even be a camera in the cake to get them cutting it :-).

To be honest, the more the merrier, because as word spreads about how bad they all are, people will come to the professionals to get the job done properly. As regards photographers getting pissed off, if they are good at what they do, why should they worry about it, after all they've already got 90% of the market, perhaps the've had it their own way for too long. If you can't sell your product, you are either not marketing it properly, or it's not what people want.

There a pound shops and cheap shops all over the UK, but it doesn't stop conventional retailers selling their products. Competition will make more people aware of video and some will book cheap crap, but more will look further and find that there is better quality around. Increasing awareness won't be a bad thing in my opinion.

Roger

[Peter Riding]

I"m afraid we have to agree to disagree here.

At risk of being the proverbial dog with a bone I have to say that your observations are more those I'd expect to hear from someone viewing this longform ceremony who is actively looking for ways in which they would have done the shoot and the edit differently / better rather than as a bride who might think "yes I'd love to be able to watch a video of my wedding just like that". It gets like that in photography circles as well when people post album designs.

At the same time I do admire your results Noa and if we worked in the same region I would be recommending you no question.

Roger - I dislike deliberate camera movement except in particular circumstances. The style is a conscious decision by me - though I will tip my hat to the possibility of influences by our respective histories and professional experience. I simply don't subscribe at all to some of the practices in wedding videography such as "if your subject is stationary your cam should be moving" etc. You just don't see that in TV or cinema except when used to achieve a particular feeling - and even then only momentarily. Not sure why it pervades wedding "cinematography" - and I'm not suggesting for a moment that you are a guilty party. Maybe its a case of "I can do it therefore I am going to do it" together with a determination to be different to "traditional" wedding video which never even existed anyway. It is a source of huge regret to me that I see excesses of it almost without exception in the videographers returned on the 1st page of google. Its the norm. Oh dear :- (

I was heartened to see a recent review of Stations Of The Cross by Mark Kermode a few days ago. He makes a particular point of emphasising how well static shooting positions worked in this recent arthouse release. Not sure if this iplayer link will work, if it does go to 08:40:

BBC iPlayer - The Film Review - 28/11/2014

Pete

[Steve Burkett]

Peter, what I find missing in your video and this is a technique supported widely in TV and Films, are the close ups. Not extreme close ups, up the nose affairs, but different focal lengths. Your 2 front cameras have similar focal lengths, wide shots of the room and that's fine, I'd do the same myself to capture the mood of the room, but I'd be using a 4th camera manned by me for cutting to close ups, such as a 2 person shot of the Couple after the Bride has walked down the aisle to really show off their feelings for each other; remember it's not just the Bride who sees the video, their Parents and one day their children too in the future. A close up sells the person's personality in a way a wider shot does not. In Ceremonies, I'll also use my 4th camera to get close ups of close family members and Bridesmaids if they're showing emotion during the Ceremony. There's a place for wide in coverage no doubt about it, but there's such a thing that with too much detail, you not really seeing the people at all. You're quite willing to cut to a rear shot of the couple's heads, so why not a close up to add variety too. Is your Photography similarly limited? And that's the problem.

Your video style is influenced by the fact that it's an addition to your Photography and you're trying to find examples out there in the World to justify what is perhaps more a limitation of balancing 2 Professions than visual style. Now please don't get me wrong. Your coverage is good, hell better than some Videographers I've seen working exclusively on video capture. You're obviously very skilled at balancing both professions given your Photography too I've seen and this is to be commended and applauded. But please do not presume that your methods of capture is the best and only way of covering a Wedding Ceremony; that's like me telling you my 4K stills of a Ceremony is a worthwhile replacement for your Photography. That is not the case and an insult to your profession. I'm sure your clients appreciate your video as my clients appreciate mine and in the end that's the important thing. However your clients come to you with different expectations than mine. Some of mine have detailed meetings with me as to what they want in my video capture; they've studied multiple videos online and have chosen me for my style that balances a wider range of shots than yours. No 2 clients are the same and what is acceptable to one isn't acceptable to another.

None of us can really say that what we offer is the default standard in any profession; it's just the level we pitch at and what our clients come to us for.

[Roger Gunkel]

Steve- I agree that we all work different ways and it is down to individual clients to look at whats on offer and make their choice. I think that we can all look at someone else's work and see ways that we would do it different, but it is rather like choosing a restaurant, the basic food os the same, it is how it is cooked that we make our choices on.

Pete-iI also don't like camera position movement during a shot, but I do like movement in the framing and structure of the shot such as slowly zooming in to emphasise the vows, or a gentle pull out or pan to capture spumone's reaction in the background.

We all work differently though and it would be very boring if we were all the same.

Roger

[Peter Riding]

Steve, one final observation (hopefully!). Remember the video I linked to is not a showreel / greatest hits / critique-this, its just a regular longform of an ordinary civil ceremony which I used to illustrate how changes in exposure and backlighting with locked-down inaccessible video cams may not be as big a challenge as some imagine it to be. Nor is it edited to perfection, obviously.

But its pretty good for being one of several for illustrating to prospective brides how they could also watch their own wedding. I don't really want perfectly polished samples because that then sets you up to struggle to deliver something comparable in the (normally) less than ideal shooting conditions of everyday weddings. Same thing happens with photo albums - tempting though it is to feature gorgeous couples in high-end venues (and I have several at "Downton Abbey" that I could feature).

As regards close-ups, thats really a feature of that particular short ceremony rather than the norm. Usually I would recompose multiple times, not only to the couple but also onto the VIP guests especially individuals in the wedding party and parents. If the venue circumstances are such that I can move around I'll do likewise from the other video cams as well, especially if its a church and therefore a longer ceremony with more going on. What I don't like is shaky hand-held stuff. My AC90 has a separate setting and rocker switch specifically allowing zooming and that can be set from fast through to very slow and works well. At that ceremony I had only one possible shooting position at which i could control a cam at all and what with the large flower arrangements around me it was a choice of wide or tight on the couple, nothing else. I've gone tighter for the rings etc but really that was all I could do. I think the two other cams made it a much more engaging video than it would otherwise have been.

I used to do a lot of very close compositions in my early stills days. I loved the look from a 70-200f2.8L. Older wiser heads berated me for losing the context by being too tightly cropped. They would regularly shoot with just 24mm 35mm and 50mm primes - nothing longer. I thought they were plain wrong. Now I'm doing much more wide content though I must admit I still shoot a lot of close-up as well.

I think these two BBC videos on YouTube show well how no close-up stuff at all does work best in the right circumstances. First Sophie Ellis Bextor dancing the Charleston:

Sophie Ellis-Bextor & Brendan Charleston to 'Rock It For Me' - Strictly Come Dancing - BBC One - YouTube

And Mark Benton dancing goodness knows what:

Mark Benton & Iveta Salsa to 'Bom Bom' - Strictly Come Dancing 2013: Week 2 - BBC One - YouTube

Of course we could never hope to have the luxury of such good lighting or that freedom to use cranes and jibs but those are other subjects.

Probably the best wedding video ever made is the Royal Wedding from 2011, which is on Youtube in full now:

The Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton - YouTube

What always struck me about that was the total absence of equipment in view. I wish more videographers would be mindful of that. They did of course have access to remote control.

It has a lot of use of wide, scene setting and showing the context very well. If you go from say 1:46:50 which is wide, to 1:47:01 which crops to a speaker, that is what I look to do if I can access the appropriate cams.

Its interesting to see that even at the Royal Wedding there were moments when the couple looked less than flattering - just the sort of thing we get :- ) Look at their faces at 1:37:18 Yikes!

Yep Roger we do probably need to shake off a lot of stuff and focus on why exactly we do what we do at any particular point in the day, rather than continuing with more of the same simply because it served us well in the past.

Fascinating discussion for me.

Pete

[Paul Ekert]

I edit a lot of videos for various wedding videographers from around the world, so I get to see a lot of different styles. As yet I've not edited any from a One-Man band attempting to do Photo plus Video at the same time, but I have seen a few examples and they haven't impressed me compared with material I've edited from other wedding videographers who solely focus on video.

Now remember I see a large number of different weddings each month, from a variety of clients whose skill levels range from excellent to less than excellent (every wedding has a price point and not all brides can afford the top of the range wedding videos, so you know, I edit without judgment).

Anyway, the thing I noticed straight away about some of the one-man band videos (and it has to be said this is through my own research, I haven't knowingly looked at any examples in this thread) were often very static edits, there was a lack of a roving cam, no zoom in on the fingers for the rings, no close ups of the heads for the vows. I saw some closeups for pulpit reading and such like, these were preset cameras, as I would expect in a non-oneman-band video edit, but they weren't supplemented by any roving camera shots, which can make a 50 minute multicam edit look a bit dull when all that's happening is the POV changing from the same wide shot to the same pulpit close up.

It has to be said that some of the shots were not great either, with blown out highlights in some areas and soft focus in others.

To my mind the one-man band thing is an interesting idea, it will help cut costs for brides on a tight budget, but it made me wonder how much quality suffers in this scenario, and indeed how much money the operator makes from filming, photography, then editing video, then editing photographs. That's a LOT of work!

I stress again, my opinions here are based on work I see on my own computer and research I have conducted recently into wedding videography, they are not comments on any video examples that may have been posted in this thread, which I have not knowingly viewed.

Paul

[Roger Gunkel]

Paul, there are a lot of people making wedding videos out there and there are a lot who don't have a clue how to shoot video, no matter what price they are charging. Whether you shoot with one camera or 10 static ones, or have several different cameraman, if you don't know how to shoot video it still won't be great.

Do you film weddings yourself, or do you just edit those filmed by other people? After 30 years of filming and editing weddings, I can't imagine giving my raw footage to someone else to edit as their ideas of the finished product would be different to mine and it would lose my own style and insight. It would also cost more to pay someone else to do it, so I would assume that your clients are at the higher end of the pricing range.

If you are seeing poor video from 'One man bands' as you call them, then I would assume that they are not very competent. Adding more crew doesn't make you more professional, it just gives you more footage and also more chance of others getting it wrong unless you are using and paying very competent people. having said that! a large number of solo shooters are beginners and a lot are also photographers who decide to use the video facility on their dslr without any idea of the differences between shooting stills and video. So many seem to think that if you point a camera at a scene and press record that you end up with a video.

I'm really not surprised that you see so many static and boring video clips as the art of real video making seems to be disappearing and being replaced with safety in numbers. Whenever I am at a wedding show, the few video companies that I see are either showing stylised wedding music videos or not very well taken footage. It's rare that I see anything that impresses me.

Roger

[Dave Partington]

Originally Posted by Paul Ekert

....Anyway, the thing I noticed straight away about some of the one-man band videos (and it has to be said this is through my own research, I haven't knowingly looked at any examples in this thread) were often very static edits, there was a lack of a roving cam, no zoom in on the fingers for the rings, no close ups of the heads for the vows. I saw some closeups for pulpit reading and such like, these were preset cameras, as I would expect in a non-oneman-band video edit, but they weren't supplemented by any roving camera shots, which can make a 50 minute multicam edit look a bit dull when all that's happening is the POV changing from the same wide shot to the same pulpit close up.

Thanks for your input Paul, it is much appreciated.

The thing most of us forget from time to time is that we're not making a Hollywood blockbuster designed to be enjoyed by millions of people, none of whom are in the cast of the film, nor is there the planning, time or budget for it.

It's designed to document the day of two specific people accompanied on their special day by friends and family. For the couple, it may be the only ceremony they've ever been to, it could be the very first ceremony they've ever watched on video and guess what? They're in it! That's far higher production value to them than anything you can show them from other people's weddings.

As videographers / film makers we're not in the video. We've seen / filmed / edited more ceremonies than there are words in 1 Corinthians 13 and so it's easy to be bored by the repetition and want to get more arty to add personal satisfaction. But, the film isn't for us, it's for them.

The first few questions really need to be:

1) Who are the photos and video for? Are they for us for samples and our show reel, or are they primarily for the couple (or person paying for it)? Forget all delusions of 'art' for a second, ultimately who is the patron and what do they want?

2) Is this video something merely to entertain them an give bragging rights in the next few weeks, or something for them to treasure and get all weepy about when they look back in 25 years time? They may love the music in the highlights video today but cringe when they hear it in years to come.

3) How much of their day is about getting photos taken and a video made (for some it's all about that) compared to how much are they merely tolerating those things being there because it's the 'done thing'? I would suggest that for most couples it's the latter. They'd rather enjoy their day without all the photo / video distractions but tolerate itbecause it's the done thing. They may look back in years to come and be happy they did it, but at the time they'd rather be with family and friends downing a glass of something and eating the nibbles.

High Production Value
If they are looking for the high production value results then clearly you may need more crew and different equipment, such as DSLRs / C100 etc with fast f1.4 glass, sliders, jibs etc etc. You'll also need to spend a LOT more time in editing too.

If you're planning on moving around to get the high value shots during a ceremony in the UK you better also plan on being thrown out. If you're thinking about similar shots during speeches then it better be a big venue with very few guests, because my experience shows that there isn't room to move anywhere in the majority of venues, they pack'em in tight and we're often squeezed between tables with no wiggle room at all.

The high production value comes from shooting and editing the extra bits shot before the ceremony, between the ceremony and sitting down to eat and again after speeches. I've done it for more years than I care to remember and really that's where most of the time is spent and its totally out of proportion to the parts of the video that most people will treasure in years to come.

Coming back to static vs roving shots for a moment, of course the roving shots add production value if they are done well, but shaky hand held video is worse than static video in my book, yet I see it on so many videos on the web. I just don't want to feel seasick watching a video.

The shallow DOF that is so popular with the film maker may not be what the bride actually wants or expects. Why can't I see my family in the back ground? Aren't your cameras good enough to do that? You can show them all the samples you like before the day and they can be mightily impressed with them because as a film maker / editor you drew their eye where 'you' wanted them to look. But realise they weren't looking for their own family and friends in someone else's video yet when it comes to their own video they may actually want to see them and didn't realise from your samples that the background would be out of focus the entire day. How many people go to the trouble of pointing that out to them? I suspect not many because as an industry we expect prospective clients to know and understand what they are looking at.

There are also lots of videographers who love those slow zoom-in shots, yet I not only avoid doing them, I actively remove those from edits since as a guest I would never stand up and slowly walk towards the couple to get a 'zoomed-in' look and it just looks so unnatural to me. IMHO they need to be straight cuts, wide to close, or not at all. As I said others like them, and that's fine.

Types of Couples
It seems to me there are 3 main groups of couples (1, 2, & 3) and two sub groups (a+b) :

1) Those who want an excellent high production value film of their day with a shortform story (or highlights) set to music.
a) Those who are willing / able to pay for it - they understand it takes time and effort
b) Those who are not willing / able to pay for it.

2) Those who just want to be able to see their day as it happened (long form)
a) Those who are willing to pay a lot (you can add production value)
b) Those who want it on a budget - you need to produce accordingly

3) Those who don't want a video at all (the vast majority of weddings in the UK)

Of course there can be some variations and crossover, but these are the basic types.

If they just want an easy to watch, never miss a moment, see it as it happened, don't let editing get in the way memory of their day, then a number of static cameras during the ceremony and speeches will suffice. I've had brides say to me "I don't want a story, I don't want it juggled around, I want to see it as it happened". It can be boring to edit, but it sure is faster and usually turns in to more money per hour.

Creative editing can be very satisfying. Add good production value through skilled shooting and the right equipment and you can make an amazing film. Is that what every bride wants? I suggest not.

Many brides are looking for the cheapest option because they don't want anything fancy, they don't want their day to be about photos and videos. Combo packages may be boring to you and me to watch but if that's what they want should we be turning them away?

[Roger Gunkel]

+1 Dave, great post!

Roger

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Peter Riding

I think these two BBC videos on YouTube show well how no close-up stuff at all does work best in the right circumstances. First Sophie Ellis Bextor dancing the Charleston:

Pete

Peter, I'm not sure with some of that last post if you're taking the piss with me. :) Or if you think I'd need a timely reminder that for a fast paced dance sequence, I shouldn't be reaching for my 75mm lens; well not unless I wanted my audience to vomit. As I said before, shots range from extreme wide to extreme close and it's my job to pick the right one at a given time. Now with event filming you can't be expected to follow the rules in the way TV and Film Productions can, but I do feel a better product is gained by giving video your undivided attention. Now in your case your product is dictated by the fact you're serving Photography as well and you'd be letting the client down if you didn't give both equal priority. So your priorities are different to mine, but as much as you may knock the techniques some of us Videographers use, consider that whilst you're competing with other Photographers and in some case other joint Photo/Video companies, my competition is other Videographers. So I need to be as versatile and competent as possible in a wide range of Filming techniques and demonstrate this in my videos in order to compete in a competitive market. My Business model and future plans are going to be quite different to yours and as such, my equipment choice and methods will reflect that.

[Paul Ekert]

Some great points and well made David. I guess I need to put my self in the punters shoes to understand the appeal of the combo deal. And it has to be said I've also get sent poor footage from shoots that had two camera operators, I remember on that showed in my multicam window that the two operators were standing about 4 feet apart, filming the same subject, one was overexposed andnthenotyher had soft focus! Whatcha gonna do with that?

Good point about dof on crowd shots, not something I thought about really but it is a valid point that some people may not want that visual effect in their lifetime memory.

In answer to Roger, I have shot weddings in the past, on my own with 2 cams not much in the way of sound and editing in SD to those new fangled DVDs and not so much as a multicam timeline to shake a stick at. So I've been away from combat for sometime, possibly the landscape has changed.

The actual process Roger, of handing over raw files to another editor isn't as traumatic as you might think so long as you both use the same software, and Same version. Then its a case of my syncing up the footage, doing a multicam edit (effectively rejecting any unusable footage) then playing with sound. I then return the project to the videographer who can dive in and fine tune the edit, adding their own personal style to e edit without having to do the donkey work.

I work with a few videographer s like that, although some also like to have the finished article.

I guess it all depends on how much you value your time and/or by ur willingness to do the donkey work of syncing files and rejecting unusualble clips.

[Peter Riding]

No offence intended Steve, just trying to make general observations for the wider audience based on my own experiences and what I take from watching wedding clips v. more general film and TV productions. I haven't seen your own work. Perhaps a better example might be Sky Sports coverage of Premier League matches. Extreme close-ups of individual players are of interest from time to time - there is a place for that obviously - but the moment they do that you as the viewer lose the ability to anticipate the flow of the game. So its good that they tend to limit it to points when the ball is out of play. Likewise when they pick out an individual piece of eye candy in the crowd :- )

Had to laugh a few weeks ago when a high-end videographer in my area who I worked with just doing the stills on that occasion, commented about a one-time frequent contributor to this board who has also been very insulting and dismissive of my views on video: this member he said had 2nd shot for him and although their technical knowledge was impressive they failed to shoot anything usable for him. Nothing at all :- )

I'm dipping into this thread during breaks from mind-numbing revision of HTML CSS and Javascript. My concentration and choice of phrases is not all it could be so apologies again.

I remember on that showed in my multicam window that the two operators were standing about 4 feet apart, filming the same subject

Paul that is just par for the course whether it be videographers or photographers. Multi-operator crews often make a big thing to clients about how they can provide much greater variety but in practice that doesn't happen. They just get tangled up with each other and degrade the enjoyment of guests. If you are planning to work as a sole operator its worth building up a portfolio of images and clips to illustrate this to prospective clients. Once they realise what really happens then the apparent attractiveness of getting "2 for 1" evaporates.

Pete

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Peter Riding

No offence intended Steve, just trying to make general observations for the wider audience based on my own experiences and what I take from watching wedding clips v. more general film and TV productions.

Pete

Wasn't offended at all; more amused by the observations. You have strong opinions clearly. I would certainly hire you as a joint Photographer/Videographer; alas probably not as a sole Videographer. I'm sure you have a good work ethic, but I find strong opinions can also be inflexible. I for one am highly critical of my own video work. I don't ascribe to the idea that one should compare their work to those doing it badly, but rather to those doing it very well, and yes I find some of my own work lacking in comparison and needs improvement. Still it's something to work towards. I am also under no illusion that when I combine Wedding Video and Marryoke on a single day, that both can be compromised under some situations, like the Bride being an hour late to the church.

On the subject of being hired by other Companies, it is actually regular work for me - approx 10-15% of my Bookings. I've been hired by two Photographers this year who were tasked by Brides to source a Videographer. Both plan to continue using me and already I have a booking next year as a result. I also shoot Weddings for an Editing Company, who I supply the footage to, plus I've worked for other Videography Companies on multiple shoots and a Photographer on an Indian Wedding as one of a team of 3 Video guys. In all cases, I've secured further work from them. However I should point out it is very hard working for another company like this. As has been frequently noted, we all work differently and it can be quite challenging trying to adapt your own style to theirs, and some make it harder by not necessarily communicating their style at all. The Indian Wedding, I was told nothing, no details, no names, no timetable despite asking. I was given an address and a time to turn up, and arrived thinking it was the Photographer's house; turned out it was the Bride's house and I was to film a pre-Wedding party. However it was only through casual chat I learned this. My work still led to further offers from the Photographer, but it could have been better with more info. I would have used a different camera for a start.