Good Sauce with Strong spices
 

I have noticed that when something new comes out, there is a temptation to overuse it. As a result, the "magic" of the new tool is lost and the end result is a distraction and an aggravation. One of the most recent toys is the Canon 5D MkII. It's a great camera but when it's shallow depth of field capability is overused, it becomes aggravating.

Another "strong spice" is the stabilizer. If every shot is a circling, zooming, flying shot, it's more a "recipe" for motion sickness than entertainment.

For those who really like the cheesy stuff, why don't you drop in a wolf whistle on your audio track and do a couple of all the way in and out zoom shots of the bride and see how far it gets you.

When you go to the "kitchen" to "cook" up your video, go easy on the strong spices - - and the new camera toys.

Most folks know that I don't like rants, because they tend to go overboard (too ranty).

Jim has just demonstrated the proper way to express an opinion on DV Info Net. Well done, sir!

I mostly agree with you, Jim. I too believe that every tool/effect has it's place and should be used to enhance your production and not just be there for the sake of being there.

On the other hand, when you do get a new tool like a 5D or a Steadicam .. you almost HAVE to use it too much in order to figure out the best ways to incorporate it. What I'm saying is that I think many of us overuse a tool when we first get because we are experimenting with it .. not because we JUST want to use that tool.

It IS possible to break yourself from this. When I got my Glidetrack, I was really tempted to use it a bunch .. but before the first shoot I prepped myself on where I wanted to use it .. and I mostly stuck with just those shots. In the edit, I also stuck with those shots.

It's not easy, but it CAN be done. Good post, Jim.

Videography is just like cooking. You can have a shelf full of the best spices and ingredients in the world, but you don't need to use all of them to create a delicious meal. Most times, less is more with wedding videography!

I agree with Jim's general point, but it's a trend I notice in broadcast also. For example here in the UK we have a top-rated, serious political/topical interview programme (Question Time) done in front of 200 audience in a different city each week. Practically every interviewee appears to be shot on a track mounted camera which moves slightly round the subject. Why? It adds nothing except distraction to the purpose of the programme.

In contrast I was staggered to be asked at our last wedding showing by the client how we'd done the Glidetrack sequences.

I'd like to think it was because we were sparing and effective with the GT shots we used. In truth it was more to do with the time available to set up those shots that benefit from GT.

Having said that I can foresee the day not too soon when there'll be a raft-full of once used Glidetracks on eBay - like everything those gizmos need practice to get right.

Hehehe I hope so! I'm one of the vultures looking for the second hand market price dip on gear. :-)

Jims post makes me even more aware of how widely varied the perception of what a standard wedding shoot is comprised of. Their is a huge range of stuff going on out there.

The current 5D thing going on is a good example. Just how high res does video of a wedding have to be? Dosent good form and content trump resolution? The DOF thing I understand for a few glamor shots.

What I really don't understand is how people are doing these high tech weddings and making any money when I shoot a basic documentary style wedding for the same cost.

The thing is the really useful unusual stuff doesn't often come up, and when it does, too many vultures <wink>! The good toys never really get "cheap"...

Personally I think it's the driver and not the car, although in some ways we are forced to have a certain class of car just to race. It's obvious that the 5D has become extremely popular. In the right hands, it produces stunningly beautiful video. In the wrong hands, it looks gimmicky and aggravating. Again, it's all about the driver.

Steadicam and 5D and Glidetrack (and before that DOF adapters, "new" transitions and titles, etc.) can all be used for good or ill. The question to be asked is whether it enhances (or distracts from) the story being told. George Lucas talked about this in the making of Star Wars. Regarding the detail in his set designs, he said that the incredible detail might be a detriment to a film if the director were to "showcase" or over-emphasise how great they are. Instead, the sets are incredible but serve to enhance the overall story and not get in it's way. That's how I feel about all the great new incredible tools we have - I think it's all in how we use them (or not).

:)