Wedding Packages

[Billy Mallari]

I agree...somepeople would like to edit their videos as well..I guess I am one of them as I will be purchasing the raw footages from my own wedding videographer.

But some brides just do not understand the whole concept of capturing videos. For instance, I keep the camcorder on in the ceremony at most times. From time to time I will be moving the camera but still capturing the audio although the camera will not be focused on the subject. The innocent brides will think that it is a waste of footage. And if they see some scenes from the raw footage that was not included in the final edited video, I don't want them to start coming back to me and have me explain that.

I know when I eat my burgers, I dont want to see how the cow is killed. And yes I do make mistakes in capturing videos that is why I dont want couples to see it.

I guess each of us have their own opinion about raw footages. I respect that

[Roger Rosales]

Woa, I have a lot to reply to! I've been so busy fixing my car, working and spending time with my wife that it was hard for me to get around to the interenet.

I'll start with the common question, "What is the wedding day montage"?

It wasn't meant as a montage that will be done on the same day of the wedding. Basicly, it means that it will consist of solely of the wedding day and not have any pictures of the B&G growing up and such. That's what that means.

I do not have a photographer, as some of you were asking.

As for the second most asked question, why would I offer raw footage? For the same reasons some have already posted. It's easier and less time consuming. If the couple wishes to have raw footage of their event and save themselves the cost of editing and packaging, that is their choice. It's their choice of how they want their wedding day video delivered.

Originally Posted by Michael Liebergot

Honestly, I would drop the Basic package. I mean, what are you really going to capture in just 3 hours of filming?
Does this mean, you will only be present to record 3 hours of video, or will be there the entire time, but only film 3 hours of video. If it's the later, then you are not getting paid for your time accoridngly.
Either way, you are not going to be paid for your time, shooting, and or editing (no matter how basic it is).
Also this kind of package, you will probably not use as a good demonstration of your work.

3 hours of filming is simply the ceremony and whatever else follows afterwards consisting of 3 hours. Most often, right after the ceremony, couples go to parks with the photographer and have pictures taken. That's basicly the 3 hours I'm talking about.

It will NOT be 3 hours of video, it will be three hours of my time.

Rick, I think I will change the title to "Coverage". Takes the confusion out.

Originally Posted by Steven Davis

I have recent experience of starting out. We quickly learned that if you get X amount of wedding gigs, and X is what is expected of you, then you'll have to invest X amount of what you earn to stay at least on par with your competition. Many people who want cheap, are willing to pay cheap, but then they want a higher quality of product.

This is something I have thought about thoroughly. What I'm hoping to accomplish with the beginning gigs is to save enough money for more gear along with backup gear as well as the cost of maintence.

[qoute=Steven Davis]I believe that once you've done a few gigs, you'll quickly learn how much work it takes to film a wedding, the cost that you have to invest, and you will quickly have to raise your prices to meet the equasion that I listed in paragraph #1.
[/quote]

These prices aren't permanent and aren't set in stone. I realise this and I don't like these prices, but for starters, it's what I'm contemplating.

Originally Posted by Christopher Thomas

I recently got started in this business, and based on advice I read on this board, I began with a higher price point (my lowest priced package was/is $995). When I started getting calls, I just explained that I was new to the business and offered significant discounts on my packages. This works.

This is indeed a good idea. As Kevin pointed out, it'll be tough to up my prices when I get referrals as being a "dirt cheap" videographer. This is something I definately don't want and then have a hard time getting customers.

Kevin, doing a couple of freebies is ideal and showcase those as my demo, but how do I find these couples? Family isn't an option anymore and friends aren't ready to be wed just yet! I'd rather do this than start dirt cheap and get customers based on that rep.

Originally Posted by Tom Tomkowiak

Will your second camera be unmanned? If you're doing this solo, it's a good idea to ask a friend or spend a few bucks to hire a responsible kid to watch your equipment when it's out of your sight, like when you're outside taping the B&G after the ceremony, and the rest of your equipment is inside growing legs. Receptions are even more hazardous for leaving equipment unattended.

Yes, it will be unmaned. Though, I might ask my brother in law to help out if need be. We've talked about this before, but never got into the details.

As for my equipment, I have an XL2 camcorder with cheap tripod that I will replace as soon as this line of business gives me the cash to do so.

I'm still looking around for audio options for recording the vows, trying to find something good, but not so expensive. I can do without a good tripod for now, but I NEED good audio before I start.

Thank you guys for all the responses and help! I don't think I'll be advertising these prices, rather try and find weddings to do for free, at least 2, make my demo and start above 700 for my basic package.

[Anthony Mooney]

The prices are good as long as you don't pay more than $800.00 for a two bedroom.

Anthony

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Rick Steele

I really don't understand this fear of showing your raw footage to folks. If it's that bad then you *do* need to work on shooting skills and if anyone is that embarrased by it just clean it up a bit.

You wouldn't ask a photographer to show you those shots he thought were of poor quality, so why would anyone think a videographer should do otherwise? As far as I can tell, what many customers want when they ask for 'raw footage' is a documentary-style presentation of events as they happened, and just doing that well can be a tremendous amount of work. And no, I'm not interested in trying to shoot perfect footage on the run during a live event; that's what editing is for. Knowing I can clean things up in editing allows me to be more flexible about my shooting and hence get things I wouldn't get otherwise, especially if I was trying to second-guess when to push the Record button. Part of videography is editing; if people don't want that they should have their friends bring a camcorder and skip hiring a professional videographer.

[Rick Steele]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Part of videography is editing; if people don't want that they should have their friends bring a camcorder and skip hiring a professional videographer.

"Editing" is the only thing that distiguishes you from family and friends?

And what's this friend supposed to do... pull an FX1 out of his hat? And a $600 wireless lav system?

I would like to think "our" raw footage is better than that.

[Patrick Moreau]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

You wouldn't ask a photographer to show you those shots he thought were of poor quality, so why would anyone think a videographer should do otherwise?

Sounds like your not a photographer. Couples ask to see the poor quality images ALL the time and we spend a lot more time than most in post editing images.

Not only that, why would the norma and rules for photography necessarily apply to videography- they are two art forms associated with capturing a wedding day but there is a large difference between them and what aplies two one does not apply to the other in many cases.

[Kevin Shaw]

Okay then, whatever floats your boat. Some of us don't want to show raw footage to clients for a variety of reasons, but I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with doing so if that works okay for you.

And yes, I have heard that many photography clients want to see the bad shots, but surely there are some you wouldn't show them unless they insisted?

No, I don't think editing is the only thing which distinguishes us from amateurs, but I do think good editing is part of a professional video production. I'd be reluctant to give any customer footage I hadn't cleaned up at least a little bit, but then that's me.

[Dan Shallenberger]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but I would be aprehensive about the client editing my raw footage in case his edit looks like crap, and then tells everyone that ABC Video Company shot the video. Maybe he'll also admit (proudly) he edited himself, but I still think it might make a bad first impression of your company.

Also, there was a time about 8 weeks ago when I made one of the most common mistakes... leaving the camera in record when done filming something. It so happened that I had the camera sitting on my lap while fiddling with my light at a reception, and in post I had about 60 seconds of under-exposed up-shirt shots from a lady across the table. Couldn't see anything really, but it would have been very embarrasing to share that with the client :-) So, I guess if I shared the raw footage with a client, it would ONLY be after reviewing the entire thing and do some 'clean-up' edits, which I suppose makes them not "raw" anymore.

Just my 2 cents!

Dan