An odd coincidence, but after years having a Photographer attending every Wedding I've been to, even if a family friend, the last 2 Weddings I have filmed have had no Photographer at all. Just me calling the shots and my photos from video stills booked in their place.

The Wedding before these 2, the couple paid more for my services than they did the Photographer. Feels an interesting reversal of fortune. I was speaking to the Registrar at yesterday's Wedding who spoke how for her recent Wedding she found the video to be of a much higher value to her than her photos.

Personally I just like not playing second fiddle to a Photographer. Made for a more relaxed day. Nice trend to see continue.

Awesome Steve

We had one 5 days ago .. I waited for the photographer and no-one appeared and the groom told me he felt a live broadcast video was much better value so Granny in the UK could watch it. I think when photogs use to supply a nice album full of 5x7's it was better received than waiting nowdays for 6 weeks to only get a little USB!!! I really don't mind doing ceremony photos for a couple using my wife rather than having an arrogant photographer who seems to think it's his wedding and he is in charge.

Yeah great trend and lets hope it continues... We offer a very simple video/photo package too (wifey does the photos) and although we make very little from it, it does keep others out and makes our video shoot extremely pleasant!

"friend of the family", ugh, those are absolutely the worst when they are the designated photographer of the day, every single one of them managed to ruin an important shot of mine on occasion.

About playing second fiddle to a photog, there was a time when I even was cheaper then mediocre or bad photographers and most of them behaved very unprofessionally and had big ego's, it was also clear my services where often an afterthought, something like "ok, it's a few weeks before the wedding and we have some money left so lets get a videographer". Over the years I raised my prices and currently am twice their price but I'm still cheaper then the best and most expensive photogs in my country and it's only now I feel that I am treated equally. I get booked a lot earlier and the photographers I work with now are way more professional and easier to work with.

If they want no dedicated photog it means they are clients on a budget, nothing wrong with that as it's good for those who offer a joint video/photo package where photos are taken from a 4K film and you even could just take higher rez stills during keymoments like the photoshoot. I only think this will never be requested if your videopackage only is priced too high, clients that book you in such a case do have the budget for a dedicated, expensive, photograper. It are mainly couples on a budget that go for video/photo combo with one videographer only.

That's interesting about not having a photographer as I have had a couple of those recently. We do offer a joint photography and stills package which saves a lot of money over booking either as separate packages and accounts for most of our weddings now.

Also since starting filming the weddings in 4K, we have had a number of clients asking if we can take stills from the video to save them booking a photographer. We are currently putting together a photobook of 4K video stills to show potential clients what they could get, with a view to offering it as a full package.

Roger

The idea of providing a stills package could very well be a tipping point to being the one that records the event. With the video technology being as good as it is now, doing stills has viability.

Going the “do it all” route and to up the ante, a portable two or three-light kit for those few but important posed shots would be helpful. No fancy backdrop and just use a place in the existing facility to do do the posed photo album shots. A backlight, hair-and-shoulder light would really add, with the rest of the photos coming from pulling frames. This could be especially helpful to financially support two-person crew if it was marginal before.

As for the husband & wife or male/female teams, I can’t believe how much different my wife and I see things. Maybe I’m just keying on this more as time goes on but my significant other has a whole lot different way of seeing things than I do.

Steve - good thread, man. I like it. And Roger, the photo album idea was a good one. Keep the ideas rolling.

Dunno about other parts of the world but over here the pricey photogs have actually disappeared off the map and I assume have other jobs as brides decided that it was crazy to pay $3000 +++ for 6 odd hours of images on a USB ...We even had a $6000 guy here. When brides start to budget on photographers then the husband/wife team becomes very lucrative as a photo/video business. I think despite economic pressures, brides are also realising that they would rather put the $40K they were going to spend on their reception into their home mortgage instead.When this happens we have to adapt too to suit the market.

The 4K photo idea is great Roger as those produce an 8mp image which is more than enough for most brides. The only thing that concerns me is I find my composition /framing is different on stills rather than video so I always tend to leave the video camera on the tripod and use a 2nd cam to actually pop off a few stills during the ceremony. Believe it or not I have actually done a complete wedding on my own doing both photos and video. Not for the feint hearted but still doable !!

hi Chris,

I agree that you need a different head for photos and video and like you, I use the dslr for formal shots while I leave the video running.. I have found though, that very often, leaving the 4K running while taking the still shot with the dslr, means that I can pull virtually the same shot from the video. That often means I am doubling up on the shot unnecessarily, and the fun bits of people laughing and joking during the still shoot are already there on the video as well.

Both Claire and I frequently shoot joint photo and video packages solo, and we have found over the last few years of doing both, that you establish a very effective way of working. I wouldn't recommend doing both solo if you are not experienced at both separately. You need to have an eye for photographic composition aswell as the requirements for visual flow with video. The most intensive time for both, is the Brides arrival at the ceremony, the walk down the aisle after, and the formal photos. The rest of the day including the ceremony is quite straight forward to switch from one to the other. There are also plenty of times where the emphasis is much more on one than the other, such as speeches, first dance etc, where video is more to the fore. I'm sure we have all experienced photographers dashing about taking endless shots during the speeches and dance which are mostly irrelevant. It's easy to take a number of dslr shots during both those times if you feel they want them, while you are doing the video and you can also use video stills.

I also find with the FZ1000, that I can instantly swap from still to video if I don't want to keep using the dslr for casual shots.

Doing both solo is about having the technical competence in both, but is also about having the confidence in your work flow to be able to do both quickly and efficiently.

Roger

100% Roger

Actually I had two photographers at speeches who stood either side of me and must have exposed 200 shots between them on every speech ..I guess they were working on the assumption that a busy photographer must be a good photographer ...I always wondered whether they actually edited each and every speech shot.

It's really only the ceremony where you have to have 3 hands as the formals are stills only ...however it's a bit tricky to follow the bridal party entry on handheld video and try and pop off some stills as well so that's when the 4K stills would come into their own. Also with 25 fps the chances missing the kiss is zero but it's quite easy to miss it with a DSLR!! you only have to push the shutter a second late and you have a dud!

Nice to know both of you can play dual roles ..I would do it again myself too especially when you have the 4K backup for stills. When we live broadcast I also record in 4K to card so wow...I can claim a 3 person job nowdays ... live stream, recorded video and stills (if I really have to!!)

so wow...I can claim a 3 person job nowdays

That reminds me of below image :) Doing several things simultaneously solo is possible but it will never be a replacement for a dedicated photographer or videographer, there always will be budget conscious clients who are trying to find ways to save money and who understand that you have to make some compromises doing 2 things at the same time. It's a great way to make some extra money but you often will see that you have to work twice as hard as a dedicated photographer who shoots for clients that have the budget and they most likely are getting twice as much as what you are asking for a combo package.

http://superdupermusicschool.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/onemanband1.png

The only difference really is that he has to play everything at the same same while we can let the camera run on the tripod checking the framing and audio every now and then and in between take a few stills.

Oh and we don't have an umbrella but it might be a great idea for Winter weddings when it rains here!!

That reminds me of below image :) Doing several things simultaneously solo is possible but it will never be a replacement for a dedicated photographer or videographer, there always will be budget conscious clients who are trying to find ways to save money and who understand that you have to make some compromises doing 2 things at the same time. It's a great way to make some extra money but you often will see that you have to work twice as hard as a dedicated photographer who shoots for clients that have the budget and they most likely are getting twice as much as what you are asking for a combo package.

http://superdupermusicschool.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/onemanband1.png

There will certainly be instances at the top end of the video and photography range where that might be the case, but a for typical mid range wedding for ordinary people, that is not necessarily so. We always meet up with prospective clients to show them our work and always suggest that they check out the work of other companies before making any decision.

The thing is that for 90% of the day, you are not doing two things at the same time, you are either doing photography or video and can give maximum input to either as necessary. In two weeks time, I am doing a photography only wedding, based on my work they have previously seen. All of the photography of mine that they looked at was taken on solo combined photography and video packages, and they chose after looking at other photographers aswell.

Roger

I would offer it if a couple really wanted it, but honestly, I'd advise them against using video stills to replace photography unless they really needed to save money.

Even with 4K, the stills are the equivalent of highly compressed jpgs at best. Raw stills from a good photo camera look much, much better. Especially in harsh or mixed lighting conditions.

Not to mention the motion blur. We like a bit of blur, so our shutter speeds are slower. Looks good with motion, but not so much for stills if there's too much movement.

You also can't do nearly as much with lighting on video, as we just don't have the lighting power to compare to a few decent off camera flash units. Even if we did, it'd be horribly distracting and annoying for the guests. The look of many of the reception shots would be way different.

Lots of cool framing options in photography don't work with video.

So much you'd be missing out on, in my view. I'd do it, but I'd be very up front about the compromises.

I would offer it if a couple really wanted it, but honestly, I'd advise them against using video stills to replace photography unless they really needed to save money.

Even with 4K, the stills are the equivalent of highly compressed jpgs at best. Raw stills from a good photo camera look much, much better. Especially in harsh or mixed lighting conditions.

Not to mention the motion blur. We like a bit of blur, so our shutter speeds are slower. Looks good with motion, but not so much for stills if there's too much movement.

You also can't do nearly as much with lighting on video, as we just don't have the lighting power to compare to a few decent off camera flash units. Even if we did, it'd be horribly distracting and annoying for the guests. The look of many of the reception shots would be way different.

Lots of cool framing options in photography don't work with video.

So much you'd be missing out on, in my view. I'd do it, but I'd be very up front about the compromises.

I would agree with much of what you are saying, which is why I do the vast majority of our combined package photography using a DSLR and flash where appropriate. However perceptions are changing and many couples choose not to go down the traditional photography route.

Most couples that we work with want their photos digital so that they can make their own prints and photobooks rather than paying the costs of a traditional photographer and album. Ultimate quality is not always the requirement either as I have often been asked if I can take stills from the video as they weren't happy with the photographer's pics. That has invariably resulted in them making prints or a photobook from our video stills. Because of the massive amount of pictures shared from phone cameras I think that couples want convenience and flexibility above all else and just don't seem to see things the way that the professionals do. That's not to say that we should downgrade our output, but just to be prepared to meet different requirements on occasions. I am also finding that setting up lighting and a backdrop in the evening at a wedding, gives a lot of flexibility to get group shots whatever the weather, on both 4K video and DSLR, without distracting from the main celebrations.

You also mentioned that lighting for a video camera to capture stills in adverse lighting conditions would be distracting. I have found more and more that using a DSLR And flash in a church ceremony and sometimes a civil ceremony, is frequently banned because of the distraction of both the shutter sound and the flash. In that instance, 4K video is a life saver.

There will always be space for the highest quality photography and video, but after 32 years in the industry I am finding that the average wedding is constantly evolving and changing to follow trends. Couples are also becoming much more budget conscious as they tend to be older than couples twenty years ago and frequently finance their own wedding rather than parents footing the bill.

Roger

Hi Steven

I will reinforce what Roger says as our main photography shoots are done with a stills camera and flash. I prefer using 24mp images than the 8mp ones you get from a 4K video. To the bride, yes, they will still look stunning so we tend to reserve the 4K video stills for shots we might have missed or when we are really busy with video. Sometimes I have no option but to use a 2nd handheld camera to film the bridal entrance so my hands are full with one cam on a tripod facing forward and one handheld so there is no way I would be able to shot stills of the bridal party as they walk down the aisle so unless my wife is doing the stills I have to hope that I get enough from the handheld camera. However 99% of the time I don't have to use 4K stills BUT it's nice to find some stills that you didn't or simply would never have captured with a stills camera!

I would offer it if a couple really wanted it, but honestly, I'd advise them against using video stills to replace photography unless they really needed to save money.



If couples approach me with this in mind, I do give the proper advice as I feel strongly video stills are no substitute for great Photography. In the 2 cases I quoted in my earlier post, my Video Stills option was booked without any explanation as to why and I simply assumed they wanted it as an add on to their Photographers work. Closer to the day I then learned they had chosen not to have a Photographer. I should also add that both of the couples concerned were in their 50's and 60's and this I think played more a part in their decision rather than say Budget. I find older couples tend to forego the formalities, which includes a Photographer. They also seem to more likely respect and value video more than many of the younger couples. Meaning that often they book my best package whereas some Weddings where a lot of money has been spent on it, I find myself booked for my lowest budget package. I think the older you get, the more you value hearing and seeing friends and family in video rather than having just a photo.

I can never see myself offering a full Photography service - I despise the formal photos too much to see it compromise my creative video work. Providing more candid shots though is an option and I would look to add a Photo Service where I provide photos from say the Speeches to the 1st Dance, with perhaps the Bridal Preps also as many Photographers are quite late turning up for that. This would allow couples to perhaps book an expensive Photographer for just the Ceremony and formal photos. After that, I would take over. I know some Photographers offer a Ceremony to Reception option in their service, so I am sure I would get some takers. I lost one Booking to a Photographer offering Video, so two can play at that game. :)

Now I am using cameras that I can operate easily handheld, combining video and stills becomes more practical.

I might be biting the hand that feeds me here, but I am in agreement with Steve about much of the formal photography side of weddings. That may be surprising as the photography side of our business has grown rapidly and I love working with photographs.

At the risk of being controversiall, I feel that photography at weddings is dated and to a large extent totally uneccessary. If I was to put together what I feel was the best balance, it would include romantic and stylised photos of the couple to hang on their wall and give them a romantic haze when they view them. I would also have a small number of close family member groups for the sideboard and for the family themselves. The rest of the day would be covered by video, moving images and sound being much more in tune with what most see every day.

The vast majority of the other photos on the day are just transient moments and casual shots of people talking and laughing and wearing their best outfits. They are most likely to be viewed once or twice then consigned to the back of a drawer for ever. Most of those transient photos could just as easily be video stills for quick fun viewing and really don't need the attention of a skilled photographer, as is witnessed by the numbers of instant phone photos shared on the day of the wedding or shortly after. Once the bridesmaids are captured in their outfits and beamed across social media, The official hi res carefully posed photos are largely irrelevant in my opinion. There will of course always be a market for them, just as there is a market for skilled portrait painters.

There are a few wedding trappings that have always been traditional but are now becoming less important such as, Church weddings, A wedding car (especially with many civil ceremonies), Top hat and tails and a few others I can't remember. In my opinion, most of the traditional photographs should join them. On the other hand, a video captures the fun of a modern wedding much better than a still photo and seems to be growing in popularity after a long time as an also ran. One of the biggest UK wedding surveys seems to show that video now accounts for in excess of 20% of weddings whereas it has been at around 10% for years.

Again purely from my own viewpoint, our combined video and photo package has seen us taking more weddings last year than any year previously, this year is up by a further 17% and next year is already showing more contracted weddings than the same time last year. I'm very happy taking photos that I think are somewhat pointless, because I enjoy it and it pays the bills along with the video, but I am also keen to keep up with the evolving wedding capture processes.

Roger

It might be insignificant but if we are doing both there is essentially no break from bridal prep right through to the reception so it's an exhausting day. However with video only, once the receiving line is done you have a nice gap until the bridal party comes into the reception (apart from a quick slomo shoot sometime between the two) The bottom line is that the video shoot is a lot more laid back and controlled and you can relax and put your feet up for a short time after the ceremony and recharge your own batteries ready for the reception!!

Like Roger however I don't want to bite the hand that feeds me so financially, combined packages are better for the bank balance so we still take them if brides want them but with two of us and not a solo effort and yes, we still use dedicted still cameras to do the job.

There are a few wedding trappings that have always been traditional but are now becoming less important such as, Church weddings, A wedding car (especially with many civil ceremonies), Top hat and tails and a few others I can't remember.When did you last see a chimney sweep at a wedding? Pete The Sweep | Lucky Chimney Sweep for Weddings - 01423 889 125 (http://www.petethesweep.com/lucky-chimney-sweep-weddings.html)

Again purely from my own viewpoint, our combined video and photo package has seen us taking more weddings last year than any year previously, this year is up by a further 17% and next year is already showing more contracted weddings than the same time last year.

I have looked at your website (not 100% sure it was yours so correct me if I"m wrong but since it was located in your hometown and 3D was an option, knowing you have been or are into that as well, I figured it's yours.) and I saw the prices you charge, don't you think the popularity of your combo package is mainly because it's so cheap instead of it becoming more of a trend? If I lower my price by 50% tomorrow the number of inquiries might quadruple but that doens't mean I must be doing something good but it mainly means the extra inquiries I get is because I"m cheap. It's clear you are targeting couples with a very strict budget and if the UK is anything like Belgium that market is massive.

Hi Noa

If you do video for $1000 and photos for $1000 and then offer a combined package for $2000 (just sample figures to illustrate a point of course) and brides take the combined option it's nothing to do with price (you could double or triple the figures and still have the same result) Brides simply like combined packages and we have them here too ...one guy does video, photos and he's the DJ/MC at the reception and not only is he booked out but he is also very pricey too so it's not just budget brides that book it the sheer convenience of being able to wrap up 3 or even sometimes 4 vendors into one easy package and one one person to deal with. Cost wise it actually can be more cost effective when it comes to travel costs (1 car instead of 4)

Yeah, but if I saw correct Roger is asking a 1000 pound for video and photo combined, ofcourse you will make budget couples happy with that and they don't have the same demands as couples who are willing to pay 4 times as much for a dedicated videographer and photographer, just because you have a lot of bookings doesn't mean it's something couples in general want. I"m pretty sure couples won't accept some framegrabs from a 4K camera from a videographer who is charging 3 to 4K for it, for that money you can have a dedicated photographer and videographer.

When did you last see a chimney sweep at a wedding? Pete The Sweep | Lucky Chimney Sweep for Weddings - 01423 889 125 (http://www.petethesweep.com/lucky-chimney-sweep-weddings.html)

Ha Ha! yes I remember chimney sweeps well from older weddings. The last one I saw was about 15 years ago, and the same guy also used to do a VHS wedding video during the day and run the disco in the evening.

Roger

Yeah, but if I saw correct Roger is asking a 1000 pound for video and photo combined, ofcourse you will make budget couples happy with that and they don't have the same demands as couples who are willing to pay 4 times as much for a dedicated videographer and photographer, just because you have a lot of bookings doesn't mean it's something couples in general want. I"m pretty sure couples won't accept some framegrabs from a 4K camera from a videographer who is charging 3 to 4K for it, for that money you can have a dedicated photographer and videographer.

Well let's get things into perspective here Noa. In my part of the world, typical photography only prices are £400-1000 for a competent photographer with the higher prices including a basic album. There are also 4 photographers in my local area who charge £250-500 although they are all part time.

We charge £795 for solo photography only and £795 for solo video only. As the combined package doesn't take us any extra time at all apart from the photo processing, we charge £995, that is with just digital copies on a USB and a guaranteed 250 photos. We also have a combined package that we added on at the end of last year that includes a short pre wedding shoot and some props for fun or formal shots later in the day. That package costs £1495 and is starting to match the take up of the basic combined package. Of course there are add ons that couples can choose if they want to discuss extras, such as prints, albums, photo books, personal interviews etc. etc. The fixed price packages attract clients in the first place, but they can add things later to match more expensive companies if they want to extend their budget. One thing also to remember is that companies charging many times more aren't neccesarily making more profit, if their work load, premises hire and manning levels give them much higher overheads.

I think we have struck a good balance of prices in what is a comparatively poor area of the UK (with the exception of Cambridge) and sticking to a way of working that is pretty quick and mobile, we can make a good profit on those prices, with an even better one if we are both covering a wedding on the same day.

As regards supplying frame grabs, I'll repeat what I said previously, that like Chris, our photography is done with Canon DSLR cameras but we also have the added luxury of being able to take 4K frame grabs when either photography is not allowed, or on the occasion when something happens quickly and there is no time with the stills camera. Of course your comments about £3-4K videographers and photographers are perfectly correct apart from the ones who occasionally get it wrong. I have seen that a number of times over the years, which was why we added our existing photography skills to weddings alongside our video.

Roger

Hi Noa

If you do video for $1000 and photos for $1000 and then offer a combined package for $2000 (just sample figures to illustrate a point of course) and brides take the combined option it's nothing to do with price (you could double or triple the figures and still have the same result) Brides simply like combined packages and we have them here too ...one guy does video, photos and he's the DJ/MC at the reception and not only is he booked out but he is also very pricey too so it's not just budget brides that book it the sheer convenience of being able to wrap up 3 or even sometimes 4 vendors into one easy package and one one person to deal with. Cost wise it actually can be more cost effective when it comes to travel costs (1 car instead of 4)

Quite right Chris. By doing a low priced photo add on to make a basic combined package, we are increasing the total income per wedding with no increase in time on the day, and only the processing time to add on which is not very long at all. That also makes things simpler for the couple as you pointed out.

Roger

Well let's get things into perspective here Noa. In my part of the world, typical photography only prices are £400-1000 for a competent photographer with the higher prices including a basic album. There are also 4 photographers in my local area who charge £250-500 although they are all part time.

If you are referring to the UK as your part of the world then it looks like photographers are a lot cheaper then videographers if I have to believe you, there are plenty of videographers in the UK that charge at least double your price and much more, is photography then so undervalued that a good photographer can only ask 1000 pound incl album?

If you are referring to the UK as your part of the world then it looks like photographers are a lot cheaper then videographers if I have to believe you, there are plenty of videographers in the UK that charge at least double your price and much more, is photography then so undervalued that a good photographer can only ask 1000 pound incl album?

There are high end photographers who allegedly charge thousands but many of them seem to deliver an awful lot of workshops & training so you have to wonder how many weddings they are actually doing. However there are also plenty of weekend warriors who will do wedding photography for £250 or even less. For somebody on minimum wage a couple of hundred pounds for a day's work is a very good rate of pay. Photography has been de-skilled to such an extent with modern cameras that anyone can take reasonable photos now. Shoot in auto everything with burst mode then after sorting through several thousand images there are bound to be enough decent ones to please the bride & groom. Not great photos but good enough especially considering the price. It's awfully difficult to make a living from wedding photography nowadays given the competition. Video at least still requires some skill in editing & a little more care in capturing the images & audio.

I"m actually surprised that photography in the UK is so undervalued, for videography though it's easy to find enough companies in the UK charging between 1700 and 2500 pound and there are several known videographers in the UK that have made a name for themselves worldwide. In Belgium it's just the other way round, good photographers easily can charge more then 2000 euro for a full day without album while video is generally regarded as less important.

Wow. There's been a photographer at every wedding I've done for over 20 years.
It seems the prices are falling apart on this since sooooo many people are trying to be photographers now.
I noticed there are lots of family taking photos now and sometimes the photog only does part of the event.

I see members above offering photos and video.
I've considered offering a photo/video combination package but haven't done it yet. I usually take some stills anyway and many times the photos I take are better than the photographers.
But I don't want to get into offering physical prints, albums etc...
Plus those formal photos with all the different people aren't too fun.
Thoughts?

Hey Chris Harding..How are you? You still using Panasonic FZ1000s?
I'm looking at FZ2500 to stick high on a stand for a wide 4K shot during ceremonies.

Hi David

I have two FZ1000's and I use one for stills and one as my B-Cam ..Then I'm using the FZ2500 as my main camera ...the slow zoom is awesome!! Bear in mind all our weddings now are live streamed so we have ditched the traditional shoot and edit (but we also still record to card too)..I got tired of spending 3 days of editing for every wedding! The only thing I don't use in combination with the FZ1000's is the full 4K cinema (I use UHD only) cos the aspect is different in cinema 4K but a stunning image. The 4K on the FZ2500 will impress you!!

I"m actually surprised that photography in the UK is so undervalued, for videography though it's easy to find enough companies in the UK charging between 1700 and 2500 pound and there are several known videographers in the UK that have made a name for themselves worldwide. In Belgium it's just the other way round, good photographers easily can charge more then 2000 euro for a full day without album while video is generally regarded as less important.

What I am surprised about is that as someone who I have had a great deal of respect for, you have decided to track down my pricing, decide off your own back that I am charging too little without knowing the facts, then using that information without any discussion with me, as an illustration to other members that it is easy to get work by not charging as much as yourself, and suggesting that what I offer is therefore probably inferior to what others charging more are offering.

I am completely up front with my pricing with prospective clients, but don't expect and haven't previously seen other member's pricing discussed and criticised on this forum in such a way. Perhaps to balance the point Noa you are now going to be equally open about your own pricing and service. WHAT DO YOU CHARGE?

Roger

It was my impression that the popularity of video/photo packages when you do them solo by utilizing 4K framegrabs are for a major part because they are much cheaper then to have a dedicated photographer and videographer. I already knew your website from much longer ago and it's not like I"m breaking into your house, your pricing is freely available for everyone to see so what's the big deal? I didn't place a link to your website nor mentioned your prices initially until Chris responded where I indeed mentioned one price to make my point, so what? I charge 1850 euro for video only, that's also for every one to see and I"m still cheaper then most good photographers I work with who charge between 2000 and 2500 without album for a full day coverage.

So again, the point I was trying to make is that if a photo/video combo package is so popular when you do this solo is mainly because it's cheap, or much cheaper then having a dedicated videographer and photographer, to me this means you specifically cater to budget brides, there is nothing wrong with that but I find it worth mentioning that this is not necessarily a general trend but more linked to budget. Couples don't pick this option out of convenience like Chris said, they know very well that having only one person doing two things simultaneously means that you have to compromise somewhere but they are ok with that, they save some money, you gain some money so it's a win-win situation but it's only a trend with couples that have small budgets, ones who have the cash would never opt for something like this if they feel compromises have to be made.

I also was responding to something you said so it was not like I picked you out randomly to prove my point, I didn't but could have checked others who apply the same strategy and I"m pretty sure I will come to the same conclusion.

Oddly enough, the first couple that settled for my stills add on instead of having a Photographer, actually booked my top package plus extras, paying a final price of £1225. For that money, they could have found a cheap Photographer and a cheap Videographer (the Photographer I worked with on the 11th charged £550 and was a last minute replacement for one who charged £350, so quite possible to source). So whilst budget is a factor in the couple's choice in these matters, I don't think it's quite as simplistic as that.

There are also companies that handle both Photos and Video and whilst not solo operators, are still thriving and charging higher prices too as they typically send out 2-4 people per Wedding. Whilst I don't think there's a new trend for combined Photography/Videography services, there is certainly a clear demand for it and one that caters for all budgets, just as there are for companies dedicated to a single service.

Couples choosing a combined service will just as likely choose out of convenience with dealing with 1 company than out of budget. Or because they like the work they do. The fact that Roger offers a Full Length video would carry more favour than how much he charges, simply because so many companies forego this video in favour of the shorter videos.

Another factor is that some couples may not highly value Video or even Photos enough to pay a small fortune for it. I have been on many high budget Weddings where there has been plenty of money, just not for my video service and my cheap package has been booked. On the other hand I have been booked for some very low budget Weddings, where my top package has been booked and the Photographer has been sidelined. How does this factor into things?

It was my impression that the popularity of video/photo packages when you do them solo by utilizing 4K framegrabs are for a major part because they are much cheaper then to have a dedicated photographer and videographed
.

The thing is I am not doing a solo video and photo package by utilising 4K frame grabs. As I have been to great pains to point out, I am doing photographs with a DSLR and various lenses.

Some people will book us because we are cheaper than some other companies, but there are plenty of companies that are a lot cheaper than us. It is also a complete falacy and slightly insulting to say that those with larger budgets would never choose us because they would be compromising on quality. What do you base that assumption on? You have never seen our work or have any idea why our clients book us. Maybe you base that judgement on what you would be able to achieve yourself, rather than having any particular criticism of anything we do, making judgement on what you perceive as cheapness.

The last wedding we filmed in Cheshire last week was for the daughter of a well known personality. The venue was a very expensive and prestigious stately home, there were 200 guests and the budget was big. The bride had seen us at a wedding fair where there were a number of photography and video suppliers, and loved our video and photography work. The cost was no consideration at all so she booked us after comparing our work with many others and liked both our work and us. She did remark that she would have been prepared to pay more for our services and felt that we offered a lot more quality than a number of companies charging many times more.

The wedding the week before that was in Coventry Guildhall and a prestigious hotel for the reception. They had a huge budget for the wedding including outfits for 12 bridesmaids but had already booked a photographer who charged half our photography only package. They felt that video was more important and had chosen us because we were the only ones offering exactly what they wanted, with price being secondary.

We also had a wedding 3 days ago where Claire filmed the video only, and the photographer that had been booked charged £250 for all day including 2 assistants. The wedding was on a low budget, but they had turned down a £300 videographer because they said "Our video was in a different league and totally professional".

You can draw whatever conclusions you like, but please stop dismissing our work as inferior or compramised because of your opinion on our pricing.

Roger

Oddly enough, the first couple that settled for my stills add on instead of having a Photographer, actually booked my top package plus extras, paying a final price of £1225. For that money, they could have found a cheap Photographer and a cheap Videographer (the Photographer I worked with on the 11th charged £550 and was a last minute replacement for one who charged £350, so quite possible to source). So whilst budget is a factor in the couple's choice in these matters, I don't think it's quite as simplistic as that.

There are also companies that handle both Photos and Video and whilst not solo operators, are still thriving and charging higher prices too as they typically send out 2-4 people per Wedding. Whilst I don't think there's a new trend for combined Photography/Videography services, there is certainly a clear demand for it and one that caters for all budgets, just as there are for companies dedicated to a single service.

Couples choosing a combined service will just as likely choose out of convenience with dealing with 1 company than out of budget. Or because they like the work they do. The fact that Roger offers a Full Length video would carry more favour than how much he charges, simply because so many companies forego this video in favour of the shorter videos.

Another factor is that some couples may not highly value Video or even Photos enough to pay a small fortune for it. I have been on many high budget Weddings where there has been plenty of money, just not for my video service and my cheap package has been booked. On the other hand I have been booked for some very low budget Weddings, where my top package has been booked and the Photographer has been sidelined. How does this factor into things?

A good post Steve and one that I completely agree with. Most of the combined package weddings that we do, have liess to do with budget and everything to do with convenience, getting on with the people and a documentary length video. Certainly budget does sometimes come into it with some couples, particularly for weddings local to us, as South Lincolnshire is one of the poorer regions of the U.K.

Roger

Thank you Chris! :)

It seems that for convenience some couples would go for a combo package so they could deal with one company if they wanted both services and possible idea of saving money.

I think photography is usually higher on the list of priorities than video so offering it would increase the number of potential brides. But then some brides will just want to hire you for photos.

What I've seen where I live regarding combo packages is usually photographers trying to add video and while they may do great photos, the video is usually quite lacking.

What has kept me from adding photography to my wedding services is the lack of help. My people are good enough for B or C cam (video) under my supervision, but I don't have a person good enough to be a main photog or main video person. I do not consider myself a good photog by my standards, but neither are many of the photogs I have worked with through the years.
So I could do as good as many of them but then I need a video person to take my place, which I don't have.

Hi David

Totally agree! In fact our wedding next Saturday is two photographers and stills from bridal prep to end of first dance. The only video they want is the ceremony which we are doing too but the bulk is stills. The bride wanted video for the ceremony only but also wanted photos so hiring two vendors would have cost her a lot more because ceremony only packages still require the same travel/set up even though it's a 30 minute shoot. She booked us not on price at all but purely on convenience as we could easily do both services.

I do the main photography with my wife as the second shooter except for the actual ceremony where she becomes the first shooter, I do the video and if I can I will zap a few extra stills

Works very well and you can offer either video, stills or both

You can draw whatever conclusions you like, but please stop dismissing our work as inferior or compramised because of your opinion on our pricing.

Never said your work is inferior but a compromise it is when you do 2 different jobs by yourself at the same time.

Chris, sounds like you have a good system figured out.
Thanks again for the help!

Can the Panasonic FZ2500 take stills while it is recording video at the same time?

How long does the battery last if I just mounted it and let it continuously record 4K video for the entire ceremony?

One thing I like about doing photos and video is it's all your team, so you aren't having to dance around the other photogs. You can work together to tag team stuff like a system. Plus as mentioned above it is nice to have both photos and video for case artwork, missed shots, marketing stills and other benefits where having shot both stills and video comes in handy for your company.

I've had brides call me later to provide stills that their photog missed.
And one time I traded a couple stills for a photo that I missed when I was tearing down, because the couple did something I didn't know would happen even though I had specifically asked them ahead of time and they said No :-/

One thing I like about doing photos and video is it's all your team, so you aren't having to dance around the other photogs. You can work together to tag team stuff like a system. Plus as mentioned above it is nice to have both photos and video for case artwork, missed shots, marketing stills and other benefits where having shot both stills and video comes in handy for your company.

I've had brides call me later to provide stills that their photog missed.
And one time I traded a couple stills for a photo that I missed when I was tearing down, because the couple did something I didn't know would happen even though I had specifically asked them ahead of time and they said No :-/

Hi David,

Not having to work around a photographer makes like so much easier. If we only have one wedding on, I work with my wife and we can both take video and photographs. So brides preps can be covered by my wife while I am setting up cameras for the ceremony or taking shots of the guys if they want it. She will also shoot the video during the group photos and arrange the dress, bouquets etc.

We are also both capable of working on the combined package solo, but not to be recommended unless you are very experienced at both and have a fast setup and breakdown system. Solo is a lot of pressure so we enjoy working together as it lightens the load. We also have total confidence in each other's video and photo work.

I had a conversation with a vicar today regarding a wedding in his church this coming Saturday. He is quite happy to have it videoed but is adamant that there will only be stills from the back and no flash. I will be at the front filming in 4K, so it will be another instance of stills from the video rather than none at all from the front and just Claire taking stills from the back.

Roger

I'm a little surprised with the animosity against photographers, but then I'm sure there are plenty of them who wouldn't want to see a videographer either. The bottom line is, we're there to work for the client and that involves coexisting with the other vendors who are also working for the same client. It doesn't have to be some silly battle where you get your panties in a bunch.

I'm a little surprised with the animosity against photographers, but then I'm sure there are plenty of them who wouldn't want to see a videographer either. The bottom line is, we're there to work for the client and that involves coexisting with the other vendors who are also working for the same client. It doesn't have to be some silly battle where you get your panties in a bunch.

I don't have a problem working with other photographers with the odd exception. Most are professional and are aware that we need to be there aswell, but they need to set up poses and arrange things their own way, so we work around them. When we are doing the combined package either dual or solo, we are controlling the whole thing and find it so much more straight forward as we can work in the most convenient way to us.

Roger

A basic problem with photographers is that most (all?) like to get in close while taking their photos. They also keep moving about looking for different angles & shots. This means that they are in the videographer's field of view far to often messing up the images. In general videographers are standing back & often static.

During the ceremony or speeches for example even though the participants are staying in one place the photographer(s) will be bobbing about all over the place looking for variety in their shots. It's very distracting & is one reason why celebrants get hacked off with photographers.

It will be rare that the videographer with their equipment appearing in shot is an issue for a photographer whereas the opposite is often true.

A basic problem with photographers is that most (all?) like to get in close while taking their photos. They also keep moving about looking for different angles & shots. This means that they are in the videographer's field of view far to often messing up the images. In general videographers are standing back & often static.

During the ceremony or speeches for example even though the participants are staying in one place the photographer(s) will be bobbing about all over the place looking for variety in their shots. It's very distracting & is one reason why celebrants get hacked off with photographers.

It will be rare that the videographer with their equipment appearing in shot is an issue for a photographer whereas the opposite is often true.

Too true Nigel! We always give priority to photographers due to the way photography needs to be done, but it is so much easier when we are doing both ourselves. My wife did video only and worked with a photographer and two assistants at her last wedding. Being a photographer herself, she was amazed that at all times, both assistants were taking the same shots as the main photographer, even during the preps, groups and romantics. What was the point of that unless it was a lack of confidence, it certainly made it challenging for her getting the video.

Roger

I had two today that were a bit of a pain! We were just live streaming a ceremony and they were ducking and diving around the couple. Really, do you have to rush in front of the bridal party walking in and drop to your knees and take a low angle shot so the bride nearly trips over you. I don't mind them in the shot now and again but seriously when you leave plenty of space for them to walk behind your camera why do they purposely walk right in front and across it? Then again on yesterday's wedding the photographer was a real gem ... he worked with me not against me and I would gladly work with him any time.

To get to Roger's answer it's all to do with co-operation so at least if you supply the photographer you know you won't have any hassles. We don't have any photographer animosity we simple have animosity against arrogant "so called professionals" who treat the wedding as their own and not the brides. What they never realise is when they get into situations where it's all about their shot they not only spoil the video but also the view of all the guests too!

I didn't mean to sound like I had animosity towards photographers. I haven't had a conflict with any in over 20 years but...I always give them priority and work around them so I make it easy on them.
And I work around them sometimes blatantly getting in front of shots and going in close and all the rest.
I just deal with it and work around it.
I'm taller than they are so often I can shoot over them.

But if your company is doing both photos and videos then you can work better as a team, having a system to get it done smoothly. :)

Hi David,

Not having to work around a photographer makes like so much easier. If we only have one wedding on, I work with my wife and we can both take video and photographs. So brides preps can be covered by my wife while I am setting up cameras for the ceremony or taking shots of the guys if they want it. She will also shoot the video during the group photos and arrange the dress, bouquets etc.

We are also both capable of working on the combined package solo, but not to be recommended unless you are very experienced at both and have a fast setup and breakdown system. Solo is a lot of pressure so we enjoy working together as it lightens the load. We also have total confidence in each other's video and photo work.

I had a conversation with a vicar today regarding a wedding in his church this coming Saturday. He is quite happy to have it videoed but is adamant that there will only be stills from the back and no flash. I will be at the front filming in 4K, so it will be another instance of stills from the video rather than none at all from the front and just Claire taking stills from the back.

Roger

Hi Roger. That sounds like a good team plan :) Thank you

Yesterday was my first time filming a wedding and I must say that the photographers there were very aggressive and obnoxious. It seemed like they were trying to control everything. I had to be a bit stern just to get some decent footage. I wouldn't mind not dealing with a photographer at a wedding. This experience left a bad taste in my mouth.

Yesterday was my first time filming a wedding and I must say that the photographers there were very aggressive and obnoxious. It seemed like they were trying to control everything. I had to be a bit stern just to get some decent footage. I wouldn't mind not dealing with a photographer at a wedding. This experience left a bad taste in my mouth.

That's a drag. I can assure you there are plenty of pleasant ones out there though!

Sadly we get those now and again at weddings. Yesterday I did a live ceremony broadcast ceremony and they had their own photographer ... he never showed for the rehearsal and on the day I never saw him smile, talk to anyone or even greet anyone ...however he wasn't arrogant but did walk in front of my camera once (this was a mobile streaming setup so it's a dolly, tripod, audio and network stuff and hardly classed as "I didn't see your camera there" )

I find the guys that take the effort to greet you with a smile and are prepared to chat are usually the good ones. The arrogant ones are the ones that totally ignore the fact that it's a wedding and walk around with a honking great telephoto lens that's about 18" long then proceed to shoot a few feet away from the couple ..I never understood that but I'm sure it's all for show!!

Take the good with the bad but usually there are more good ones than bad ones!!