Who adds shots of food in their weddingfilm?

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Giroud Francois

I mean it is silly to shoot food to show it, who cares about food ?

It is silly not to look past your own country borders, every country has it's own traditions about what people find important. I once covered a Kurdish wedding, the groom insisted that I would film people while they where eating and not just a quick shot, he wanted me to go around and cover as many people as possible while they where enjoying their meal. Maybe silly to you but important to them.

Same as in my country, I never cover people while they are eating except maybe a wide establishing shot but because the food takes up 3-4 hours on average and takes up the largest part of the budget it's expected to at least have a few shots. It's an important part of the day and I would find it weird to pretend it didn't happen.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Giroud Francois

I mean it is silly to shoot food to show it, who cares about food ?
but integrating it into a scene is nice, like you would do for flowers or cars.

Considering how much the catering actually costs, I've had numerous families over the years who definitely want me to include it. They want to see all the food they were paying for!

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Considering how much the catering actually costs, I've had numerous families over the years who definitely want me to include it. They want to see all the food they were paying for!

This applies to any part of the wedding that the couple have thought about & paid extra for whether that's the live band, the magician, the harpist, the candy cart, the chocolate fondu, the dove release, the chimney sweep, the dress etc etc etc

[Noa Put]

I do have to take cultural difference into consideration as that seems to play a larger role in wether it is important to cover such a shot, like David said, he get's laughed at when he takes a shot of the food and when his clients share that same thought, then I can understand why it's left out.

I do see that the past years there is a more heavy emphasis on "telling a story", eventhough there isn't really one and how you compose your shots (composition is actually something I do find very important as well), something that is passed on during countless workshops that are given buy the more established names in the weddingindustry. We are not making a video anymore but now it's called cinema, and here I think lies the main reason why certain parts of the day, like the food, is not considered cinematic enough or adding onto the story so it's left out.

I remember Patrick from Still-Motion saying years ago; if a ceremony doesn't add to the story that we want to tell about the couple we would leave it out of their film and I guess the food wouldn't take priority over the ceremony :)

Here is also the biggest difference between (older) videographers, like me, who have a documentary approach and who know there will come a day, maybe 10 or 20 years after the marriage that the couple will be glad they are able to see all the little details or boring looking stuff like the food, they, or usually the bride, spend a year or more on preparing and setting up for their upcoming wedding. It almost looks like I have become a dying breed when the entire weddingindustry seems to be moving to full on cinematic approach where all the non relevant stuff is disregarded to make place for a often forced story and extreme compositions, but who can blame them as there is plenty of money to be made.

That doesn't mean adding all details of a wedding will make a film long and boring, mine are around 20 to 25minutes long so I"m sure my clients are able to stay awake during that time :)

[Roger Gunkel]

There is a definite divergence in product with wedding video. By far the most common today that I see at wedding shows and on line, is the 'Cinematic' tell a story type of video. less common now is the documentary 'cover all' style. The Cinematic short style is very fashionable at the moment and seems to be what all videographers new to the wedding industry aspire to. It's a style that would have been impossible a couple of decades ago, but with the huge leaps forward in technology and affordability, it is comparatively easy to offer a 'Cinematic' product. It also enables videographers to emulate blockbuster type effects and manipulate time sequences etc.

It then becomes the producers choice as to whether they want to construct a romantic story of the couple's day. There are many parts of a wedding that don't come under the heading of romantic story telling, such as bridesmaids sitting round chatting while their hair and makeup is done, the venue being set up, guests laughing and joking, hymns being sung, readings during the ceremony, food and courses being served, speeches full of family jokes, drunken dancing etc. In fact most of what goes into a wedding can be seen as 'Boring' and could be left out of a love story.

The flip side of the coin is a fly on the wall documentary capture of the day that is much longer, and to some extent is an historical record of the day that enables the couple and their friends and families to be able to see much of what they missed on the day and look back at it in years to come. It's a record of voices, faces, hairstyles, fashion and much more, frozen in time.

The two styles are totally different and invoke different emotions and reactions from the viewers, but I am happy to say, like Noa, that the reduction in videographers filming documentary style is noticeably increasing the work coming my way.

I also find it interesting with wedding photography, that those entering the industry are also looking to present their own interpretation on wedding photography, to be different and original. This sometimes overrides the desire to find out what the couple want. I sometimes feel that the 'New Style' video and photography is frequently more about satisfying the producer's creative requirements than those of the couple.

At the end of the day it is about paying the bills, so I suppose from that viewpoint if it works for the producer of the work then the job is done.

Roger

[Noa Put]

The flip side of the coin is a fly on the wall documentary capture of the day that is much longer

My approach to documentary filmmaking is a bit different as the highlight film is only 20-25min long and I also deliver a 5min film for online sharing, the 25min highlight does include all details and I make use of natural recorded sound as much as I can like the bridesmaids chatting during brideprep (my favourite time of the day) whenever they say something funny or talk about the groom, sometimes I even place a sony tx650 near them just to be able to capture spoken sound a bit better from a distance so they don't see me filming them, speeches are cut short and a full hour ceremony is maybe 5-7 min long but I do include the full ceremony and speeches as a separate film.

Those full ceremony and speeches add-ons are not even an option, they come standard as I don't want my clients to pay for a highlight only because they can't afford the options, I"m sure they will regret not being able to get those one day. Instead my price is higher and I only offer one package. That means that for some people my price might be too high but I rather have them find a videographer that offers a full doc edit at a price they can afford then to hire me and regret later they don't have the full ceremony or speeches. That might not make much sense as a business but since I"m retired and shoot weddings on the side I don't need to do 30+ weddings a year which means I can spend more time on the editing and give the client a memory of which I"m sure they will value in years to come.

The more everyone is diving deep into cinematic storytelling, the more I want to concentrate on documentary storytelling meaning letting the day unfold with minimal interfearing which eventually will make my work stand out as well.

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

The more everyone is diving deep into cinematic storytelling, the more I want to concentrate on documentary storytelling meaning letting the day unfold with minimal interfearing which eventually will make my work stand out as well.

Yes I feel that a story doesn't need to be contrived, as a wedding day in itself is a romantic family story which can be captured very effectively and unobstrusively whilst maintaining a documentary element.

Roger

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by John Nantz

The ‘American English’ word for that is “Hors d’oeuvers.”
Je oubliez très beacoup de mon Français since l’école so I don’t know how that exactly translates, but that’s what we call it.

Didn't know you used French words in the US :) Don't they also say "appetizers?", my French is unfortunately non excisting, I only understand a few words which is weird as I live in a country which is half French/Dutch speaking, I grew up with Dutch and German TV so German is the only other language, beside English that I understand.

[John Nantz]

Noa -

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Didn't know you used French words in the US :) Don't they also say "appetizers?", my French is unfortunately non excisting,...

Appetizers is an excellent word but for a restaurants that want’s to add some flair or “panache”, they’d call them Hors d’oeuvres. On the west coast the only French is basically found in restaurants, on crossword puzzles, or in my case, taught in school. Back east in the Louisiana Purchase area I would assume it would be used more, just guessing.

For the two onerous years of studying French in school, I only used it two times, once at a boat show where the owner of the company that sold feathering props was a frenchman so I spoke a bit with him. He was so pleased (that was before I forgot so much!) he gave me a good discount on one of his props.

The second time I used French was in Bratislava, formally Preßburg, to order lunch. The menu was in Slovakian and there was a couple nearby who seemed to have no problem with the menu and they were speaking French so I asked them what some of the menu (French word) items were. The woman’s husband spoke Slovakian and she was French (they lived in Paris) so she was able to tell me what the items were. That was when Bratislava was still under communist rule. Otherwise that was it. Deux times. Could have really put that homework and study time to better use with math and science. But hey, it kinda (not a real “English” word) helped a bit here!

A recent study found that the best years to learn a new language is when you’re really young then up to the mid teens. After that, as a human, we’re over the hill and on a decline. Heck, I could have told them that without them having to spend a lot of money doing research.

As for the cinematic and documentary styles (back on message), I can see both. Some of the “cinematic” videos I’ve seen have been really emotional (if that’s a good word) to watch. Whatever I shoot, if possible, I like to emulate that. But when starting with pure documentary shooting it just depends on when an opportunity arrises. The clip with the screen shot of the little girl picking up her camera and taking a picture of me, I think, is an example. Totally un-planned and I think the parents would like that. If one shoots enough footage (or GigaBytes), hopefully there’ll be a few good clips.

Just did a shoot of a float plane fly-in at the marina this morning and it’s pure documentary style. Plan to go down there this afternoon and see what I can get for fill-in. Using the AX53 since the AX100 is gone now. Facing severe “sellers remorse" for selling it too soon. Really, really wanted the Z90 and 10-bit to play with.

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Didn't know you used French words in the US :) Don't they also say "appetizers?", my French is unfortunately non excisting, I only understand a few words which is weird as I live in a country which is half French/Dutch speaking, I grew up with Dutch and German TV so German is the only other language, beside English that I understand.

I think the word that we use most at weddings in the UK for the little snacks that are brought round after the ceremony at the venue is 'Canapes' pronounced 'Cannerpays'.

Roger

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

I think the word that we use most at weddings in the UK for the little snacks that are brought round after the ceremony at the venue is 'Canapes' pronounced 'Cannerpays'.

Roger

I prefer the term nibbles. Though I agree in posh Wedding Industry, the Canapes is used, even though it's much the same thing, just sounds better. Even if it doesn't always taste better.

[Rob Cantwell]

When i video if possible, I would cover the staff laying out the dining room and often a clip of their briefing by the wedding planner/supervisor, also try and get a few shots from the kitchen door of the chefs at work!

i'd cover any reception stuff like red carpet, champagne sweet cart etc. it was a 'thing' here at one stage to have an 'ice cream van' parked outside the church to serve whipped ice cream!

I'd also include the start of serving in the dining hall - wine pouring serving the starter to the top table, usually withdraw before the main course to allow them to enjoy the meal, but I'd come back as soon as desert is finished and and cover all the tables, while they're still all there enjoying the atmosphere and companionship.

This is all part of the documentary style that suits me.

[Roger Gunkel]

Same for us really Rob, although we like to briefly show each of the courses being served before leaving them to eat in peace.

For us it's the progression of the whole day, rather than just a romantic overview of the couple. We find they like to see the details that they didn't have time to take in on the day.

Roger

[Jeff Pulera]

If there is a buffet, when they uncover all the food (usually just before bride and groom approach) I will do kind of a flyover, smoothly walking down the food line (Steadi-Cam style) to provide an overview of offerings before they get dug into. Then from far end, I might get a close-up of couple, plates in hand, and pull back to reveal the spread of food before them.

Also, for pre-dinner hors de ouvres (sp?) when I see a server walking by with a fresh tray of attractive food I will have them stop for me and I will start with shot of them holding tray and move in for close-up of goodies, just a quick shot. Same for fancy deserts on a platter.

So really none of these shots are more than a few seconds each, but just contribute to the overall flavor of the event (pun intended). It's the little details ;-)

Thanks

Jeff

[Steven Digges]

I will chime in from a different perspective on the cine vs. doco thing. In my world the line between photographer/videographer is not as well defined as it is for wedding guys. To you it almost always differentiates still or video shooting. In my commercial and the broadcast/theatrical world video operators are photographers. They have to be, it refers to their talent and ability to shoot well. It usually does not apply to the medium being used. You will never hear a real DOP claim he is "not a photographer". A DOP is the big gun that has worked very hard to become a Director of Photography.

Most of the guys in this thread are regulars. But for the sake of readers not familiar with Noa's work I am going to use him as an example of my point. In this thread Noa says he is shooting Doco style weddings. If you are not familiar with his work and you think it looks like the evening news nothing could be farther from the truth. His skills as true photographer shooting video are exceptional. He may call his weddings documentary style but he delivers a product full of beautiful, highly crafted shots from start to finish. If he shoots a piece of pie being set down on a table it is going to look so good you are going to want to eat it. That is true talent. He can make the ordinary look exceptional. And these days I believe he is doing it with not much more than a backpack full of gear!

My point is that the lines between doco vs. cinematic can be blurred just like photographer vs. videographer. Noa is proof that a documentary style, as he is calling it, does not mean it has to be a straight forward boring shot. His documentaries are full of beautiful shots that only a skilled photographer can shoot. I was a little surprised here to see him defining himself as a doco style wedding shooter.


Noa, I know you brand yourself as Noa Films. Have you always considered yourself a documentarian style shooter. I am curious what that means to you? I may be missing something because I don't shoot weddings. I am not labeling you in any way, I am curious about how you see this. I do know you make amazing images no matter what their called. Just throwing out food for thought....

Kind Regards,

Steve