Anyone do photography and videography for weddings?

[Chris Barcellos]

I've shot four family weddings over the years, doing both video. All for the same family. My equipment gradually got better, and in all of them, I shot stills too. If you are a one man band. It is next to impossible. If you have help (I had my able wife and a nephew at various times), then it becomes more doable.) One thing I have learned is that I would not offer regular film photography, and shoot video too. I have a 2 1/4 camera, with threes lenses. With film loading, and lens changes, I cannot concentrate on shooting video too at the same time, whether I am shooting it directly or directings someone. I have used my Sony 828 for shooting, and do come up with some decent shots, but I've done so with the understanding that the posed shots will not be the level that might be expected of a professional level still photographer. I characterize them as candid digital still shots.

[Steven Davis]

Ok, here is the reason I posted this. I now have a gig that the B&G wants me to do the photography as well. Long story short, this is the second time I've done a wedding for this family, they are happy with our work. The first wedding we did for them was actually our first wedding doing video. So to help the B&G out, we agreed to do the photography as well as the videography.

I currently have a Fuji 7000 which does ok for the snapshot stuff we do, and would probably do a good job for this upcomming outside wedding.

I don't have a problem buying a new still camera if this Fuji 7000 is up to do a good job, maybe with a lens add on and/or an external flash.

I really don't however want to spend 5k on a still, since at this time, I'm still not crossing over to the dark side of photography..........(hehe, umm anyone get it?)

Should I get my Fuji 7000 some steroids or is there something else that will be better for less than my mortgage?

[Chris Barcellos]

I ve seen a two lens set Olympus 6MP SLR for around $700.00 to $800.00 at our local Frys, and I thought that was a pretty interesting deal. Nikon's low end SLR is a bit higher with one or two lens pack.

Sony had an SLR coming out later, from what I understand. Sony also has a 10 MgP camera out now. I have shot a wedding/video gig with the Sony VX2000 and my Sony 828 (earlier version of the 10 Mgp camera), and generally have been happy with results. Doing both, I didn't have the opportunity to really set things up, but then we were doing the weddings in a "docu" mode anyway.


And of course there is the Canon Digital Rebel...

[Steven Davis]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

I ve seen a two lens set Olympus 6MP SLR for around $700.00 to $800.00 at our local Frys, and I thought that was a pretty interesting deal. Nikon's low end SLR is a bit higher with one or two lens pack.

Sony had an SLR coming out later, from what I understand. Sony also has a 10 MgP camera out now. I have shot a wedding/video gig with the Sony VX2000 and my Sony 828 (earlier version of the 10 Mgp camera), and generally have been happy with results. Doing both, I didn't have the opportunity to really set things up, but then we were doing the weddings in a "docu" mode anyway.


And of course there is the Canon Digital Rebel...

Thanks Chris, we shoot video in docu mode, we let it happen and film as we go. I will be looking at the cameras you have suggested. I imagine that the weakness of my Fuji is probably the limitations of the lens.

[Michael Wisniewski]

A DSLR from Canon or Nikon will give much faster autofocus and better low light ability. Those would be the main advantages to upgrading to a DSLR. Doing a wedding without those features makes me cringe, though when I was starting out, I was able to use my Canon G6 for smaller informal weddings. Doing a medium size to large wedding would be nuts though, unless it was your family or close friends. Another nice but expensive advantage is that you can use the appropriate lens for the event. For weddings I use a Canon 350D Rebel XT, usually with the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L in low light and EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM under better lighting conditions, but those are +US$1,300 each. On the lower end of the spectrum, I've used the the EF-S 17-85 and the EF 28-135 and they've worked well.

For flashes, I really like the 580EX speedlite on a bracket, though you could get away with the 430EX. And I highly recommend the Lightsphere II diffuser by Gary Fong, make sure you get the correct one for your speedlite.

As for who does more work, having done both, I know the photographer has the more difficult job. I think a good wedding photographer is worth two good wedding videographers. The reason it's so intensive is that you really have to get in there as the photographer, face to face, up close to all the relatives, guests, and commotion. And you have to take charge in every case, being both commanding and humble at the same time while ordering around the bride, groom, mother-in-law, and all the assorted relatives into place, getting their permission while at the same time, telling them exactly what you need to get the photographs you know they want. It's a lot of fun, but it's also a lot of stress. I always feel like I'm on vacation when I get do a videography job right after finishing a wedding photography gig.

The plus side to photography vs. videography is that at the end of each event, I feel like I've gotten to know all the people, and they've developed a small relationship with me, something you don't always get when doing the videography.

[Michael W. Niece]

I personally don't see how the things in your 3rd paragraph is any different than a videographer. The only difference is that we're taking 30 pictures every second (in the US, anyway). I still have to confront the various relatives and guests for interviews, and often times I've had to to rely on zooming into people because they don't like being on video and run when they see us coming. The video crew has to know the wedding party and their family just as much as the photographer. If I had to pay someone to videotape my event, no matter what it is, I want to know the person/people doing it. The Fly-By-Night videographers are actually doing The Good Guys a favor, in a sense, because they're making the consumer a little more conscious about what they're buying into... thus getting to know us.

-Michael

[John DeLuca]

I shoot both photography and videography. Lucky for me my business is finally making the jump from weddings to commercial/broadcast :-) (took about five years of being an obsessed "profectionist").

I use the Nikon D2X, expo disk, fast Nikkor lenses (mostly the 17-55mm F2.8), off camera SB800 w/light sphere 2-w/ remote radio slave firing a quantum flash w/soft box.

For the videography side I use the PD-170 w/boatloads of professional accessories.

Each side has pros and cons. For Photography, I can gross tune 400-500 Raw files after a wedding in only four hours, batch them into jpeg’s, then upload them to my lab that does the fine tuning. The prints ship the next day. Down side is dealing with people.........Michael is right about posing people all day. Alot of hidden work with photography like album assembly.

For Videography- I can honestly say people put it behind photography. I give the videographers that stick with weddings alot of respect. Endless post, tons of stress, more probability something could go wrong, picky brides...oh I could go on.

Wedding photography and commercial video/photography is the way to go. Like all businesses, you will grow to a point and stop until you hire people and just trust them to not screw up.

-John

[Joe Allen Rosenberger]

As for who does more work, having done both, I know the photographer has the more difficult job. I think a good wedding photographer is worth two good wedding videographers. The reason it's so intensive is that you really have to get in there as the photographer, face to face, up close to all the relatives, guests, and commotion. And you have to take charge in every case, being both commanding and humble at the same time while ordering around the bride, groom, mother-in-law, and all the assorted relatives into place, getting their permission while at the same time, telling them exactly what you need to get the photographs you know they want. It's a lot of fun, but it's also a lot of stress. I always feel like I'm on vacation when I get do a videography job right after finishing a wedding photography gig.


Michael,

If you're the type photographer who's "getting in there" up close and personal to get the shots......I already know what style you shoot. Most of the best photographers hate to shoot that way at weddings unless requested by brides/grooms. It sounds like a lot of "say cheese" to the camera to me.

If you feel like you're on vactation shooting video at a wedding.....again, I'd love to see what your producing but it sounds like you're just kickin' back with cam on sticks.....and hit the record button.

You're statements are way off.....and to say that you "know" that the photographers job is more difficult......like I said, I'd love to check out the work.

[Steven Davis]

Soooo, should I not try it with my Fugi s7000 and get something else, or give my fuji a good upgrade? I did order a flash for it from B&H, but that's jsut for the snapshot stuff we do.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Steven Davis

Soooo, should I not try it with my Fugi s7000 and get something else, or give my fuji a good upgrade? I did order a flash for it from B&H, but that's jsut for the snapshot stuff we do.

I'd be a little concerned about the small sensor size for professional work, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to have two functional cameras available in case of equipment malfunction. So my vote would be to get an inexpensive digital SLR like the Canon Rebel XT, which has recently dropped in price. That way you've got a better, more professional camera for all future such work, and you've got a nice backup camera with your Fuji.

And don't worry about what some people say about photography being more demanding and challenging than videography. It's a different kind of challenge, but it's certainly no harder than making a good video. For one thing, you don't have to worry about shooting around the photographer...

;-)

[Michael Wisniewski]

Feel free to post why you think I'm wrong, I'm all ears ... but please keep in mind, personal attacks are not allowed on DV Info.

Steven, I agree with several of the previous posters, you know the couple/wedding best, but generally, it's best to have a dedicated person doing the photography, and a DSLR is highly recommended for the reasons listed above. Using the Fuji as a backup, as Kevin mentioned, is a great idea.

[Joe Allen Rosenberger]

My statement stands as is.....no need to go any further with it, because I really don't care how much harder you think your job is as a photographer.

Originally Posted by Michael Wisniewski

Feel free to post why you think I'm wrong, I'm all ears ... but please keep in mind, personal attacks are not allowed on DV Info.

Steven, I agree with several of the previous posters, you know the couple/wedding best, but generally, it's best to have a dedicated person doing the photography, and a DSLR is highly recommended for the reasons listed above. Using the Fuji as a backup, as Kevin mentioned, is a great idea.

[Peter Jefferson]

Interesting topic i msut say..

shooting for several phtogs and running my own video business i have to say on the day, the photography is a little more difficult.. in post, video is definately more time consuming. Also i find that people respect photographers more so they expect to pay more and EXPECT a photographer to behave in a certain manner, whereas with video, that negative stigma of "camera in your face" still stands (even if its not your style)

as for me, im giving up the video game as soon as i can fund a new kit (+backup) for a DSLR.. <im looking at a 10k budget> for me, the work is faster and therefore much more fulfilling and with a family, the $$, the post prod work, and the level of respect really makes the move across back to stills just that much more appealing.. .

[Paul Dhadialla]

Hi guys, just on the topic of whether photography or video production is harder...

I started assiting my dad in photography when I was 8 years old - I also started doing video production for weddings when i was 16 and can't even count how many weddings I been - but it's over a 1000 somewhere. In total - between the two I've been working it 22 years.

I have shot photos for full weddings as well as video in a 30/70 ratio over the years respectively with functions ranging from 30 people to 3000+ people. I have to say that I peresonally find video production is more demanding overall but not by a whole lot. Depends on the wedding I guess.

Videographers have just as much intervention with the people at the wedding - photographers are more in touch with the bridal party and immediate family most of the day - videographers are kickin it with the whole crowd generally - interviews, on the dance floor + the bridal party.
Videographers don't have to confront as much because video looks good the way it is -people can be doing anything and the natural flow of things looks nice - that's the idea of the video - whereas photographers have to confront and control more because they are after the 1 frame that must be perfect. Expression, mood, lighting, focus, framing etc must be right on - or the shot will be rejected.

Again - I say this purely from a production/technical perspective.

The videographer has worry about continuity of the footage, you are affected by existing lighting restrictions more often, have to make adjustments on the fly, have to capture audio as well, and also spend a lot of time in post getting the cuts/audio and any creative spots together.
I do a lot of post work for photography and post is generally simpler. I get the raws - clean, color correct, crop and upload the photos from C1 - lab prints em up (sure it takes 5 hours+- but much easier than editing a whole wedding video) Pics come in - enlargements are selected - re-crop - double check expsoure/color - upload (2 hours) - prints come back and into the albums - another 3-4 hours depending on the number of pics / type of album.

In support of photographers again- it totally depends on the wedding. I'd say about 15-20% of the weddings I do - the photography component is more demanding because couples' preferences. They don't want me to be everywhere the photographer is, they prefer less footage of the dance, just want a simple production - but my dad who is on the stills is going bezerk while things are going on easy for me. Sometimes couples don't care at all for video and hire 2 of us for photography only.

It also depends on how much pride the photographer and videographer take in their work. You can chill ur way through any job in the world - or break your back striving for top notch results - that will often effect your perception and others.

I know one thing - when i do either job I need a day to recover from physical and mental fatigue. ha ha

Finally - The couples attitude also makes a difference - sometimes you want to do everything for them and sometimes you just plain hate their guts and couldn't care less :)

Just my 2 cents.
Paul

[Steven Davis]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

I'd be a little concerned about the small sensor size for professional work, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to have two functional cameras available in case of equipment malfunction. So my vote would be to get an inexpensive digital SLR like the Canon Rebel XT, which has recently dropped in price. That way you've got a better, more professional camera for all future such work, and you've got a nice backup camera with your Fuji.

And don't worry about what some people say about photography being more demanding and challenging than videography. It's a different kind of challenge, but it's certainly no harder than making a good video. For one thing, you don't have to worry about shooting around the photographer...

;-)

Thanks, that sounds like a good plan. I have about 8 months before this gig so I can be patient with what is out there in terms of slrs and snatch up a good one, might try to get a wide lense as well.