What no Photographer!

[Steve Burkett]

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.

[Chris Harding]

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!

[Noa Put]

"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.

[Roger Gunkel]

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

[John Nantz]

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.

[Chris Harding]

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 !!

[Roger Gunkel]

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

[Chris Harding]

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!!)

[Noa Put]

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/...nemanband1.png

[Chris Harding]

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!!

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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/...nemanband1.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

[Steven Shea]

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.

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Steven Shea

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

[Chris Harding]

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!

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Steven Shea

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.