I'm doing a presentation of trends in modern wedding video and photo to a groupo of wedding planners.

Photo is simple - I can supplement our experience with the portfolios of innumerable wedding photographers online.

Video is proving more difficult. The wedding highlight reels of five years ago have now largely been replaced by wedding trailers. And rather than concentrating on the narrative highlights of the wedding day - procession, ring exchange, vows, speeches etc. - they are more like a photo shoot with the most visually interesting shots taking precedence. That seems to be a trend. But how does that relate to the wedding video itself?

Is it accurate to say that wedding video coverage (like wedding photography coverage) is moving away from the "non-repeatable" parts of the day, and on to scenes staged specifically for the camera?

I think wedding video has changed from "effects-loaded" to pure document with artsy bits. It changed more on delivery side. Since we can go tapeless, the production time has dropped significantly also allowing to offer such features as SDE. Also the cameras are better and allowing to shoot in more difficult situations - that means you can be more creative. And finaly I see another change in very near future - V-DSLR weddings. Short forms with some crazy visual effects thanks to new DSLR's.

Doug, I think your assessment is off. In fact, I think it's the exact opposite. Take a look at a few studios that were on the EventDV top 25 as well as some of DVinfo's very own forums members and see that the non repeatable parts are alive and well in their trailers/highlights/sde's.

You may mistake a lot of the "non-repeatable moments" as "staged shots" because the anticipation skill set of many of wedding film makers has grown to being very aware as to what is going to happen and BEING there ahead of time.

I'm curious as to where you're pulling your samples from....?

If you want to talk about trends in the wedding cinema industry today :

-steadicam
-vdslr
-shallow depth of field
-rack focusing
-slider shots

Are a few to name. NOTE : these are NOT bad things to have as tools when used appropriately. Also, wedding photography has been moving away from "staged shots" to a photojournalistic approach within the past few years so I 'm curious as to where you're getting those samples from as well.

Cheers.

Randy - I'm not sure I want to get into the tech details. More the overall style. If we match the devices you list to a style, it would be more towards the cinematic end of the spectrum than the journalistic.

As far as photography goes I'm fairly confident in predicting that our biggest sellers are likely to be the shots where the photographer is interacting with the subject, not necessarily a formal portrait, but - "Could you move round to that side of the cake", or "could you stand away from the car while the bride gets in". Now with more emphasis on slideshows, artbook style albums etc. It's not always so obvious. But where prints are the main money maker, posed shots are top of the pops.

I'm sure that's not true for everyone, but I think it is the norm.

As far as video goes - I have no idea of how representative the trailers are of the finished videos, especially with highly cinematic trailers. But going just on trailers I would say there is a growing emphasis on before and after the "non-repeatable events" than on the events themselves i.e the ceremony, the speeches etc. I've done many weddings where large parts of the ceremony or speeches are cut altogether or are featured as separate chapters on the DVD, rather than under the PLAY button.

In terms of trends I need to stay away from high-end. The type of video that can be produced by one photographer and an assistant in a 6-8 hour day. 60-80 hours in post. Middle of the range. It's not a "lifestyles of the rich and famous", more "what can a bride expect from a professional wedding video in 2010?"

I apologize, I'm still not seeing your point. Cinematic and journalistic can go hand in hand. Tools are just that, tools. But they help in the overall styling of the look and style of the current market. There's a forum I belong to that has wedding videographers/film makers there with a plethora of different styles and 98% of them have 5Ds/7Ds. So you can't stick those tools to a particular style.

Have you watched any same day edit's recently? The majority of those are "non-repeatable" moments.

Please state your source(s) of trailers. I still don't know what you're basing your views of off. A link would be great. If you have no idea how representative the trailers are of the final product, why do you use that as the basis of your talk? You take something you're not even sure about as the foundation of your point.

BTW, I see more same day edit's and highlights compared to trailers online. Not trying to argue or debate but where are you looking?

As far as pricing, there's studios that do great work at an affordable price. But that's all relative. What is your middle range price value? And why stay away from the high end?

I see plenty of limitations which narrow the field of view on your talk therefore making it a bit skewed and unrealistic of the true state of wedding videography/film making today. I'm seeing a lot of holes in your research which may be the reason why it's proving a bit more difficult in putting your talk together.

Again, I'm not looking to argue but genuinely help you with this. Let me know if you'd like some links to some companies that produce work that is a bit more reflective of the current state of wedding videography / filmmaking.

Cheers.

Hi Randy - thanks for taking the time. I have not made a study, but it was a clip in the samples section here that prompted me to ask the question about repeatable vs. non repeatable.

Same day edits are definitely a more recent phenomenon, but I think it's more of an add-on rather than a standalone product. Like a trailer, it's an upgrade. It's like

The high-end is a great place to be, but it's a tiny world. Offering "high-end product at affordable prices" is a recipe for bankruptcy. In my experience wedding video is like many other things - you get what you pay for. Thinking that you will get a Bentley Coupe for the price of a Lexus is foolish. These wedding planners are successful business people, convincing them otherwise would be a really hard sell.

My "talk" is an semi-formal get-together, at a world class ski lodge. and the main focus is to educate planners so that they can encourage brides who are not considering video to give it a second look. I am also going to be filming them on the slopes, so plenty of time for informal chat. I am thinking there are 3 main reasons that brides are not going with video:

1. They don't know what modern wedding video has to offer
2. Cost
3. The media circus aspect

I would definitely appreciate "links to some companies that produce work that is a bit more reflective of the current state of wedding videography / filmmaking." Filmmaking not so much though, but full-length wedding videos would be fantastic.

To be honest I have not really been able to find any websites that display anything other than highlights/trailers.

Doug,

I agree with Randy's point on this, and if you have 'no idea' as you say, then you are right to ask for advice before addressing the group of wedding planners whose opinion regarding advising clients toward or away from video really matters.

I would say that I watch 'a lot' of samples on-line and the progressive movement is towards making those non-repeatable moments more cinematic. This is done using camera movement and shallow dof where appropriate. I don't think there are many that aren't moving in this direction, if you use the wedding shooters on this forum as an indicator of trends. And as you are aware, this is a pretty active forum.

We still need to play it safe somewhat, by using multiple cameras, but I'm quite certain that most are not just breaking out the 5d's, the steadicams, and the sliders to put together a good 4 minute clip. That footage (and more), substantiate the wide, safe shots of the general coverage.

You are largely missing the point entirely if you think that this type of shooting is limited to the "Rich and Famous" weddings.

The trend toward producing a higher quality wedding 'film' is being collectively pursued by us, a group, to raise the status of wedding cinema, from the negative stigma of cheesy wedding videos of the 80's and 90's which featured shaky camera work, tacky wipes, and on-camera audio (with apologies to anyone who was producing good stuff in the 90's).

Have you noticed that when a new member posts a 'first wedding video sample' how much positive support, and constructive criticism he or she gets. By raising the level of production for everyone, we raise the collective perception of Wedding Cinema in general. I don't even use the term 'wedding video' because of the negative connotation.

If you look at some samples of the work here, and follow the links to their homepages, and look at their pricing, you'll see that that these weddings are more affordable in most cases than mid-range photography.

If there is a trend, it's that superior wedding video has been made more available by:

- the sharing of hi-end production techniques via video samples on this forum
- the affordable new technology, which includes:
- pro level NLE
- much greater computing power to handle HD and grading
- camera stabilizers
- affordable DvSLR's (provide the ability to shoot in low light)
- affordable HD cams with multiple xlr input capability to allow for hi-end multi cams at weddings

Hi Guys

It also depends a lot on your market!! I offer cinematic styles as well as documentary styles and 99.9% of brides seem to choose the doc style so every moment of their day is carefully documented. The only time I tend to get creative is during the photoshoot which is done on Stedicam otherwise it's basically the events of the day for the bride to re-live in exactly the way it happened. We are on the West Coast and people seem to be more conservative here..I see plenty of videographers on the more affulent East Coast of Australia advertising "wedding films"
Essentially I am oblidged to follow the brides supplied running sheet and can really only express a little creativity during the photoshoot!

Then again the US videographers often talk about $8K packages and a good dozen Ferarri's and Lambourgini's parked at the reception...I guess for that market one would expect more than just a documentary ???

Chris

Yep, You would want it transferred to 35mm and open simultaneously in cinemas nation wide...

Over on the east coast, most brides want the doco style, but with arty farty bits tossed in - but not detracting from a visual record of the day.

She wants to see how she looked on the day, and wether or not her B*m looked big in the dress.... because as one client said to me, she was too stressed to enjoy the day and she wanted to remember everything that went on.

Ben

Folks, it seems to me we have a couple of dierent things going on here.
Raise your hands if when you shot a wedding all you KNOW you'll need for a Cinematics highlight and ONLY deliver that. Hmmm, I don't too many hands.
Don't we as a group generally go in, capture the entire event, (speaking broadly here) prep, maybe the guys get ready, preceremony stuff, ceremony, postceremony, reception til whatever point and then edit all of that into whatever style we proclaim is ours?
I think the trend is what it has been for many years. IMO brides and grooms want the same thing today as 20 years ago. SOLID, STABLE, Well Exposed, Well Framed, video with really good audio AND then, all the rest is details. You see where I'm going here? Shoot the job with good footage and good audio, then edit your heart out and call it whatever style you want, but don't try to tell me that all you give the couple is what you show us here as an online sample. Don't get me wrong, much of it is great stuff, great useage of the tools, great techniques and use of steadicams, gliders, DoF all that stuff, BUT don't grandma and mom want to see the whole thing? Gerenally speaking they do and the "pretty stuff" is a nice add on. They might like it they might not. Now I know we're not doing this for grandma and mom but still...
So to me the trends are the new creative things we see today, steadicam, gliders, DoF, 5Ds, 7Ds, booms, 3,4, 5 camera shoots but what good is all of that if the ceremony itself which many brides feel is the MOST important part of the day, is crazy bad. Color off, bad framing, firehosing trying to "get the shot"...Get the shot "in the can" THEN get as creative as you want unless you've got a large crew shooting with you and designate 1 or 2 to be the documentarians and the others to look for creative opportunities.
Just my early morning thoughts, maybe wrong, maybe not.

Deliver only cinematics highlight is not what B&G want. I capture the hole ceremony and all what goes on at the reception. During shooting I have in mind to edit in more that one style. Have lot of b-roll to cover long segments of a speaker. I have highlights on youtube for B&G to see but I have been asked to show them a compleated wedding DVD.

In my opinion, cinematic highlights, if that's all that is delivered, is just code for shooting poor and incomplete footage. As some have already mentioned, couple's, family and friends want to relive the day. That includes seeing the entire ceremony. A complete package should also include an artistically created highlights piece. But this highlights piece should be in addition to the full coverage, not in lieu of it. The only places where "cinematic", highlights only wedding "films" are popular are at convenings of self acclaimed video gods where they take turns telling each other how great they are. But these surreal little self serving fiefdoms are not indicative of real world expectations from clients - you know, the ones who pay money.

I think this is being skewed the wrong way. Doug is saying setup shots are the norm in trailers which he then thinks that is all that is being delivered. Few things to address there, those setup shots may very well be spur of the moment shots caught due to good anticipation. It is also unfair to assume what is being delivered without knowing for sure then pass it off as truth to a bunch of planners. And finally, what sources is he pulling his info from?

For the record, I shoot for both highlight and documentary styles (like most of us do....maybe that is a trend? hehe).

Ken - Cheers bro. Well said.

Chris - Market definitely plays a huge role. Which is why it's really important to know what you want to offer and what you're market is. I'm sure you could one day transcend your market and do the type of weddings you want as well as get paid what you want. Those $8k package studios didn't start out offering $8k packages for the most part, why couldn't you one day get there? :)

Don - I've done a few of the highlight only and have a couple for next year like that. I still shot as though I would delivered a full ceremony so totally agree with what you're saying. Also provides the opportunity for up-selling possibilities should the couple decide they do want the "whole thing".

Asvaldur - How can you make that statement that cinematic only highlights are not what B&G want? Maybe in your market that's not the case, but couples do choose highlight only, same day edit only, or documentary only packages. It's all based on the couple...which is why it's important to know your market and know what you're TRYING to market.

Jim - You imply that "cinematic" highlight only wedding "films" are not related to clients who pay money. I'd beg to differ that those who offer those type of services get paid more than those who only offer documentary coverage.

Who are these self acclaimed video gods you speak of? Call a spade a spade rather than take digs at anonymous studios. :)

Cheers fellas.

We feel obligated to do both Cinematic and Documentary, and we are EXHAUSTED at the end of the day, but I can't imagine this being fulfilling any other way. Our web site has 45 music videos from the last year or so, so potential customers see everything we've been doing. I use it as a selling point to say that they don't just get to see a polished demo, but our consistent work. The videos go viral online and get us more work. Facebook is huge to us, so relying on an old demo doesn't seem effective in our business plan.

We're far more conservative when we film, conservative in long form, but flavorful in the highlight reel -- I dedicate a whole day for it, since that's what their (single) friends see on Facebook. Some couples ask if we film everything and not just the highlights, so their is that perception to address...

I think you can do Documentary with a Cinematic flavor and blow away the clients who want either. It's hard work, but I feel it has the most impact and couples seem to appreciate it.

To simplify matters:

A bride looks at Bob's highlights clips and then says "I'd like to book Bob to video my wedding, but I don't want a highlights reel, just the wedding video"

Would Bob be confident that the video will meet the Bride's expectations? Or should Bob say "no that's a trailer, your wedding video will look nothing like that"?

Randy, Good comments. I prefer to answer your question in the positive light. I didn't mean to imply a "one versus the other" with respect to documentary versus cinematic. I like your idea of having a full coverage in your bag in the event the client subsequently decides to buy it too. Obviously, the primary determination of what is delivered is what the client wants. Nothing in what I said implies otherwise. I just believe that most clients will want both even if they don't realize it when they book the coverage.

No good purpose would be served by "calling a spade a spade" as you suggested. Those in the business have an idea of what I'm describing. I have encountered a couple of examples of those who show up at a wedding with one camera in their hands and shoot an assortment of beauty clips and slap it together and call it "Cinematic" as a cover for their incomplete coverage. The true masters of cinematic production should be especially offended by this. From my personal perspective, I particularly admire truly cinematic productions that are well done. Unfortunately there are some that abuse the word. When a videographer says things like, "shooting for a cinematic production is easier", you get a pretty good idea of where they're coming from. There is nothing "easy" about shooting truly creative shots as well as being alert for the opportunistic shots.

A point should be made about cost as well. While it's possible to do a single shooter documentary OR cinematic shoot, it really isn't feasible to do both well with a single shooter. The cinematic shooter has to be relieved of the linear shooting style that is used in a documentary. Even though some of the cinematic shooter's footage may be incorporated in the documentary when it is edited, they can't be constrained with maintaining the complete and linear flow of a documentary.

@Randy - some comments.

First my comments about posed shots were in relation to photography. With video clips (see samples on this site) my distinction related no to whether the shots were posed or not, but rather whether they were from the non-repeatable parts of the event (ceremony, speeches etc) or from the informal (highly edited) parts of the day.

Second - I am not imagining that a highlights clip is all that is delivered, I am asking how representative of the wedding video the clip is. I am not assuming anything - I am simply asking. If you want to share both for the same wedding we can all comment intelligently.

Third - I think we can all agree that one talented photographer with an assistant for 6-8 hours and 60-80 hours in post can create an exciting and comprehensive wedding video. And many (most?) super celebrities and very wealthy families choose this low-key route. So when I hear of teams of photographers and weeks in the edit bay I think "Lifestyles of the rich and famous" type production. Some people like it, some don't.

Great point Jim, this is our approach exactly. There are minimum two shooters throughout the day; One shooter is getting doc style continuous coverage, while the other is getting the more creative shots. There is a lot of overlap: both have to keep their eyes open for anything that will help the edit. But the "creative" shooter is liberated from the lock down coverage stuff, and can get the footage that is actually fun to watch.

I disagree with you however about delivering only highlights being a shortcut. We have a package where the client receives only a SDE or highlight video along with the raw footage. It's becoming quite popular, as clients seem to like the short videos on our website. And really, a shorter video done properly can have a huge emotional impact, more so than an hour long document can hope to have. It also allows you to focus on one mood or story or visual style rather than being a hodgepodge of "whatever happened that day."

Of course the long form has strengths as well, but it's worth noting that the average youtube video (that people actually watch) is 1-3 minutes. It's not just an attention span thing, it's choice - people don't always want to have their time monopolized for an hour or two. And to be honest, I don't find that there is enough "narrative" - that is, story unique to this day and this couple - to sustain a wedding video lasting over 20-30 minutes, and 3-5 minutes is a real sweet spot from the viewer's perspective.

As to "trends" in wedding videography, I think the wedding planners may want to know what to tell brides. Brides need to know that videography has come a very long way from even five years ago, and that if they value video they should be prepared to allocate more of their budget towards it. Does spending 10K on flowers make sense? Or should some of that go to something more permanent that captures everything that went on?

Also brides need to understand that online samples aren't necessarily representative of what will be produced at their wedding. There is a company in my area that hasn't updated their portfolio in years, but I know they do great work. If anything the biggest trend is the diversity in styles and approaches available. The bride that is serious about video needs to do her homework.

So, brides should spend more time doing research on videographers, and be prepared to spend more money than they may think to get something truly amazing.

Brides in my market area want more than only the highlight clip of the day so that is why I wrote that no one is going to ask for that but perhaps that will change. A trailer can be a good indicator on your work but like a trailer for a movie it only gives you a hint about the whole movie.

And yes, a Bride should be confident to book Bob to do her entire wedding based on his trailer.

The most significant thing about the thread is how little of the response is from outside the USA/Canada. Doug probably wants to restrict his speech's scope to his locality but the broader answers would show very different pictures in different places.

For just one example, it's my experience that most UK couples wouldn't wish to give the time from "their" day to indulge a video director wanting to shoot "arty" stuff.

Most of us here concentrate on being as invisible as possible because the photographer already takes them away from their guests for substantial periods doing his formals and portaits

Philip, I think that is one of the trends discussed in this thread. That you can get your arty shots without getting in the way, taking up time, or even being noticed. The trick is to anticipate and to compose a shot in your mind just a few moments before it's possible to get it. Then get it. Your client will be all the more impressed, since they never noticed the shot being created. The fly-on-the-wall ninja style shooting approach most of us use is no excuse for a lack of eye candy.

Erik, I agree - what I was referring to was the staged eye candy to use your expression.

We're hoping to add a portrait photographer to our team next year or 2011 to offer a complete package. Most photographers major on "reportage" - which is merely informal video without sound or movement. The one thing we can't do is the portrait.

In case this prompts others to question the jeopardy of losing the "photographer referral" - we've had precisely one such referral in three years.

Philip,

Regarding international trends.

I believe Richard Wakefield is doing some beautiful cinematic work in your neck of the woods. In fact much of my ambition to strive for a more cinematic approach has been inspired by international work.

Jason Magbanua - Phillipines, Susanto Widjaja - Australia, Oleg Kalyan - Russia, Matthew Ebenezer - Australia, Minty Slippers - UK, Nicholas de Kock - South Africa, SiuCheung Leung - NZ, Serge Lebedev - Russia, Garry Garza - Philippines, Patrick Moreau, Erik Andersen and Bruce Patterson from Canada to name a few of my favorites.

In fact, the 'trend' to more cinematic work is likely as much driven by international work as it is North American work.

Certainly markets and clients within those markets differ in their tastes, with some finding wide, locked off shots acceptable if the audio is good and the camera is steady. But I for one strive to do more with the craft, and when you nail those beauty shots in a once in a lifetime event for the couple, well now you're breathing that rare air, that truly sets us as professionals apart from Uncle Bob and his handycam.

Ken, my point wasn't that there are no cinematic producers outside USA and Canada, merely that very few had commented in the thread. I agree completely about the moment of rare air, my point was that in my experience few couples are inclined to choose the cinematic approach.

A few years ago there was a lot of fuss in one of the UK amateur-wannabe-professional institutes about one of their number who'd done some different (perhaps you'd call it cinematic) work. I eventually saw some at the UK's main professional showcase and frankly it was appalling technically, out of focus, badly WB, badly exposed.

Shortly afterwards I bumped into a friend who's the MD of probably the best-known UK producer and she agreed with me.

I'm all for creative work and applaud those who do it. But if referrals really are the lifeblood of our business (and there's the awful word, business) the logical eventuality s that at best we can add a little more creativity to the programme that drove the client to choose us in the first place.

I find this similar to the arguments which raged through my 30 years in video and TV - why don't we go in for competitions and win some prizes that we could boast about in our advertising etc? The fact was that during the times we were really making business we had no time and when times were slack we felt we had to concentrate on getting more business in.

The last thing I would ever denigrate is creativity so please don't cast me as a Luddite - why I even cut into zooms these days!! :)

Cheers, boys. Great discussion going.

All of "cinematic wedding inspiration" when I first started wanting to move to that style came from outside of the USA. Stillmotion and JMag. I'd go out on a limb and say that the majority of leaders in our industry as far as the cinematic wedding filmmaking style are outside of the USA...(before I get called out on it, please read MAJORITY, not all :) ).

Jim - Nothing negative implied my friend. I'm all for straight up honesty. If it is a bunch of untalented people cj'ing each other, I'd like to know who you're talking about. I am in the business and I do know what you're talking about, but as to WHO, I have no clue. This is not to imply my association is anymore special than anyone else's, but no one here really says someone's work is great and lies to them as that doesn't help them improve.

I am also 100% with you as far as foregoing linear coverage in trade for more freedom. A good solution to this though is to have multiple unmanned cameras. I'm no Jmag or Stillmotion but I've done 3 camera ceremonies by myself and yes it's a bunch of work but not impossible to pull off. But again....cost right? ehhhhh. Talking in circles here ;).

Doug - I'd like to see what highlights you're basing everything off as it doesn't matter what source I use as it's not what your foundation of thinking was built of off. I'd like to help you here as it does good for our industry for you to properly inform these planners. I'm sorry but your interchanging of the word photographer and cinematographer/videographer is confusing me in your examples. Most studios charge between $3k-$6k for the "cinematic" type of coverage with the really established high end studios charging upwards of $8k-$20k. If $3k-$6k production is considered "rich and famous", I find that a bit strange as plenty of studios in my market have that pricing and are busy.

Erik - I was never one for fly on the wall/ninja approach in practice since just because we're in close on the action doesn't mean we're are the center of attention. So true about anticipation.

Philip - All the more reason why to know who your target client and couples are. If you're meeting with someone and they are not interested in the way you shoot, they simply aren't the type of couple you're looking for. I'm not saying turn down a booking, I'm just saying it's not your ideal client (ie. someone who would say "we trust you, this is what we like and don't like, do your thing").

Ken - Rare air sounds great :).

Forgive my abundance of personal replies. I haven't had much time to contribute nor be really active on this forum so I'm doing my best to get caught up ;).

Several people on this thread feel that there is a consensus in the way wedding video is going: vDSLRs and steadicams. One poster says 98%, another doesn't know a single dissenter. If you can pull off the DSLR/steadicam product with minimal crew then great. If you have to say "look in order to get the money shots I need another videographer", then not so great. Especially if the bride already has a team of photographers collecting the beauty shots. Can't you just make a slide show of the photographs? Or edit stills into your narrative video? One trend I have seen growing in recent years is planners and brides who don't want a 6 person media crew covering a 150-200 person wedding.

Another group of posters say that most brides don't want anything "artsy" just a video of their wedding. I think these posters may be correct about what most brides want. I also think that few of those brides will pay for a professional videographer.

I think Doug's piece is very perceptive, though I dispute the implicit denigration of non-artsy video in his last sentence - if that's what he intended, I'm not sure.

I celebrate the variety our industry offers and applaud those who can add genuine creativity and still make a healthy business.

In any business the central core is bread and butter for people working in it. As long as they are professional, deliver best practice at the right price, the industry as a whole will benefit from the excellence at the leading edge. It isn't a matter of them and us.

If the biggest challenge for video is to compete for the "recording" budget (and I think it is) then I think we have to learn from the people at the leading edge and adapt.

What I don't think really matters is equipment. It's what we do with it that matters. It's why amateur photographic magazines are full of equipment reviews and equipment developments whereas the amount of space given to equipment in the professional magazine is much less. They're more concerned with refinements in technique because they know that merely having the latest, most expensive gear doesn't make an amateur a pro.

Another group of posters say that most brides don't want anything "artsy" just a video of their wedding. I think these posters may be correct about what most brides want. I also think that few of those brides will pay for a professional videographer.

Bingo!

I am the one who usually gets the few that will pay, and thats fine with me, as Im no artist.

I think one thing missing in this discussion is the fact that the videographers represented on this forum probably represent the upper tier (or at least trying) of wedding videography and are not really representative of what you will find out in the wild. I am not saying the other folks are not hard working videographers, they are just not forum addicted junkies like us.

This is a wild guess of what I think is out there, based on meeting other local videographers and seeing various videos and demos.

Artistic/Cinematic - 0.1%
High quality video & editing but no artistic or innovative elements - 5%
Mediocre documentary/still looks good, moderate stolen music - 50%
Middle of the road, B&G still like it, lots of stolen music - 25%
Utter Crap and still paid for it - 15%

I would like to hear Don and others opinions on this.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the quality of the work seems to have little relevence to the price (except very high end stuff), only relavence to the business savy/marketing of the company. IMO, the top guys are providing a major deal to their customers and the customers don't even know it.

Well, since you asked... ;-)

IMO, IN MY AREA...since I'm not familiar with the other areas of the country although I have done a modicum of work in other areas, I can not speak to those areas, so I will keep my comments based on my area only. Also keep in mind that while the Chicagoland area is considered to be a major market as far as wedding video is concerned I would have to say it is not.
Now having said that it is my opinion that while many many many couples would love to have work like StillMotion, JMags, Kevin S., Mark and Trisha and many others on this forum produce, (first names that came to mind, no slight meant to anyone as there are so many more that post here that produce the top tier art we have grown to know and love so my apologies to anyone I didn't name), but one thing stops them. MONEY! It has been my experience that in my area as I'm sure many other areas around the USA video is generally the last thing hired and the first thing cut because of the budget. Now while video IS important to many many couples and every once in a while we get the pleasure of being one of the first vendors hired and even get to refer other vendors to the couple more often than not it is not that way, at least around here. The greater Chicagoland area has a population of some 9 million people, give or take a couple of thousand here or there, and there are upwards of 50,000 weddings per year. Of that perhaps 25 to maybe 30% have a professional video done. It has been my experience (there's that word again which by definition is something that happens to you that you wish had happened to someone else) that the greater majority of couples in this area that have a professional video done want; good solid steady footage, which means good framing, good color/exposure and good audio so they can hear their ceremony and reception and while they are getting that if the person they hired can also produce some artistic pieces for them to enjoy all the better. Perhaps a crew of 3 or more steadicam, gliders, all that sort of stuff. HOWEVER once again budget plays a hugh role in their choice of videographer. I have gotten many many requests from couples who want me to do their wedding and have a budget of less than 1/2 my least expensive package so obviously I don't do the job and IF I did I certainly would do more than the basic type of work. Please keep in mind that while the greater Chicagoland area is considered a major market the pricing has not kept pace with other areas and while there are many great vidoegraphers in this area that are creative and produce a top tier art product the vast majority do a basic document the day simple edit and put it out the door. I believe one obviously need to know their market and decide on a style to to what makes them happy and affords them a living and become the best at THAT in their respective area.
I don't know if that answers the question but that's my take on it. Take it with a grain of salt or don't take it at all, but one thing I do know and that's my marketplace. Damn, after 26 years I'd better :-)

Don, I'm always interested in what you think. Your advice has saved my bacon through the years...

Thank you. I just try to express what I've learned thru the years and what I see in the business in my area. Glad I can be of help to someone.

This is a fascinating thread. Its a real insight into the different beliefs out there.

Doug, to answer your question first.

I believe the trend in wedding's and wedding videos is the wedding blog. Imagine you were a bride. Why do you want your wedding filmed? For many we have found its because they have something unique in their wedding they want to keep. Typically they draw inspiration from a blog or other online source, this then evolves into an idea and ends up with something at their wedding (a first dance, arriving to the church on a tandem bike, 50's themed wedding).

It is because of this uniqueness many want it captured with a good photographer and a good videographer.

Now onto the trend of price and artsy styling. We still get a lot of brides who say "Nice work, but not what were after" and when we ask who they have gone for its the more traditional video presented all in black and white, slow mo, long scenes of people walking to the church. Sometimes they can pay as much as we charge but its simply what they wanted. We then get the customers who love what we do and want our work.

Ive lost count the number of times myself and Richard from FX Films have talked about how to raise the brides awareness of a high end video and this is a very important discussion.

This year we realised many brides have no idea what is out there OR, more importantly how much they charge. For this reason many budget either £500 or £1000 for their video. Not out of any research, just a figure they pluck out the air. As our prices have gone up its been harder and harder to get the many bookings we enjoyed at our sub £1000 price point. But thats not so bad. The problem is there are still people out there offering their services for £300 and feature wise it looks the same as what we offer. Cake cutting, bride arrival, vows, speeches, first dance etc. The difference is in how we capture and how we present it.

Philip, your right in that many UK couples dont want to be staged by the director. But our clients come to us because they do and it only takes us 5-10 mins to get many of the shots we use and we often team up with the photog to get shots at the same time when they do their 'walkabout'.

Now the subject of highlights/trailers vs full edit. We dont shoot everything like we used to. We used to walk away with 17 hours of footage to work through and thats too much to create anything meaningful.

These days we always have a very detailed discussion with the couple so we know how the day is going to play out. Often its a bog standard wedding as the venue wants everything to fall into their cookie cutter mould. For this reason its the same shots, the same vows, same everything. But by knowing how the day will play out we can plan days in advance what we want to capture and show and come up with a concept. The concept is something we have only done recently and we only have one clip online featuring this but the idea is to not control the day but capture it how you want to show it and more importantly shoot for the edit. By knowing how both the highlights and the main edit will look you can get the shots you need. Less footage to work through and more quality shots rather than the old school scattergun approach of capture it all and deal with the pain later.

It was a very simple talk by Stillmotion back in Reframe Austin which made us change our ways and we have never looked back. A little bit of forward planning, either days or seconds in advance can yield amazing results. This way, the final product is as good if not better than the highlights you see online and were so happy with the results we send out a full movie on our demo disk. How many here are happy enough with their work to do that?

We still get the comments about how they never noticed us, very unobtrusive and all that but we achieve work we are happy with and the client is elated with.

Repeatable vs non-repeatable. We could all fit many of our weddings into a simple template. The vows happen the same, the vows are the same (we've had custom vows here once) but that would mean all our highlights are the same and we dont want that. We want our couples to feel their highlights and edit are unique to them because we put the time in to make it unique. so occasionally we feature the vows, and really only if they are unique in some way.

Danny, that's a very interesting piece, thanks. We're shooting a wedding on 29th with my oldest pal as the photographer. We generally do our interviews when the photographer's doing his walkabout.

I'm thinking I might invest in a third person so that we can do some of the artsy stuff with the photographer. We've both agreed that we're going to use the rare occasion when we can work together to try some different stuff so here goes.

What would be really nice would be a dump of snow the night before. The church's literally next door to the pub so no cars involved and cobblestones everywhere - could be quite Dickensian. We've also got a fourth camera I picked up at a scoop price so lots of material.

Finally, your comment about the full video is right - we've got perhaps 2 in which everything went the way we wanted it. That's not to say we didn't satisfy all the customers but getting it right for us as well is different.

We do the artsy stuff with 2 cams. Both myself and my wife wear radios with those little discreet secret service type ear pieces. During the ceremony one plays it safe while the other gets the cutaways. Then we swap, as we always keep an eye on each other we know when its safe to move the camera rather than just staying fixed in one place and doing slow zooms. We always do fast zooms so we can cut them out.

It makes for a more intense day but it brings us so much more satisfaction in what we do.

Satisfaction is a factor.

How do you guys handle the bride who sends over 20 emails with details about the picture she has in her head? We're getting an increasing number of this kind of bride, and it substantially increases our time and the likelihood that we miss detail #47 in email #23. I want her ideas in order to hit the mark, but sometimes it opens a floodgate.

Dana:

Do you think you are doing something to enable these email diatribes?

My clients are just the opposite, they have no idea what they want, other than for the video to look somewhat like the samples and how I describe my style (documentary). I do get lots of emails to clarify names, dates, places & times, etc.

Don:

Nice post. I looked up the # of videographers for Chicago on Wedj.com and found 84. That's a lot of competition, considering there are lot of other advertising sites too, but your big market does have lot of opportunities also. My (smaller) market only has 22 videographers listed on Wedj. About pricing, I use the Wedj list of videographers to summarize their advertised prices so I can stay competitive and "in the current range". In this area, prices are going up currently, although there were "recession" deals going on last summer that were way too low and we had to recover from.

yeah 84 on the one site. Honestly, in the Chicagoland area (encompesses 6 counties and a population of around 9 million) there are probably 8 or 10 times that number if not more. Lots of competition but lots of work as well. The problem is ther pricing runs from about 3 or 4 hundred to 3 or 4 thousand. Some of them do 5 weddings a year and some do a couple of hundred or more, so it's really hard to center yourself. By that I mean so many couples are looking only at price (and inmany cases when they get the video the regret that) and some look at the quality. They all want the top quality for the nothing price of course just like everyone does but with all the vid companies out there in this area they have a HUGH choice of pricing and styles. I'm happy doing my 50-60 per year, mid price, don't get too artsy but it pays the bills. Honestly, if I could afford to, I'd retire from the wedding business. It's getting to be a bit of a grind, but then I've been saying that for the last 5 years so where am I goin'? :-)

In many areas, I don't think Wedj.com gives a good idea of how many or who's who with videographers. I just took at look at the SF Bay Area cities and found it to be extremely incomplete. I know many of the videographers in the area and almost none of them were listed. This is a paid advertising site although they will give a lesser-billed free listing. I don't think many people are interested in it; at least not around here.

I wish I had the time to read this entire thread .. but the backlog beast is nearby ....

Here are the trends I'm seeing in videography today:

- transition from long-form to short form final products
- increased use of "cinematic tools" (steadicam, slider, vdslr, off-cam lighting)
- increased visibility and importance of the videographer

This is a very interesting thread with some very serious opinion on the trends matter. But to tell you the truth, I am not in the position to say what exactly can be called a trend at present. You see, since cinema gear entered the market, I doubt it entered for a quick stay. Most possible is that all those steadicams, glidetracks and DOF are here to stay, at least I surely hope so. What I also hope though is that when the everybody will have overuse them, their use will become somehow more "selective" and mature.

Regarding the talk about long versions or short versions of final products, well, that's an issue that although analyzed very nicely at previous posts, it requires much more research (that's for me at least). To tell the truth, although the short versions sound much more interesting (and harder to create due to reasons like editing skills or lack of material), I am not sure my market (meaning the Greek market) is ready for it just yet, and I think that counts for many other markets, unless the videographer's target couples are really high-end and understand and require true cinematic qualities (provided of course that the videographer can create something like that). For the time being, couples want a "larger" version for various reasons, but I can recall two right now.

a) People often think, that the longer the final product, the best value for money (euros per minute etc)
b) Certain relatives (especially parents) want to check out everybody that was there, and make some gossip about them.

The above go for the Greek reality, I have no idea why that happens in other countries of this bizarre world.

So, if the above theory is correct, then the risk we've taken for 2010 (and more) will prove to be good. If not, we'll have serious problems! :) The risk was that we decided, that regardless of living in a remote area of Greece (though we work all over the country), we'll raise the prices at the point we think we deserve. That is for two reasons. a)to go for the high-end clients that respect more the "artistic" part of our work than the simple recording of stuff and b)to be free of the many restrictions that budget clients try to enforce us (they fail though). Judging by the 2010 bookings, it seems to work, but it's early yet. But of course, this is how we see things about wedding and it doesn't mean that we've got the right picture on the market, after all we're doing this for just 3 years. We surely don't intend to go to 20 minutes of final product (at least not yet) but the above will help us re-think of the way we present our product. At least that's the idea. :)

This post is becoming really big, sorry about that. I have some other comments on other issues but it's 3am here, so I'd go to sleep now. Probably tomorrow, I'll post some more. :)

It seems to me that it is emerging that there is not really any definitive national style trend other than the video business is maturing and videos are slowly getting better due to better exchange of information about techniques on sites like this and better equipment. Just like real estate, the business is driven by local market forces and expectations, and no two markets are exactly the same.

There will also always be a high end segment and a low end segment in video.

One financial trend I think I see is that the clients are getting more than ever for the cost they pay. Some of us have a $25,000+ USD equipment overhead, yet only get $3,000 (or much less) for a project. I believe in general, videographers ROI and margins are shrinking or stagnant at best, as the industry is suffering the same as the wedding photography industry. That is, the proliferation of digital cameras and lower equipment costs has a dilution effect on the industry by introducing lots more shooters of both Uncle Bob style and startup companies.

Artistic and cinematic pieces that are well done are a pleasure to watch. To me, a key aspect of being well done is to have a cohesive storyline that ties it together and gives it meaning. I don't appreciate some that I have seen that are just an assortment of video "stunts" thrown onto a timeline. When all the pieces are there including a relevant and moving story, they are very powerful.

For us the best way to keep up with the Uncles and the Craigslist players is to show talent and execution. Without the ability to outshine the amazing gear of the average consumer, we have to show why it's worth it to hire a pro.

I feel like our company needs to put together a pithy promo that explains why as quickly and powerfully as possible. Our demos are great, and potential clients are impressed, but if they forget that feeling and feel the pressure of their budget, they need bullets to remember, and video has the power to make that indelible mark.

Does anyone have a informative video spot to share?

One trend that needs to go is adhd shooting. It's so annoying to watch someone talking on TV and the shooter has to get every strange angle possible trying to be cute. when I talk to someone I don't do that. Can you imagine someone doing that while you're talking to them?

I thought it would be short lived, but then I thought reality tv would be short lived.

Talking about trends, one of the strongest trend I perceive is the "cinematic" look derived from DOF's DLSR cameras.

The point is: previously, people looking for a film look was worried about the 24 fps. Film look has many more issues than this, everybody knows (Gamma, aspect ratio, etc.). And now, everything resumes in DOF. Thats the trend, if you have DOF, as swalower as possible, you rocks, you have a cinematic look.

Yes, I'm being generalist. But, what i want to to point is, cinematic does have much more to do with composition and narrative than tech aspects. It's my point of view, of course.

Thats the reason why I study hard camera work, blocking, use of light and, specially, editing. I belive one can make a film despite the media. If we can lay our hands in good tools, thats nice.

What you think, guys?

Hey Cristian,

Thanks for posting. I agree with what you have to say.

I haven't seen any wedding work from Latin America. What is going on there? Are many wedding videos shot down there?

Here are the trends I'm seeing in videography today:

- transition from long-form to short form final products
- increased use of "cinematic tools" (steadicam, slider, vdslr, off-cam lighting)
- increased visibility and importance of the videographer

I'm curious about off-cam lighting. The only time I do this is when I pop my light off to make the diamonds sparkle. Are shooters using stands at the Reception?

@Christian,

It's nice to have you here! I think you're spot on that we can do amazing things with inexpensive gear. That's what it's all about. I'd also love to hear/see what's going on in South America.

Hi Ken.

As one could expect, there's a lot of wedding work in these lands. People love to marry - and this is great! (business, hehe).
The mainstream, in Brazil at last, is the photojournalism aproach. I haven1t seen nothing appeling to a cinematic aproach.

Curently I work as editor of College graduation cerimonies (very boring...), and I'm moving to start my own business next year, focusing wedding cerimonies. That's the reason I'm here, to learn and exchange with great and professional people at this nice forum.

Dana

I think you understood what I think. Despite the gear, knowing the cinemacraft, one can do a beautiful work.

Well, if you guys are curious about what happen in here, I can post some reels. I'm just very busy with my daughter at the moment. Later I can post and discuss market and aesthesits differecies.

See ya!
Cristian

Well is nobody is doing cinematic you can corner the market. Godspeed to you!