My wife and I have recently started our own videography business. I have shot and edited weddings for family and friends over the years and decided to really get into it. Its something we can do together and we love it! We are shooting with an XF100 and 6D and are learning to make the two compatible, especially in low light situations where color and noise can be a bit of a problem with the XF. This video was shot freehand, before i aquired a shoulder brace for the 6D so you may have to excuse a slight shake here and there! That problem has recently been solved!

Any comments and suggestions are appreciated!

Jolene and Javier Wedding Highlights on Vimeo

Derek,
First off congratulations on getting into the most cut throat end of the business possible.

Put on your helmet for the incoming.

That said, on this forum are some of the BEST wedding shooters I have ever seen.

They make me so glad that i got out of the business when I did. The talent, the time, equipment and effort is far beyond any of my aspirations when I was in the business.

While many no doubt will, I don't think that you are ready for critique just yet. I think you need to learn and explore your equipment intensely in every possible scenario, over and over. You need to develop some synergy with your (wife) second shooter.

More so I would suggest you just watch over and over the many wedding videos you see posted by some folks on this site, which are some of the best in the business. Watch the techniques and then develop your own style from those techniques.

The thing that strikes me most about wedding video's today is that they are a bombardment of "beauty shots" I did not see any beauty shots in your video.

Keep working at it...You will have a bright future in this wonderful business!

It would be interesting to know if this Is the only source of income for you and your wife?

That said, on this forum are some of the BEST wedding shooters I have ever seen.

Did I hear someone call my name? :D

I think the video started great the first 30 seconds but went downhill from there, the shake wasn't that much of an issue, the out of focus and blown highlights shots where. The best looking shots I saw in that video where the ones from the xf100 when everyone was leaving the church at 03:52 and was in big contrast with the 6d shot. The xf100 had balanced color, good exposure and good focus while the 6d was overexposed and out of focus.

The editing could use some trimming as well, the signing of the register e.g. was dragging on too long. For a highlight not much is happening that can keep the attention, like I would expect some more prep shots or from the evening part with some speeches.

Most important advice I can give you is to learn to master the 6d better, a shoulderbrace, tripod and so on is a start but are useless if you can't get the focus and exposure right. A dslr in general is very difficult to handle and a real hand full in run and gun.

Thanks Noa, this is only the second wedding i've shot with the 6d and the lighting was a big challenge as it changed a lot from back to front. The 6D is quite a handful, the stabilizer helps to have hands free to focus but the shallow DOF is hard to work with when the aperture needs to be so low. The 6D is great for B-roll but during the ceremony find myself wanting the XF back!

This package was a ceremony only with no prep or reception which can make it difficult to keep the video interesting for 4 minutes. A lot of our potential clients in our area fail to the importance of a good wedding video and the price that comes with it. All pay thousands of dollars for a photographer and think 800 is too much for a wedding video. I know we are not to the level of many of you on here but every wedding we shoot we have achieved better results and hope to continue on the course!

There was a battalion of soldiers back from a tour of duty marching in perfect order and step, past the cheering crowds. That is is all but one soldier who was clearly out of step with all the other polished and immaculate guys. A woman's voice rang out from the crowd above the general noise "Look, there's my son, he's the only one in Step!"

Well Derek, I'm that soldier, out of step with just about everybody else here, so please don't take offence at what I am about to say.

You ask the question that couples will pay thousands for a photographer but why do they bulk at $800 for a wedding video. Others confirm that it is a highly competetiveness business and clients can be difficult to find and seem to be wanting to pay as little as possible. To me, the answer to your question is glaringly obvious, why would a couple want to pay thousands of dollars for a music video set to clips from their wedding?

You have said that you and your wife want to build a business together filming weddings, which is what my wife and I do as our main income. (This is my 30th year of producing wedding video) However you have entered this competetive business, having been heavily influenced by the style and equipment of most videographers here who admit that times can be challenging.

What you have shown, is a piece of Romantic (?) music set with some clips from the wedding, with some very brief original sound. Lots of out of focus footage, popularly called shallow depth of field, camera shake and burnt out footage. All taken with a camera designed for still photographs, in common with a large proportion of wedding videographers on this forum. All of the emotion of the day is missing, along with the laughter and the atmosphere, the girl singing and just about everything else that makes a wedding a once in a lifetime experience for the couple.

Unfortunately, it seems that the fashion is to make 'Wedding videos' that appear like pop videos or film trailers, using all the techniques displayed in those styles, such as shallow DoF, glide cams, dollys, music etc
to produce something that has visual impact but has little to do with the wedding. If people were lining up to book these videos at photographers prices, then I might see the commercial point, but THEY ARE NOT!! It has been pointed out ad nauseum that probably less than 10% of weddings have a video.

The fashionable highlights video could be just as easily cobbled together with the photographer's still shots, using pans and zooms at the editing stage and overdubbing some sound clips and music. It makes me think that most current videographers come from a photographic background and just don't get video. It's not something that I would pay out big bucks for.

A wedding in my opinion, is a once in a lifetime experience for most people, it involves high emotion, many different activities and moments, emotional speeches and words and most importantly, family and friends gathered together, perhaps for the first and perhaps only time. It doesn't matter whether people on this forum feel that the speeches and people laughing and joking are boring and that nobody wants to sit through that. They are wrong, as that is exactly what family and friends do want, they want to relive the events that happened too quicky to take in on the day.

The skill in capturing those events is not by using lots of equipment and special techniques, but by looking and listening to everything that is going on around you all day. The emotion and drama are already there, so taking it all out and replacing it with clever shots and soppy music may look pretty, but once seen, it will be chucked in the drawer with the photo album.

A whole day cannot possibly be captured in a few minutes of footage, any more than watching a movie trailer will save watching the movie. The cop out of course is to give them the raw footage of the ceremony, reception and speeches, as though it is of no interest. In my opinion, that is exactly where the interest is, in the little things that go on to show people's personality, emotion and humour. My videos are always over 90 minutes and I struggle to keep them within two hours quite often. I have never had any client say that their video was too long or boring in about 2000 weddings, although I have had many ask if I had any extra footage. By all means do an additional trailer video, but learn how to put real skill and emotion into your main event.

Finally, your footage was mainly handheld footage shot with a stills camera that you had difficulty in keeping in focus and getting the exposure right. On the other hand, I saw a perfectly good video camera on a tripod, with presumably your wife operating it, that would have given much better results. If you insist on using an unsuitable stills camera to video the most important day of someone's life, use it as the B Cam for arty shots, but use the stable full depth of field video camera for what is was intended - shooting video.

Just as a footnote, over the last 12 months, I have shown my work to many potential clients on viewings, with the general response being that it is the first time they have seen what they actually want. I have a 100% suuccess rate over that period, with viewings to bookings.

I'll now don the tin helmet and flak jacket for incoming, but remember that I am a voice in the wilderness and it is just my opinion. :-)

Good luck with the venture,

Roger

Hey Derek, it was mainly the shake that worried me. I didn't think focus or exposure were awful. In fact, because most of the video was fine (in my opinion anyway), I'm sure you can see any out-of-focus or overexposed bits and don't need them to be pointed out.

I enjoyed the video. Please keep posting.

I guess I also better put on the flak helmet!

I totally agree with Roger and I really cannot see the reasoning behind trying to show off clever rack focus and shallow DOF on a day where the whole emphasis should be about the bride and not how masterful and clever the cameraman is with his tools.

Sure, I totally admit it is a skilful bit of work and looks very cool and so called "cinematic" but for me that's not what I would want to see if I was a bride at all. I want to see me and my bridal party, the emotion and hear my vows when I say them. For me it would be memories I can cherish many years from now because that was how it really happened.

Then again I don't make wedding films that make me look good. I make a documentation of the day that portrays exactly what happened and when it happened.

My apologies if that doesn't impress but that's my concept and probably Roger's too.

As a work of art to show off the skills and effort of the cameraman it excels, there is no doubt about that but wedding films/videos/movies shouldn't be about the cameraman it should be about the couple.

Chris

I fully agree with Roger and Chris. What Chris said and I quote" I make a documentation of the day that portrays exactly what happened and when it happened" apply to my videos as well and that is the reason I will never shoot a video with a DSLR camera. I am not Steven Spielberg nor George Loukas nor JJ Abraams, I am just Stelios showing what happens with center actor the bride!!!

stelios

Hi Stelios

My Sony's are actually DSLR's in a video body (EA-50's) as they have the APS-C sensor ...you can quite easily use a DSLR or big sensor camera for normal video without going crazy on DOF. I shoot with mine as if they are normal video cameras and they do well.

BTW: I delivered my Greek wedding done last Saturday to the bride's mother and she loved it!! I just used my main camera on the couple from the front of the Church (sort of back to front) but had to be on my toes and watch when the father went up front to talk. I covered cutaways on the 2nd EA-50 and then to cover me for the bits where I had to swing the 1st camera around I had a GoPro up on the balcony.

Thanks for all your advice over the last month

Chris

There is nothing wrong with documentary style, it was my weapon of choice. I would not doubt that you will find a bride here and there that would truly prefer documentary style shooting. But by and large, if price was not a concern cinema style shooting would win hands down.

So rather then knock the cinema style, what I always did was look at the people who were doing the best work and what they charged, and focused on becoming a better sales person so I could make top dollar in my chosen style.

'If price was not a concern cinema style would win hands down' Who says? There is no evidence to support your assertion, certainly not based on the fact that 90% of weddings don't have a video at all. I would support the theory that if a show of hands was taken on who produces cinematic shorts rather than full length documentary, cinematic would win hands down. Are you also suggesting that a short cinematic trailer video will cost more than a documentary style? Sorry I don't agree with that either.

Perhaps the OP can be encouraged to consider wider options than just jumping into an already saturated style by researching carefully. Extremely well carried out work in any field doesn't guarantee sales even if you were always able to command top prices for your work in the past.

Roger

Derek,

More so I would suggest you just watch over and over the many wedding videos you see posted by some folks on this site, which are some of the best in the business. Watch the techniques and then develop your own style from those techniques.


Or not. Wedding videos, even good ones can be saccharin laced compilations that to me seem harder to watch as the production values increase. Maybe set your sights higher and study romantic films and pay particular attention to how music is used to heighten emotions and how it otherwise stays out of the way. Watching this video I felt completely removed from the ceremony because the soundtrack excluded most of the dialogue. The speeches, the vows and comments are what will cause repeated viewings, not a dominating pop music track. The only thing that makes this type of shoot unique are the people involved on that given day.

I would be one of those cinematographers. Except that for me, when starting, it never occured to me that the cinematic style trailer would stand alone. I only ever saw it as an add-on.

I deliver footage of the full ceremony and speeches (multicam) and footage of guests and the first four dances.

I pretty much do exactly what Roger and others do, except I also do a cinematic highlights trailer on top. (Because I can!)

For those that say, it has no dialogue etc... - well the rest of the DVD is where you find that.

The Cinematic trailer serves its purpose.

And guess what - people book because of it. End of argument right there. Unless you want to start a campaign telling brides why they only think they want something but you can set them straight.


-----------

Now to your video.

You are aware of the shake. I would advise taking the lack of freedom on the chin and going for tripod. If you want somewhere in between, get a Manfrotto video monopod like the 561B. Like others have said, watch the exposure.

One more thing nobody has mentioned. You are getting flicker/banding. This is because of the frequency of light coming from the church lighting. You can remove or minimise this by choosing a different shutter speed.

You were clearly limited by it being only the ceremony. I quite liked how you switched up the scene order. Its something I never can be bothered doing, but it shows creativity.

I thought the opening 30 seconds was right up there.

But please, no more handheld.

I look forward to seeing more!

A good sensible post Duane and one I wholeheartedly concur with. Another point that is worth mentioning, is that all the short forms posted on this forum (and there are many) are only of relevance to this forum. Most of them show good techniques and editing skills, with many eliciting glowing reviews from members including me on occasion. This encourages others to aspire to that same level of ability and skill, but in the real world can often lead to a specialised appeal only.

I filmed a wedding three weeks ago where the speeches totalled 45 minutes, full of family references and jokes that meant absolutely nothing to me. The idea of uploading that to this forum is laughable as it would be completely boring and pointless to members. However I delivered the finished video to the couple two weeks later and they both laughed and cried through the speeches as the references and jokes were very personal and emotional to them.. So the point I am making, is that what we see on this forum may show great skill but is not necessarily indicative of what Brides want.

I know my views are only shared by a few, but I really believe that cinematic short wedding video is a luxury item in terms of importance for outlay. I would compare it with the couple having a portrait painted, a lovely piece of art, but something that only a limited number would be prepared to pay out for. On the other hand, I see a documentary of the day as being the only way that the couple will ever see what their wedding day was actually like, and a must have record of their day to keep for many years. I find the documentary style very easy to sell to a couple when I visit them to show what it is all about and how much detail is captured.

I enjoy viewing cinematic style videos as much as anyone and have no problem with people producing and selling them, but it is not the answer to the small video take up in my opinion.

Roger

Clive, I also totally agree with your post, as the cinematic highlights as an add on, is a great way for the friends and those who don't know the family to see a short version, and also as a promotion tool for those that don't need to see the detail of other people's weddings.

It is something that I have considered adding to my own service, as it covers what I see as the long term value of a wedding video and the impact and fun of the cinematic short.

Roger

I have never had any client say that their video was too long or boring in about 2000 weddings

Clients have different expectations and yours want a long form, "I want to have to all" kind of wedding documentary style kind of video, nothing wrong with that, but you make it sound like this is what everyone wants and all videographers that don't supply that are just preoccupied with themselves.

My current style is to edit a 20 minute film that includes all the highlights throughout the day, but I supply the ceremony and all speeches completely as well if that is what my client wants, and they do request that, every time.

My clients love the fact that they can show a short form film to their family and friends because they don't want everyone to endure a 2 hour long film. But in case there is a "die hard" that says, to bad I can't see the ceremony completely and then "surprise!", they select that part on the dvd.

My clients also love the fact they can have a 5 minute film online to share through their facebook contacts, they love it contains all the emotional bits with all the eyecandy shots a glidecam, slider and shallow dof shots can provide. This is also the best marketing tool ever which, beside the hosting cost on vimeo, doesn't cost you one cent.

Most of my clients actually pick me because of my online trailers and there is quite some steadicam and shallow dof footage in there. Those are not the most important tools but they do contribute into the way people experience their film if used at the right time.

Like the moment when everyone has taken their seat in the venue and the couple is doing their first entrance. I"m with them behind close doors standing right behind them, you hear the dj announcing the couple, the bride looks back at me, into my camera with a big nervous smile,you see them squeezing hands looking at each-other, you hear the crowd cheering but from a distance as the doors are still closed, then they open, the cheering sounds swells and they walk or run inside, holding their hands high in the air as if they just won a competition, the crowd welcomes them like they have just returned from a victorious battle and while that is all going on, I"m right there behind them, capturing every single moment in one continuous smooth flowing shot, I raise my glide cam up high as well so you can look over the cheering crowd.

That moment and that moment only, is worth the investment of my steadicam that you can never capture in a right way with one camera on a tripod or handheld, that my friend, is a very short moment of pure cinema...

Derek, about the part's I found that where dragging to long and some other bit awkward editing choices I might have better pointed out what I meant. When they went of to sign the register, you see them moving from the position where they got married to the table where they have to sign, the camera pans and follows them, you see them sit down, next shot is another camera angle following the moment the bride that is sitting down, then again another camera shot, we still see the bride sitting with a bridesmaid putting her dress in order. That sequence alone is much too long, for me as a viewer there is nothing interesting into the fact that the bride is sitting down.

Then we see a person saying something and the couple looking and then the signing starts, here I also would have used live sound to hear what was being said, maybe just a very short part of something meaningful.

The signing parts should also be cut shorter, like teh moment between 2 persons signing, here we are waiting, looking at the person putting ready another sheet to sign, and that again is not interesting to the viewer, they only want to see the action. At the end of the signing you see a guy putting the pen back on the paper, again here this doesn't add anything interesting.

Then you see the couple walking up to the table to light the candles, again here the part where they go to the table is not needed, just the part where they light the candle.

Also at 01:35 you make some very quick short edits cut to the music, those shots that you add are first of all to short for the viewer to see what is going on and they seem to be out of their place as well with some random quick inserts of what is going to happen.

These are just a few of the parts which did not feel right to me, editing is even more difficult then to handle your dslr :) Everyone can cut a video but only a few manage to get to the point where they have the feeling there is nothing more to take out, only then you will know you have a great film. Also I am trying to reach that point in every edit I do, sometimes I almost get there, sometimes I don't but I don't give up trying :)

I know the handheld was mentioned and not too bad really either, but anyway my big thing and it's a personal taste thing is the little blurry bits at the start and end of some clips, call it arty or creative, i'd call it crap sorry!
The only other thing that annoyed me was around 1:40 it looked like it was running out of control a bit and jumping in and out of sequence which to me appeared slightly confusing.

overall pretty nice tho!

I've used a 5D to take video shots on a few events i was covering as a stills photographer, I found it very difficult to prevent the OOF shots and the all the other challenges that the DSLR presents, when you do manage to get everything right it does look great! but it takes loads of practice then more and more again to master it. So if i'm doing video only the 5D is my C cam and i think i'd have it on around f11 or something!!!

I'm like some of the above in that I provide a full long movie of the whole day with chapters - it usually is around 60 -70 minutes (thats for the B&G and immediate family) I edit this footage down to around 15/17 minutes short movie no chapters (this is for when friends come and the B&G can show the wedding that wont bore the pants off everyone!) and i edit this down to 3/4 minutes and deliver it on whatever format suits their favourite social media site or smart phone etc.

just my ¢2

Hi Rob

Oh dear..another lamb to the slaughter ! It seems that here blurry bits are considered cool and artsy. However surely the bottom line is does the bride like it? I was shown a competitor's sample DVD by a bride who was totally disgusted with the fact that her face was "clear" but her flowers were blurry ...another bride might of course consider the same clip as stunning so it's really what the bride wants rather than what we think she wants.

Don't get me wrong, I have great admiration for the guys who are spending huge amounts of time getting focus with tiny DOF absolutely perfect and achieving clever rack focus shots and if that's what turns your client's on then great. My brides are obviously different and seldom like the commonly used white flash transitions used in between shots and will tolerate reasonable DOF shots as long as important shots are all in focus and not overdone.

The biggest problem here is that your submitted clips are being reviewed by fellow videographers and not by brides who are really the client and should be be the ones saying what they like and don't like.

All we can do here is give technical comments here and hope it helps the OP in achieving a better result

Take all comments posted as useful despite the bickering and learn from them.

Chris

Like the moment when everyone has taken their seat in the venue and the couple is doing their first entrance. I"m with them behind close doors standing right behind them, you hear the dj announcing the couple, the bride looks back at me, into my camera with a big nervous smile,you see them squeezing hands looking at each-other, you hear the crowd cheering but from a distance as the doors are still closed, then they open, the cheering sounds swells and they walk or run inside, holding their hands high in the air as if they just won a competition, the crowd welcomes them like they have just returned from a victorious battle and while that is all going on, I"m right there behind them, capturing every single moment in one continuous smooth flowing shot, I raise my glide cam up high as well so you can look over the cheering crowd.


BOOM - you just knocked that right out of the ballpark as the Americans like to say. I'd also like to add that all my cinematic style shots are also sprinkled throughout the documentary style sections of my dvd where they chronologically happened. This spices up the dullness.

Another thing that I was thinking about is this. I reckon guys like Roger will always get clients who want guys like Roger. But I don't think us cinematographer types are treading on his ground. I actually think most of my clients are people who were going to 'not bother' with a 'boring video' - that is until they realized it could be something slick, exciting and make them look like superstars. I believe what I do encourages doubters to in the end opt for a wedding video.

I reckon guys like Roger will always get clients who want guys like Roger. But I don't think us cinematographer types are treading on his ground. I actually think most of my clients are people who were going to 'not bother' with a 'boring video' - that is until they realized it could be something slick, exciting and make them look like superstars. I believe what I do encourages doubters to in the end opt for a wedding video.

I agree with this. If a bride looked at Roger's work (or any documentary filmmakers work, not picking on Roger) and wanted a cinematic style then they would never call Roger. If that's the style they wanted then they would call Roger. You're going to attract the brides that like your style.

Another thing that I was thinking about is this. I reckon guys like Roger will always get clients who want guys like Roger. But I don't think us cinematographer types are treading on his ground. I actually think most of my clients are people who were going to 'not bother' with a 'boring video' - that is until they realized it could be something slick, exciting and make them look like superstars. I believe what I do encourages doubters to in the end opt for a wedding video.

To some extent Clive, you and Daniel are right because 60-70% of my weddings are recommendations, so those people will want want they have seen of my previous work. I also promote the documentary style simply because I feel it has the longer lasting appeal, but not to the denigration of cinematic.

I do think that my outspoken belief in the importance of documentary style though, has led a number of members to feel that I am opposed to cinematic per SE. This is absolutely not the case and if a potential client saw my work and asked if they could have a cinematic short, I would be delighted to provide it.

What I am concerned about though, is that for practical reasons, the wedding uploads on this forum are primarily cinematic short form, which can easily lead new members, particularly those new to filming weddings, to feel that this is the only way to go. There is no doubt that a large proportion of wedding videographers cover this section of the market, and my own experience from wedding shows, websites and client visits, is that cinematic is what most couples tend to see when they are looking for ideas. So bearing in mind that 90% of couples don't have a video, the more options they are offered the better in my view.

Creating a competent cinematic style is very satisfying from a creative and artistic point of view and involves a number of skills, some identical and some different to doc. When done well, it creates impact, has the WOW factor and can be very impressive. What it doesn't do is capture emotion, personality and atmosphere as a historical record. So I really believe that Doc and Cinematic together could widen the appeal of wedding video, without needing to be mutually exclusive or divisive. Think movie trailer and movie, the two are inextricably linked. Some of the trailers shown on the forum have encouraged me to start offering them as an addition to clients, so I certainly don't oppose them.

I believe that those offering both, or a choice of either, are covering a much larger slice of the market and people new to the forum and to producing wedding video should be encouraged to experiment with both styles without a greater emphasis on either.

Roger

My dad used to make long form weddings which lasted 1,5 to 2 hours and even longer and he never changed his way of working untill the day he died. It is also my impression that people who are in the business for many years (+ 20) tend to be the ones that are reluctant to change, they have found a way that works so why change? They also started in the business when long form doc style weddings where the only type of shooting style. Just that you know, my dad had been shooting wedding for over 30 years.

I am sure that strictly documentary that goes on up to 2 hours is much appreciated by the couple that chooses this kind of video because it's their choice and they will watch and re-watch their video, but you can also be sure if they invite their friends to come over and watch that video people will start to talk during the film or the remote will be taken to fast forward through certain parts, I have seen it happen many times in my circle of friends that got married.

You could say that you are working for your client and not for other people but those could be potential clients, also, once you loose attention, the purpose of the film is gone.

That's why I started to make 20 minute highlights and they do contain all emotional parts and include cinematic elements, in these 20 minutes there is no time to fast forward because there is always something going on but it never drags on meaning you don't loose attention.

So I don't agree that cinematic wedding videos are not showing any emotion or personality, in fact, they show it even more then a documentary style film and I know since I have been shooting and editing strictly documentary for several years when I started out. Since you don't need to work chronological with cine style you can use the emotional parts troughout your film and you can change the tempo whenever you want from emotional, to fun and back and that all in a very short time while with doc style your are bound to whatever happens at that certain moment in time. With a cine style you can be much more creative which will give you a much more fun film to watch.

I do deliver the longer parts like speeches and ceremony as well but they are separate files, in the short highlight I take the most important parts but give the client the chance to see it all, from the reactions I get the long pieces only the client and their parents watch, but the short version is being showed to everyone else.

Noa. I have seen examples of your cinematic work and I think that it encapsulates the best of both, but from what I have seen, your's tend to be the exception that others may strive to emulate but rarely do. Most seem to have lost that connection with the actual emotion of the day and I think that is a shame.

I would like to think that any shorts that I may do would put an emphasis on the natural feel, complimented with good editing and cinematic style. You have perfected that method and I have always said that people who aren't close members of the family will have little interest in the full length version. That doesn't change my opinion on it being the essential record of the day, but I do agree that a short version will be of interest to friends and more distant family members as an overview and selecting the cream. That is why I feel that the option of both is maximising the market appeal.

Roger