How many cameras do you run during the toast. One on speaker, one on B&G and one on audience?

Yep - manned cameras on the speaker & B&G and fixed camera on the guests to grab applause, toasts etc

Hi David

I just run two...main cam on the speaker with a softbox as well so we get neat lighting and that is basically "semi-manned" (I check it now and again as our speeches are all done from a lectern) The 2nd cam is on my shoulder to shoot cutaways in general and also lock onto whoever the speaker is talking about so I run around the room a bit trying to figure out where Aunt Jessie is sitting who is being thanked cos she made the cake. Most are just the guests, guests raising their glasses and then plenty of the bride and groom and wedding party.

Chris

Thank you both. I ran two this weekend. One on the speaker and one on the B&G. It seemed to work well except I framed the speaker to close so when they started moving around I was stuck a bit. (DSLR - Prime lens)

I do love the prime lens but it looks like I am going to have to give them up for zooms.

I also run two - one on speaker, one on B&G. A lot of times they are in the same place, so I can do a wide shot with all three of them in one shot, and a tighter shot with just the speaker. I will also move the wide shot around some, to get crowd shots, etc. I sync these two with audio I capture from the sound board (if available). If there's a speaker stand, I'll also put an H4n there.

Three cameras ... on tripod with 70-200 on toaster ... on tripod with 24-70 on couple ... on monopod with 70-200 for tight audience reactions.

I asked in the other thread why you were using all primes but maybe it's better for you to answer here in your own thread.

I shouldn't be using all primes. I am a photographer and have been doing video for business for the last year. The primes are not a issue when producing a short business video.

I do need to let them go though... I am actually thinking about selling the 5dii + primes and buying 3 t3is with 24-70's. It pains me in a way but I have looked at Joel's stuff (weddingfilms.com) and it looks nice. He uses 3 or 4 t2is . The fact that I can hack the firmware and the t3i will automatically restart after it hits the 4 gig mark makes me happy. + 24-70 using x3 digital zoom gives me all the range I need.

I'd say you're on the right track then. At the end of the the day I always say do what works best for YOU. I will say, though, that there is a bit of a fanatical craze in the industry right now to use all primes. Often it's touted as a snobbish badge of honor .. as in ... "I'm shooting all primes." ... as if this magically makes one a better filmmaker or storyteller.

Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, but trust me I see/hear it all the time. The truth is you don't 'need' a single prime to tell an awesome wedding day story. Do primes have advantages in certain situations, of course. But in many situations at a live event they are more of a liability than people will admit.

The zooms we use the most are the 17-55 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. I'm not so happy with the 24-70 though as it seems a bit soft to me. Might be replacing it with something else.

Funny you say that. I sold my 24-70 to get the 35 1.4 because the 24-70 was to soft. Might have to look else where on that....

Interesting. I was wondering if it was just me. Guess not.

I'm not experienced in the matters of primes vs zooms. I have, however, in the last few years paid close attention to aspects of photographers workflow, as I tend to be friendly with them, and I ask lots of questions, it's just my nature, as I'm interested in what they do.

The way an individual photog works seem to depend mostly on their level of experience. Many have told me they used primes when they started out, but virtually every one moved to zoom lenses at some point.

They use primes for certain situations, and seem to regard primes as specialty lenses.

IMO, overusing primes causes one to have to adjust your shooting to accomodate your lens, whereas a zoom allows you to capture the story more efficiently. Primes cause a "tail wagging the dog" scenario oftentimes.

Beginners use kit lense, then discover primes, and think they have found the "secret" that everyone else is missing to great images. Primes are great, but this is a scenario that has been playing out for years with photographers, it's a syndrome. And yes these guys become insufferable snobs about it.

We have hundreds of videographers new to interchangeable lenses who are going through this now. Eventually, those that stick with this format for any length of time will move to zooms, as there really isn't much choice. Primes cause needless work, and are a major pain when doing event work.

I run a 20mm or 30mm and a 50mm, and on rare occasion a 135mm. But I also use two zooms at the same time. I love the looks of primes, can't be beat. Everyone knows this. But as experience takes hold, primes because less important than the ability to get the shot.

I agree - there's a few times when primes can shine but uncontrolled situations at weddings are generally not one of them.

I only ever use my Pentax 50mm f/1.7 when it's too dark and I have no other choice, because it is just not flexible enough. Maybe if I had a 30mm or 24mm I would use it more, but, even for something relatively predictable like speeches at a lecturn, the ability to quickly and easily recompose is great. You never know when a 6'5" best man and a 4'9" maid of honour are going to decide to do their speech together and leave you caught out unable to fit them both in the frame.

Unpopular answer, but:

1 camera (almost always). I work alone, but for an occasional assistant -- and that assistant is often only for the ceremony. I am still able to get reactions shots in toasts, though, which is totally doable if you are at the right angle and time everything right. And I always tap into the soundboard for good audio and use an LED for good light, etc.

I post this in part just for the sake of promoting the idea that one can have a successful business going it alone (I do most of the time) with careful camera work, editing and all the rest. Not to take away from the other responses here -- not at all! But I do want to give an occasional shout-out to the one man business model. I work in a competitive market, but I see too many companies (at least in my neck of the woods) falling prey to the idea more is always more.

Hi Tim

Nothing wrong with a single person shoot at all..I have been doing it for years without any issues. I do use an assistant however if I'm doing both the groom prep and bride prep, especially if they are miles apart!!
My assistant will do one prep and I'll do the other and then she will assist at the ceremony.

There is really no reason at all to have an assistant at the reception IMHO, what can you really give the bride that's better??? A dual angle shoot of the first dance?? More often than not you would end up with footage of your assistant.

During the bridal entrance here, I use on camera on the MC (who is behind a lectern and therefore stationary) and just let it run and then use the second cam to film the bridal party pairs arriving in the room.

In fact apart from the ceremony, bridal entry and speeches I only need one camera to adequately cover the event.

Chris

I'm with Chris and Tim.

Single (real) video camera for speeches. Slow pans between speaker and head table. Crash zoom to wide on applause. Edit out the crash zooms.

After surveying a few couples, I've found most say the didn't even rewatch the speeches as the were 'funny at the time' but boring as hell afterwards. Why bust my balls making it epic.

That being said - I had this AWESOME genuine couple once... bride was a total fox and the whole day was quite emotional. I used a second unmanned camera as a closeup for reactions and it added a whole new dimension to the speeches. Really really worthwhile.

But most my clients are total munters so they wouldn't appreciate the extra effort and are probably yawning or knocking back the booze - which looks bad on cutaways. For the right couple though - it's worth it.

I also am a solo operator and use 1 camera. I keep it on the toaster and if at all possible try to include the B&G with the person speaking. If I can great, if not, that's the way it is.
Been doing it that way since the beginning of time and as a solo that's how I'll keep doing it. If I had another op to run a 2nd cam then I'd do it different.

But most my clients are total munters so they wouldn't appreciate the extra effort and are probably yawning or knocking back the booze - which looks bad on cutaways. For the right couple though - it's worth it.

HIlarious! and true. And yes, there are times I'm glad I either got a lot of good reaction shots (because it was a great couple with great reactions) by setting up a second camera or by having had my ceremony assistant stay on through toasts.

And please realize, first posters, that I wasn't trying to blow the foam off the beer with my 1-camera plug. Just a reminder that it can be done well even simply.

It is always interesting to find out how differently we all work.

For me, the number and positioning of cameras for toasts depends on the space, the number of guests, how things are layed-out, and a dozen other variables including the equipment I am using. The situation and my equipment, and sometimes my mood, are what dictates my approach.

When the setting is small and too intimate for my placing a second camera on a tripod or clamp, I employ the same methods Tim, John and Don described. I've also used this method when the room is very crowded --- a large number of guests in a not-so large room or huge numbers guests packed into an otherwise very large room. When the room is so over-packed with people, there simply is no place for a fixed cam. A second shooter would help but I usually work solo. In those situations, a single cam is the best and only feasible way to shoot things.

Personally, however, I find working with a single camera to be very stressful. So, when there is more space and I know the toasts will be from a fixed location away from the couple's table (such as, maybe a podium or from the dance floor), my preference is along the lines of the three camera approach that Travis described. I tend to have two fixed cams for cut-away shots, one framing the couple, the second framed to include audience and speaker in a wide shot. My main cam is used for close-ups and what Chris called the "Aunt Jessie" shot.

Multi-cam is my personal preference. As I said, a big benefit for me is having cut-aways so that I do not stress-out when panning and zooming. Plus, with tapeless recording, there is much less hassle than there used to be when feeding all that video to the editing computer. Multi-cam helps when I have to reposition because somebody has moved in front of my main camera, as so often seems to happen. Or, when my main cam has the groom picking his nose or the bride shifting her bra, or other such inopportune moments that won't be apparent (or, at least, not as apparent) from a different angle.

A variation on my multi-cam approach is used when when the toasts are from a head table with the speakers next to the bride and groom. For that, I'll be down low in front of the table with my main cam --- down low enough that I am not in the videos or photos but where I can get good footage of the couple and the speaker. This also helps with audio on the not-infrequent occasions when there is either no way to get an audio feed off the house sound system or when the house mix is too awful to use. For this method, I may be using one fixed cam or two. Depends on the room and how lively the guests are.

I work solo. I work without lights. Many venues in my area do not permit video lights and most customers would reject them, in any event. With one exception, my customers have all wanted DVDs, not Blu-ray disks or other HD delivery. I use a mix of pro and consumer video cams. For what I do, I have found that AVCHD consumer cams, such as the Sony CX550/700 series cams, do a pretty amazing job when left on their own on full auto and locked down on tripods. So, in some receptions, where there may be so much going on simultaneously in different parts of the room, I have had four and even five fixed cams going in the room or tent while I slipped from place to place with my main cam (shooting handheld or with a monopod). Where things move at a more sedate pace and in more defined spaces, three and even two cameras work well for the multi-cam style of production that I generate.

I recognize that my personal mix of cams allows me to do things in ways I probably would not attempt with a different mix of equipment. This is not an anti-DSLR screed and nobody should take it that way. I think DSLRs can be great tools, and am just recognizing that different tools bring different tradeoffs of benefits and limitations that lead to differing workflows. It seems to me that getting the best from DSLRs requires more attention and more constant attention to the cameras, If I were working solo with DLSRs, rather than the cameras I have, I would probably work with the two camera approach that Michael Clark described earlier in this thread.

There is really no reason at all to have an assistant at the reception IMHO, what can you really give the bride that's better??? A dual angle shoot of the first dance?? More often than not you would end up with footage of your assistant.

First and foremost, nothing against solo shooters using a single camera. There are multiple segments of the wedding video market and that approach surely works for one of those segments.

However, I just wanted to respond to the quote above. With multiple cameras you CAN give the bride much more. For example, we generally shoot a first dance with 3 cameras. One is set up high (10-12 feet) and wide, another is tight on the B&G and the 3rd is getting creative shots and audience reactions. You can't provide the same coverage and options with a single camera. Not possible.

I'm not saying it necessary to shoot with multiple cameras, just pointing out that you DO get more from it. And if that's what your business model and product require, then do it. If not, by all means don't do it.

Oh, and 99% of the time you will never spot one of our crew in the other's shot. d;-)

I'm a single shooter DSLR. I try to capture both the bride and grooms prep. 3 cams for the ceremony and 2 for the toasts at the reception.

In my experience, more than one camera or shooter at a reception is overkill. Good single-camera shooting and skilled editing can make for great watching.

Corey, with all due respect, it depends on the product you are trying to produce. There is no way you can shoot by yourself and get the footage I get with 2 shooters. If what you get works for you, that's great. But for the product we produce we need something more.

Again, not disagreeing that you can shoot a reception solo .. just pointing out that a different end-product might require a different approach. d;-)

I have pretty much decided for the quality of product that I want to deliver it is going to require two shooters. I do admire single shooters. It is a long day that kicks your ass. Nothing against photographers either. (I also shoot) but shooting video is so much more stressful to me - not to mention not really getting any downtime.

Corey, with all due respect, it depends on the product you are trying to produce. There is no way you can shoot by yourself and get the footage I get with 2 shooters. If what you get works for you, that's great. But for the product we produce we need something more.

Again, not disagreeing that you can shoot a reception solo .. just pointing out that a different end-product might require a different approach. d;-)

You're absolutely right -- that's why I said that it's in my experience. It's all part of my style and workflow. Every once in a while I consider using 2 cameras during the toasts -- still with a single shooter -- if the person speaking is on the other side of the room from the B&G. But if I know that's going to be the case, I plan out my cutaways ahead of time, and do some creative editing later.

I framed the speaker to close so when they started moving around I was stuck a bit. (DSLR - Prime lens) I do love the prime lens but it looks like I am going to have to give them up for zooms.

I'm trying hard not to feed this prime vs. zoom debate because it's off topic, but if you're too close, can't you move? Is this not something that should be considered when you first setup?

This isn't meant as a personal criticism of you, David. I mean these more as general questions instead. I would think that if an angle isn't working for you, the first instinct would be to reposition or change lenses.

We have two cameras. One of speaker, one on the bride and the groom. Usually 2 135mm f/2 on 5DMkIIs. Even though we have multiple people, one person is usually manning both cameras at once. I know a couple of people have said that they are solo shooters so they only use one camera - I assure all of you, it's very possible to run two cameras by yourself, and I would personally recommend it because I believe that little extra effort is worth it.

Every one love primes. They provide a better image quality, and we all know that. But as one becomes seasoned and gets beaten up enough one will find zooms exist for a reason. As has been discussed elsewhere, a preoccupation with primes is normally a symptom exhibited by newcomers to the interchangeable lens game. In other words, it's a rookie mind-set that one must use primes. Rather than invest in a fast zoom a rookie will box themselves in with prime lenses.

Many photographers, myself included, begin using all primes, only to find you cannot effectively get a properly framed shot consistently when using primes all of the time. The best you can do is to guess which lens you need and then pray the subject behaves as you wish, which in my opinion, is not sensible.

Properly framed shots are not always easy with a zoom let alone a prime. For a professional shooter to use primarily prime lenses for event videography generally defies common sense. It can be done, but half the time you end up running around and looking like an idiot.

When a toaster decides to suddenly start walking around, which can and does happen, it is not possible to debate as to which lens to switch to, then shut down camera, change out lenses, then find out your lens is too short, reposition yourself, etc etc etc. and not miss a large portion of the toast with that camera. Repositioning yourself every time a speaker or subject moves because you are using a fixed focal lengthy makes you appear like an amateur and is a recipe for disaster.

What happens when the bride and groom move immediatley after the toast to cut the cake? How does one use a 135mm lens to film a cake cutting? Do you ask the couple to wait as you change lenses? The entire scenario defies logic. Can it work? Well, somtimes yes, but how silly it all seems.

All one has to do is watch and see what the more experienced shooters do to realize they have come by their lens choices for a reason, and those lens choices most always include a zoom on one camera.

Look at it this way folks. There are a crop of video pros who produce videos that blow us all away consistently with amazing video. Mark Von Lanken, Oleg, and the list goes on and on. Can you believe for a second that any of the top shooters would restrict themelselves with primes during a toast? Of course not, it would be stupid to even try. This is what zoom lenses and videocameras are for.

David you are learning what most of us eventually figure out at some point. Primes are specialty lenses, not general purpose. I use a prime or two for audience reactions and wide shots, but not for the speaker. I want them framed properly. Using a prime in such a scenario causes us to shoot around the limitations of the lens we are using, rather than to focus on capturing the story in front of us. It become a case of the tale wagging the dog when we are stuck with a fixed focal length for moving subjects.