I chatted with a still photographer who told me his horror story here in Honolulu. Recently, he and his assistant shot a wedding and had to deal with 10 videographers! The video guys virtually surrounded the event with 360 degrees of coverage at all times! Needless to say, photographer was completely frustrated and was about to quit shooting as he constantly got tapped on the shoulder because he was in someone's video shot. We often hear of photographers getting in the videographer's way, but isn't this pushing things too far in regards to professional videography?

As the owner of the video company, how can you pay all these guys and make a profit? Secondly, how can something like this be edited in a timely manner? A story like this sounds almost unbelievable.

I've heard of people using 8 or 9 videographers for very large weddings. (In contrast, I think Stellios on this board has talked about shooting Greek island weddings for 1,000+ people... perhaps just by himself.)

The main problem might be getting in each other's shots... My friend and I get in each other's shots enough when there's just two of us.

Presumably you'd need to have all the cameras synched by timecode, or have a good idea of what each camera is doing. Not sure if a single editor would have time to scroll through all the footage, but maybe it's more a case of just thinking to yourself, "I want a close-up of groom. Now I want a reaction shot from his dad." Etc. And having the freedom to just switch to that track.

I've worked with a fellow and we did a couple of weddings where we used 4 to 5 videographers at the ceremony HOWEVER we had done TV work before and we weren't in churches we were able to draw up a shot sheet for each person. Not one that you carried but more of "OK you stay on the groom, you stay on the bride, you get the center aisle shot to the altar, you get the tight shot of the B&G from the center aisle, when the person goes to the mic to do the reading, you come off the tight shot of the altar and goto the person speaking"...etc. It worked out very well and we had very little footage of the other camera operators and the photog (whom we knew) knew what each camera was shooting because we told him. Overall the job went very smoothly but 10 guys shooting? Was it The Bachelor wedding being shot for TV? Otherwise me thinks it's overkill and frankly can lead to negative reviews of videographers for weddings. "HEY, Everywhere I looked there was another video guy pointing his camera at me!"

A growing problem mentioned by a pro shooter in another thread here is, too many ppl in the congregation turning up and shooting video with DSLRs,
iPads and iPhones. Even to standing up during the church ceremony and blocking others view of the ceremony.

Some clerics now announce that ppl shouldn't shoot in church, wait till they get outside.

The OP says he won't ever use a DSLR, ppl think he's a stills photog and ask him to take shots of them.

Cheers.

Just in case my original post wasn't clear, there were 10 videographers representing one company to shoot the wedding.

I cannot believe that there were 10 camera operators all working at the same time. It's a large number of crew though even if a couple are gofers plus one or two sound guys unless each camera operator had a focus puller.

There are companies whose prices begin at $7K and go up much, much higher, but I had no idea they used so many shooters.

Sounds believable.

I've heard Asian weddings tend to have many videographers.

I've done a few weddings where we had four videographers and two photographers all working under the same company. Since we all use DSLRs, it basically looked like there were 6 photographers.

Were they trying to achieve a Matrix bullet time shot at a wedding? lol

There are companies whose prices begin at $7K and go up much, much higher, but I had no idea they used so many shooters.

I don't think the number of cameras equates to high prices. I think that's more artistry and you don't need that many cameras.

What I've seen is videographers with too many backup cameras. The same as today's photographers might 3hoot several thousand shots. Why?
I think often times talent is substituted with equipment and redundancy. It's the way of the world now.

Al

about 8 or 9 too much!!!





:-)

Were they trying to achieve a Matrix bullet time shot at a wedding? lol

Would have made the throwing of the bouquet something quite unique!

I shoot a concert with seven cameras these days...by myself.

I'm astounded that more wedding videographers aren't using remote control cameras. I can see so many potential shots in the ceremony that are basically fixed positions to get specific events, requiring only minor adjustments. I can imagine that coordinating all those shooters would be much more trouble than dealing with a far larger number of fixed/remote cameras. Start them all at the same time, don't stop until the ceremony is over. Edius can handle 16 cameras at once.

You know Videographers are always wondering why brides have more respect and willingness to pay Still photographers so much more for their services. One reason is because photographers are leaders and not followers.

I know a couple of still photographers that charge between $3500 and $6500 and they work alone. So I take they are not making money on abundance of equipment. Nor the latest greatest equipment.

Sadly I now some still photographers who work in herds of 4 and 5 shooting thousands of snaps and average $1500 to $2500.

And to think that videographers for whatever reason want to shoot in 5, 6 and more cameras is turning a wedding into a circus. and I think at the end of the day the average bride has to look at you like a clown. Mainly because all that matters to them is the end result. Not how you got there, what you shot with or how many cameras and people involved.

I would have to ask why? Are you unable to tell a story otherwise? Are you charging so much money that it warrants this? Are you doing it because others are doing it.

And this whole notion that the camera is unmanned is bull. it's still cost, equipment, time, work, before, during and after. And it's also multiple locations. I would bet you that most any videographer using 5 or more cameras would be embarrassed to tell how much they get for the job.

And just in case I'm wrong if anybody is willing to reveal what their getting for this type of service I'm listening?

And this whole notion that the camera is unmanned is bull. it's still cost, equipment, time, work, before, during and after. And it's also multiple locations.
I shoot concerts with multiple cameras simply because I cannot do as good a job as I wish without them. And if I were to shoot a wedding, I'd want to use a lot of cameras there as well because I don't believe I could get the coverage I want to get without them. Setting them up is not a huge amount of work in the whole scheme of things, and my software allows me to handle quite a few cameras easily.

Chris,
First let me say that comment was not directed at you are anybody specifically. My comment was more broad in nature.

But I think most of us know what things cost and how much time is involved. But the point is we're running a business. I'm an Edius user as well. But there's a limit to editing multiple cameras that is more of a business decision as opposed to how many cameras Edius will handle.

What we are starting to do is give away the store just because we can or because we feel we can't tell the story otherwise. The bigger question is where does this fit into the financial side of our business?
It sound like a client calls for a job and my plan is to just throw everything I got at it because I could?

I could see if the business model was as it is in a normal production environment. You want 1 camera you pay this. You want 2 cameras you pay for the second. On and on. Say for instance when I contract a audio guy on one of my shoots and I tell him I need a mixer, 2 lavs and a stick, fine, he gives me a price. If I call him the night before the shoot and say the client wants to add 2 more lavs and they want a digital recording, I get billed for that. And I have to pass it through to the client. He's billing me for time and equipment as he should. He's not just saying cool, I'll just throw that stuff in the bag because I got it. He's running a business.

But it seems as there is a new breed of videographer who has just thrown pricing for service and equipment to the wind?

Is it me? Does anybody else see that happening?

And again that's why i think the average videographer doing these types of shoots would be embarrassed to tell what they really make for this.

I'm astounded that more wedding videographers aren't using remote control cameras. I can see so many potential shots in the ceremony that are basically fixed positions to get specific events, requiring only minor adjustments.

Many years ago, I tried shooting 4 cameras via remote control with the Grizzly remote system. Big time fail. During the processional of the ceremony, I could shoot wide/medium wide shots as the bridesmaids came down the aisle. No closeups were possible of the bride/father as movement was too fast for the remote control. In essence, I was stuck with a bunch of wide shots that had no impact. During the ceremony, as the mass proceeded with homily, songs, candle lighting, vows, etc, I could only move one camera at a time, which ultimately was too slow for what I needed. In the end, I worked with 4 wide shots from different angles which looked like crap! I know you're thinking it's not so difficult to set up a shot ahead of time ( I thought that too) but actually doing it remotely was a whole different story! I would never attempt it again. Ever. Live and learn.

Many years ago, I tried shooting 4 cameras via remote control with the Grizzly remote system. Big time fail. During the processional of the ceremony, I could shoot wide/medium wide shots as the bridesmaids came down the aisle. No closeups were possible of the bride/father as movement was too fast for the remote control. In essence, I was stuck with a bunch of wide shots that had no impact. During the ceremony, as the mass proceeded with homily, songs, candle lighting, vows, etc, I could only move one camera at a time, which ultimately was too slow for what I needed. In the end, I worked with 4 wide shots from different angles which looked like crap! I know you're thinking it's not so difficult to set up a shot ahead of time ( I thought that too) but actually doing it remotely was a whole different story! I would never attempt it again. Ever. Live and learn.
I'm shooting concerts using two pan-tilt heads from cross angles, one wide, two manually operated and two fixed and close up on drums and keyboards.I'm not trying to cover a lot of movement with the pan-tilt heads. I'm moving them while covering something else with the manually operated cameras.

It's worked out well for me, but I'm looking at a much faster pan-tilt head. The Grizzly looks like it's based on those Bescor heads that look like they were designed back in the days of VHS-C camcorders.

I run 2 to 3 cameras at a typical wedding ceremony. If I can I get someone to run one of them for me and have one lock down, if not 2 lockdowns. I shoot as if the camera in my hands is the only one running. So far, it's worked for me.
More cameras of any kind (unmanned) means more setup/strike time, more gear to carry around, more things that could go wrong, and frankly more headaches than I could possibly want at this stage of my career. HOWEVER, having said that IF you're in a situation and have the man power and it's an appropriate venue and type of event that you could use more cameras, great, go for it. As I said before, I've done some where we had 4 to 5 cameras all manned BUT we each had a specific responsibility and weren't going helter-skelter. I agree with Al to a point, don't just throw gear out there to cover yourself (I'm talking weddings here not seminars, trade shows or concerts ---all very different animals) and as importantly, if you're going to put 10 cameras out, CHARGE for it. If not, IMHO, you're lowering the value of all of us.

Guys,

There's that old "law of diminishing returns" to consider.

I offer a substantial discount for single camera shoots, but explain to the client the pros and cons. Personally, from a business point of view, the single camera shoots are not only less hassle, but usually more profitable as well, even with the discount. In the "olden days" we called it "shoot to edit."

It still works. And as I get older, I appreciate not lugging so much gear around. Plus less chance of gear disappearing too.

The only time I really push multicam to a client is when I feel it's really necessary to do a good job. Like recent trade show where I was shooting product demos of boom lifts etc. Having one camera with wide angle was essential to show the extended booms properly while second camera handled the spokesperson, closeups of the equipment etc.

For the wedding clients I explain single cam is like having a professional news videographer shooting the wedding with pro gear vs. a friend with a cell phone or handy cam. And of course, the professional editing. Just only one camera. Plus save a little more money for the honeymoon.

******Personally, from a business point of view, the single camera shoots are not only less hassle, but usually more profitable as well***************

I agree Roger and I always kept my base price profitable in relation to time spent. When you figure the cost of equipment and the hours spent in filming, plus post, a lot of videographers have just created themselves a low paying job, nothing more.

And that's happening in a lot of industries, even more so because of the economy. The temptation is go low and at least I will have work.
It works to some degree for the individual doing it, but the industry as a whole suffers.

I don't do weddings, I do concerts, and always do it with multiple cameras. I suppose, at the end of the day, I do it for myself. To try to do what I do with a single camera - unrehearsed, with no idea who is going to play what - would be a LOT more work than setting up and breaking down a bunch of cameras. So by shooting with multiple cameras, I always have something to go to.

And it's not that much work. I shot two two-hour concerts today with six cameras. I've already transferred all the footage into my editing system and have all the cameras synced (manually - I've never gotten PluralEyes to work, and in the time it takes to prepare the audio for syncing, I'm already done). I'll render proxys tonight, and I can start cutting tomorrow.

I can understand the philosophy behind offering customers different levels of service, but I choose to offer one level and use all the equipment I feel I need to meet my own standards

I shoot weddings and concerts and as far as I am concerned they are totally different animals.

A wedding is shot from various positions in usually a number of different locations, with constantly changing and often unexpected things happening. I usually film with one lightweight rig and sometimes with an additional locked off camera. I have used a second operator but rarely find it necessary.

Live concerts I always shoot with a minimum of 4 cameras, centrally monitored and with inter communication. Sometimes all cameras manned and at others with a couple of cameras locked or on remote, depending on circumstances. Concerts are always predictable with a clearly defined performance area and pre planned camera placings. There is also always time to set up equipment properly including any sound recording. There is a starting and finishing time and not many unpredictable bits.

I do think that some wedding videographers are not comfortable following quickly unfolding and changing events with only one or two cameras. This can lead to wanting to stage manage a wedding to some extent, with multi cameras and pre planned angles and action, which to me intrudes too much on the couple's personal family day and can appear contrived, although this of course is just a personal opinion.

Roger

The Grizzly looks like it's based on those Bescor heads that look like they were designed back in the days of VHS-C camcorders.

Yes they were, and it was back then that I tried using the system and failed at a wedding.

I shoot my weddings with an additional locked off camera at the back of the room/church and a GoPro somewhere appropriate - I also have a locked off camera up near the alter for those churches that will not let me set my tripod in the alter area - If I did not have that camera then I'd see precious little of the couples' faces as quite often the priest will have them stood right at the alter step giving my only a side-on view.

I find multiple cameras like this make an uninteresting 40 minutes or so much more watchable and don't really take up much more editing time IMO

Pete

Yes they were, and it was back then that I tried using the system and failed at a wedding.
People have recommended them to me. I looked at them, and they just struck me as 20+ year old technology. I'll be putting together my own pan-tilt system using servos. (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/spc-single-person-crew/515160-pan-tilt-head-1-lb-camera.html)

weddings is 90% of my business, and my regular weding is 2 to 4 cameras depending on what part of the day we're at, but 10 cameras? Who's going to edit that nightmare?

No quite sure why the issue of multiple cameras is up for debate. Whilst I agree 10 cameras and operators is excessive, I film with 3 cameras for Ceremony, Speeches and 1st Dance - with recent upgrades to my cameras I have the equipment and I like the variety of camera angles when it comes to editing. There are other advantages too. A recent Wedding where the Priest made it clear both Photographers and myself were to stay at the back of the church would have been a real problem especially as during the vows, the Bride and Groom were surrounded by the Bridesmaids in tight formation due to the small size of the church. With a single camera I would have gotten very poor shots - backs of heads, except I was able to negotiate the placing of an unmanned camera that captured a perfect shot of the Bride giving her vows. I'm not going to be persuaded to give up a multicam workflow anytime soon.

There is a big difference between using three cameras & what Rod Liddle in The Guardian referred to as a Goatfuck Massive scrum of reporters, radio people, photographers on ladders, television cameras etc at a press conference. The goatfuck frequently takes on a life of its own as all participants heave around to get closer to the the object of their journalistic desire. This can lead to unseemly behaviour.

I agree and I'm always respectful of the couples day and give them space, but my last reply was more directed at the comments regarding the merits of multi camera filming of Weddings generally.

Chance would be a fine thing! I'm filming at a priory next month where I'm only allowed 1 camera (no additional cameras at all) and I have to stand with it halfway down one of the side isles - A nice view of the back of the B&G's heads - plus it's a really dark interior and I'll be quite a distance away so will have to zoom in quite a lot - My Sony EA50 lens ramps badly so may switch to my 5D3 and 70-200 f2.8 for the ceremony - not ideal though!

I've filmed there once before and the vicar will not negotiate at all :(

Pete

Pete, on the bright side it will be a doddle to edit.

I've heard of people using 8 or 9 videographers for very large weddings. (In contrast, I think Stellios on this board has talked about shooting Greek island weddings for 1,000+ people... perhaps just by himself.) ......

Yes I have done that and still doing that,just me and my one camera.But you know what? it's quality not quantity that counts...

Stelios

My wife loves to watch "Housewives" on Bravo. For one of the shows there was a "celebrity" wedding held outside on a platform built over the pool. I would guess there were at least 6 camera operators for that one. I know there was a least a jib. There may have been a steadicam op too. Funny thing was it turned out pretty crappy IMO. I saw so many out of focus or poorly framed shots I was shocked. (Hope none of them read this). I can easily think of why 6 cameras for a high end wedding would be good, but 10 I think it pushing it unless its a very large church. Yes of course most weddings should be affordably and well done with just 1 or 2 cameras, but it really depends on the level of the finished product needed. I think at around 6 you are getting to the law of diminishing returns. Some variation of a long lens fixed in the back, medium/wide fixed in the back, 1 or 2 stedicams, 1 or 2 fixed on the sides and a jib would be 7, but the jib or jibs could be substituted for some of the fixed cameras depending on location.

I think the way the person said "360" isn't really thinking through some of the possibilities all the cameras I am talking about would give to an editor. Again this is an extreme example. Another example would be going to the extreme where you are mixing cameras with differing depths of field for additional creative shots.

I know the stedicam may not work (cuz of the tendency to be in the shot), but maybe there is a way. Would be interesting to see if anyone has seen one for a wedding.

Yes I have done that and still doing that,just me and my one camera.But you know what? it's quality not quantity that counts...

Stelios


Capture all the right moments, have the emotion in your film and your bride/groom won't say squat about your work!

It can all be done solo. Having more than 1 videographer is just to ease the pressure on the day! you still have to edit it all on your own.

But the way I see it ... if I can handle it on my own, that's more profit for me.

More than one person filming is for two reasons that I can think of: 1) be in more than one place at a time; 2) backup in case an emergency happens.

For us, it's two people with three cameras because during the ceremony, we want the bride's face; groom's face; and a third camera for anything else. Yes, it gives us backup on the footage, but mostly, when I edit, it's nice to have choices since people are unpredictable (we're not that experienced yet) and it's safer to have someone filming all the time to catch that one moment you might have missed.

Perhaps this crew that did a 10 videographer for a wedding are just doing it pro bono, to gain experience, at list 1 of them is getting paid by how much, we'll never know, and after the session the guy that was paid will host a beer party elsewhere or at his place, gather the SD cards and place it on his hard drive. Thats only my imagination.

From what I understand, the company in Honolulu has been in business for at least 7 years, and for that wedding they had 1 jib arm, 2 steadicams, 1 video camera, and 6 DSLRs. I have no idea what they charge for their services.

From what I understand, the company in Honolulu has been in business for at least 7 years, and for that wedding they had 1 jib arm, 2 steadicams, 1 video camera, and 6 DSLRs. I have no idea what they charge for their services.

Well editing that footage would be a nightmare (well unless they only rolled for specific shots) and possibly communicated via headsets. Even then how do you ensure all the cameras are set to look the same? Frankly the photographer(s) also should be working for the same company. If everything is pre-planned (on paper) there is actually a lot which can be shot. I missed how you could even have several cameras on the audience to get their reactions (as B-roll). Audience shots are difficult to get, but can really add to he whole experience if done right.

Just in case my original post wasn't clear, there were 10 videographers representing one company to shoot the wedding.

That company must advertise on Craigslist and hires everyone who responds to their ad!

Audience shots are difficult to get, but can really add to he whole experience if done right.

Random thought: I was watching what looked like at least a three-camera wedding last night, one in the aisle, and two close-ups.

During the "You may now kiss your bride", the aisle camera got the kiss in a midshot, and the other two cameras spun around and got crying/clapping from parents.

So I thought that was kind of different... to me anyway. Normally, at that moment, I'm transfixed in the close-up, but maybe that is one of the moments you're most likely to get good reactions from audience, and maybe the emotion on the faces of the couple is often blocked by the smooching anyway.

Sadly I now some still photographers who work in herds of 4 and 5 shooting thousands of snaps

I literally laughed out loud envisioning photographers roaming the plains as a herd.

For the wedding videographers (I don't do weddings), there is an interesting read on the BBC web site at Wedding photos: When snap-happy guests go too far - CNN.com (http://us.cnn.com/2013/06/28/living/wedding-photography-unplugged/?iref=obinsite) titled "Wedding photos: When snap-happy guests go too far" that ties in to the original post.

Like the song lyrics says, "... the times they are a changin' ...."

Here are a couple excerpts:

"More and more, how a couple chooses to document their wedding is yet another extension of their collective identity."

"Some couples are crowdsourcing images from guests to complement or even replace professional photography. At the same time, some couples are asking guests to "unplug" and put away their cameras and phones altogether."

One sentence was of interest, even though I wouldn't be interested in doing it, ".. crowdsourced pictures allow the couple to see the day through guests' eyes."

New term: "Crowdsourcing [your wedding] images"?

The article seemed to be extolling the benefits of crowdsourcing wedding images and really didn't say enough about the downside to the professional documentation. Given this seems to be on the increase it would be good for the videographer or photographer to ask questions before booking about what the couple's policy with regard to guest photography will be. It's possible they might not even have thought about it.

I think I noticed several people shooting video with their I-Pad sized tablets at my most recent event shoot, not just taking photos. It's becoming more and more common. Not a crowd yet, so it's not quite crowd sourcing for video yet. I doubt that it will be much longer.

Everyone probably saw the pics comparing the latest Pope announcement vs. the last one - a flock of small LCD panels dominate the "current" one. Not just one or two, but ALMOST EVERY hand raised!!

Certainly cameras are getting better, but there's still plenty of "consumer grade" stuff (as in it's pretty NASTY image quality wise) that people "think" is great... yep, I'm sure the odds are with the game of "if you shoot enough shots some will be good", but that's a lot of drek!

And there are LOTS of situations where a simple bit of professional gear makes ALL the difference between a crappy photo, a "good" photo, and a GREAT photo. If people are satisfied with "so-so", I guess that's fine, but if it's ALSO getting in the way of GREAT, that IS a problem... I've had guests just wander into and out of shots like they "belong" there, when they DEFINITELY did not! If they are snapping pix with a cheap-o P&S to top it off, it's even more rediculous! Sadly, I don't think people understand quality differences and why some gear and some expense is necessary if you want really good results...

And too, the skill of the camera operator is a HUGE factor - all the gear in the world WILL NOT compensate for lack of talent! Sure, you COULD "crowdsource" but this is uncomfortably close to being the equivalent of 1000 monkeys with typewriters....

Shooting "professionally" is more and more of a challenge with everyone and their dog (cats too) having a camera... the opportunity for mediocrity has expanded exponentially... and the likelyhood that your shot will get blocked by a stupid LCD from someone not thinking and just doing whatever is certainly an increasing frustration!