Mark,

When showing a WDE during the reception, have you also taped those watching to get their reaction to the WDE, then use that footage in a marketing/demo reel?

Or, have you taped the b&g's reaction/response in a post-ceremony interview? The parents? Some sound-byte clips of people's reactions, interspersed with some of the WDE content itself, might be enough of a commercial for upselling, maybe from your web site.

Seems either would helpful there.

Hi Dennis,

I'm sorry for the delay in responding to you. We were in Orlando for 10 days and I am now getting caught up with everything from being gone.

Yes, we have shot the couples reactions as well as their comments after seeing the presentation. On our 2007 demo we showed a B&G watching their WDE as well as their comments about the WDE.

The best reactions we have ever had was from a couple of years ago. I wanted to put it on our 2008 demo, but ran out of time. Your post reminded me that I need to use it on our website. Thanks.

Couple of general assumptions of our customer base:

1. Customers compare a photographer's work to what they see in popular print media to subconsciously judge the skill of the photographer.

2. Customers compare a videographer's work to what they see in movies + television to subconsciously judge the skill of the videographer.

When it comes to photography, a single person can potentially spend a few thousand dollars, pack all of his gear into a backpack and capture images that are on par with stuff in print media. The artist is the bottleneck here, not the equipment.

The problem with Video is that it takes a ton of equipment, money, and man power to produce a video with a look that comes even remotely close to what we see in movies and television. After all, the negatively connotated term "video-look" was derived from this comparison. The equipment and budget, to a large extend is the bottleneck to full artistic potential.

So from our perspective, we should be charging more for our work accordingly, but that won't work and it will not change until there is industry wide bump in prices and acceptance from the customer base, which will take a long time. If not that, the customers will simply settle for the "sub par video-look" products and the artists behind the camera will forever be locked into this perpetual cycle of producing work that we know can be much better but is prohibited by the laws of economy.

ok i just read some posts ONLY at the start and here's my thought.

What if a Sony Z8 or Z9 (future camera) with a built in Nikon D3?
I hope that sort of camera would come out. haha


Would photographers fights with videographers for market shares?
what's the new job title? videophotographers or photovideographers . which one sound better?

Sony already makes something that's getting pretty close... the little SR11/12 and the new CX12... both are designed to shoot dual mode, meaning you can shoot "7.2 Mpixel" still simultaneously with shooting HD video.

Although the stills aren't on par with a good dedicated still cam (I suspect the compression algorithm is optimised for display on a large 1080i TV), they aren't bad with some post sweetening. As always, it's the composition of the shot... and that depends on the skill of the operator, but it's probably a sign of things to come.

For the "tight budget" client, hiring an experienced shooter with a dual mode cam might well be a practical solution. I'm considering trying a 2 cam, 2 op shoot (with a safety angle in the back on tripod) with this approach - something just to meet the market in a bad economy... Shoot the formals with the old DSLR, but cover most of the event with the dual mode approach.

Even wackier is the "smile mode" in the CX12 - the thing knows when someone smiles and pops off a still while it's shooting video... all by itself! I can see these being very good for front angle shots with carefully placed cams - bride smiles, click... etc...

Perhaps this is unorthodox but i thought it might be entertaining to look back on a not so old post.
Even if its just to acknowledge how far and how fast this thing is moving!

Its been almost a year since I started this post, and I have to say I still feel someone who is good at Videography will always be able to find work. I have always been able to pick up things very quickly, and did with photography, video is taking me MUCH longer, not to master but to be decent at. Sure I can set up a tripod, run a single camera of an event that requires no zooming, panning etc. But to do a wedding that requires good audio in the wedding envirement (from soft vows, to loud receptions) Multi camera angles etc. Oh yea and add in that your doing a couple weddings a month, not just one or two a year. This is a occupation that not many will be able to do. Many may try, and get in and then back out as fast as they got in. I dont see too many people jumping into this business anytime soon. Could be wrong but that is MHO.

It takes a special sort of person, that's for sure...

The job description would probably be part daredevil, part gearhead/geek, part artist, and part just plain nuts...

To shoot video is "easy"... to shoot/edit/produce video worth watching more than once (if that)... whole nother ball o' cheese! Especially doing it live with no retakes, taking the results, tossing them in the blender, and creating something with lasting significance...

If you stick with it and really enjoy it, it's fun though, keeps weddings from being dreadfully boring!

I will stick with it, have way too much invested now not to, and can finally see some better footage, and easier to edit stuff.

... but I don't see how anyone can say that a frame grab, even a nicely shot hd frame grab can compare with a well shot still. Think of the differences in the cameras. Our prosumer HD cams don't have anywhere near the latitude of the good DSLR's that the photogs are using and the resolution isn't close either.

We're right on the verge of that changing. The frame grabs from the 5DII are great up to 8x10. And there still the option of pressing the shutter button and getting the full 21mp. The next RED cameras will produce very high quality frame grabs too.

BUT....looking at both frame grabs and still shots from on most videographers website shows me that the basics of good people photography aren't understood. There no fill light or catch light when needed, there are bright backgrounds and faces in shade. More knowledgeable B&G aren't going to buy that. And this doesn't even address proper posing for more formal shots that most couple want. This is craft stuff, not art. It's taught in books and DVDs and seminars.

My formula for adding still photography:

1) Get yourself trained in wedding photography.
2) Don't spend a lot on additional equipment. Most of the very best, and I mean very best, wedding photogs dont use what you think of as "pro" cameras.
3) Find out who the wedding photography assistants are in your area. Some of the young ones are as good as the guy they work for. Given a choice, for wedding, I would rather hire a woman than a guy.
4) Use this person to shoot weddings with you and under your direction as an employee. Pay them more than an assistant and less than a photog. Do this with an ideal (looking) client that is having their wedding at a beautiful location. This is the basis for your new show reel.

P.S. Average looking people don't want to see a show reel or stills of people who look like them.

Good points Don!

Part of the problem for video is that we can't just "flash" as needed to get light to commercially acceptable levels... low light gripes aside, a video camera can't do what a good photog with a proper flash rig can - "glamour" light the subject for best effect.

After CC, learning lighting should be a high priority item, if it isn't at the top of the list.

A properly lit subject (even a "below average" one) can look "mah-velous", and bad lighting can make a supermodel look like something the cat dragged in.

The true "art" of the craft is taking footage/stills of "average" (meaning just about everyone sometimes) people, and making them look like Pitt and Jolie, not Nick Nolte post DUI...

Some people's "good side" is a bit more challenging to find than others, but if you learn posing, lighting, camera angle, framing, soft focus when needed <I'm the REALLY fuzzy spot meself...>, and the other tricks o' the trade, that's what makes for the "money shot".

It's not "the camera", or even the subject... it's the artist behind it that makes or breaks the shot. Yeah, there are people the camera "loves", that makes things easier, but that's the exception...