With the other post regarding long form being preferred over a short form, I also thought about do Brides necessary want shallow depth of field?

I'm actually going to attempt to ask brides etc which they actually prefer, to see what majority want. Obviously, there will be a lot of variables but I'm interested to find out.

High chance a bride won't have a clue in regards to what you're talking about ...

I do a mix of both. As long as you pair up camcorders that match in post, you can deliver both. Keep the shallow depth of field stuff as the 'arty' shots.

What a bride wants depends on the bride, so you're asking a question that is very general. You're actually asking the wrong question.

You're question should be something along the lines of "What do MY brides want/expect?" So to answer your question, you need to understand your market and the brides within it. What market are you serving? Or what market do you WANT to serve? Budget brides cannot expect the same as a bride with a $100K budget. If you are trying to up your prices, then you will need to up your game.

Another approach is to ask yourself what YOU like. What do YOU think looks better? Shots made with a fast lens are beautiful. Does anyone think otherwise? Why do wedding "films" command up to 50K? Lots of reasons, but one of the many reasons is because they are beautiful and pleasing to the eye.

However, just because a cinematic look is more pleasing (and it is, of course) does not mean we HAVE to sell it.

I do not do DOF shots, etc., but I understand that it is a beautiful way to shoot and present a film. Part of me is jealous of others ever since I sold my GH2s.

On the other hand there is certainly a market for well done videos shot with conventional cameras.

Commercials are now shot here in the U.S. using shallow depth of field. Some of them look amazing and are just beautiful. This is what customers are subjected too when they watch television these days. They are spoiled, and so am I.

So, asking what brides want is a loaded question and impossible to answer directly.

Total non-question.

No bride books without seeing samples.

If she likes your samples, and she books - its because she wants more of the same.

If a bride books me its because she wants what I offer.

Hi Matt

When you buy a car, does the manufacturer come to you and say "Matt should we use a 4:1 final ratio gearbox or a 3.75:1 one?"

You are the videographer ..you decide the style. Some brides will love it and book you.. some will hate it and not book you. That's how it works. DOF can be seen as "Why is my husbands face all fuzzy" or "that looks so romantic " Personally I keep things simple and make sure that my subjects are in focus (ie: I control the DOF), the dresses are the right colour and the audio is good.

If you want to shoot everything on an F1.2 aperture and work with only inches of focus is up to you but remember you don't have to impress your friends with clever creative shots, you have to impress the bride so the only way to do that is to show them your style.

Chris

Brides are the wrong people to ask that question. They see what they want or they don't and most can't tell you what they saw that made them use a particular vid person over another. I'm talking from a technical standpoint, not personality.

DoF? They have no clue what you're talking about.

Solid stable, well composed, properly exposed with at the very least GOOD audio preferably, GREAT audio, cut in a way that tells the story of THEIR day in a coherent manner. THATS what they want. They might not be able to express it that way but it's no different than when I go to the doctor. ME; Doctor, my arm hurts when I do this! Doctor: 'Then don't do that' I can't explain in doctor terms whats wrong but I know what I can and can't do. Brides are the same. They can't explain it but they know what they like and what they don't.

IMO don't make it any more complicated. KISS! Keep it simple!

High chance a bride won't have a clue in regards to what you're talking about ...

I do a mix of both. As long as you pair up camcorders that match in post, you can deliver both. Keep the shallow depth of field stuff as the 'arty' shots.

+1, dont ask the bride anything she will not know !you will confuse her!! steve

However, just because a cinematic look is more pleasing (and it is, of course) does not mean we HAVE to sell it.

Jeff, although I agree with most of your post, I would disagree with the above statement. I do agree that in many cases the cinematic look is more pleasing for particular shots, but as a blanket statement it is frequently not more pleasing in my opinion.

Frequently the tendency to add cinematic style to certain shots in many modern video productions, can be intensely irritating, particularly when the focus of the viewer is diverted from important content by the artistic interpretation of a shot. This can be very true in a wedding situation for example where an attempt to create emotion with a shallow dof on the B&G during a critical part of the ceremony, can easily lose a moment of real emotion from Mum or Gran that is going on behind. Or a nice glider reveal from behind a pillar as they walk down the aisle, that misses the good luck charm handed over by the little pageboy just before. These are just two things that I have seen recently where the moment was lost for the sake of the art. Sometimes the videographer or editor's interpretation of a scene into a romantic cinematic moment, can totally miss the actual emotion of the real event.

So I would suggest that those embarking on a wedding video direction do not try to add cinematic style to everything as it can very easily provoke a negative response. When it is appropriate it can't be beaten, when it is inappropriate it can be a disaster.

Roger

So I would suggest that those embarking on a wedding video direction do not try to add cinematic style to everything as it can very easily provoke a negative response. When it is appropriate it can't be beaten, when it is inappropriate it can be a disaster.
Roger

+1

I was looking to see if I could find a post from some time ago, but can't locate it.

It was talking about shooting ceremonies on DSLR with extreme shallow DOF and the bride's mother was complaining that while she could see the bride perfectly, the groom was a little out o focus and she really couldn't make out any of her family or other guests in the front rows very clearly.

The 'cinematographer' told her that this was his style and he felt it showed his camera off to the best of it's abilities.

The mother had apparently replied quite angrily that for the money they were paying he should "get a better camera" because "we wanted to see everything".

Roger, I agree that anything poorly done can be irritating. However, if you look at the top tier of wedding videographers, say, those who command $5K plus, it's shallow DOF and film look all the way, typcically shot on Canon DSLRs or some equivilent. Every shot is not always done with a shallow DOF. I understand that, but for the most part yes, it's how the big boys do it.

On the other hand, more amateurish attempts to shoot in a cinematic style and using DOF inappropriately by those of us who do not know how to pull off a modern, high end video but instead are trying to mimic the high end look can indeed look bad.

I still think the original question here is flawed. Do brides want shallow DOF? As has been said by others, brides don't know what DOF is.

Brides want beautiful. DOF is not a necessary tool or effect for many of us. It's not for me, it's not part of what I do at this time.

But take a look at a cinematic wedding by Joe Simon or Pacific Pictures and let me know what you find irritating about it. Personally, I see only frame after frame of breathtaking shots that leave me feeling awed.

Before owning my first GH2, I found the DOF shots and cinematic look irritiating, but my irritation was rooted in jealously more than anything. Since I have had a crack at it with the prime lenses, etc., I can now settle back into my "video" way of doing things and concentrate more on what I do best rather than worry about the issues that accompany shooting with DSLR style cameras.

Shallow dof and DSLR shooting is just a fad and will be over soon. No one likes it, brides hate it.

Same goes for colour movies in real speed. Wont be long before were all back to black and white slow mo. No more colour correcting or grading for me, HUZZAH!

Jeff, I think every style and technique has it's place and there are always clients that will love one style over another. Far be it for me to stop people producing whatever they want. For newcomers though it is easy to be influenced by some of the superb short form videos and cinematic techniques that they see here and assume that is what they need to aspire to. For wedding work that just isn't the case and I would hate to see people running into trouble if they fall short of those standards or the client's requirements.

The other point is that you also refer to 5K and 50k weddings. There may well be companies that specialise in that work and good luck to them, but in the UK, I suspect that the vast majority of 'normal' wedding video clients are in the £500-1500 range. Those people who can afford £5k-50k are not going to be the ordinary families and more likely those who's outlay on their wedding, including the video is likely to be as much about making a statement about their financial status as it is about preserving their memories. Teams of cameramen, dolly, jib and crane operators and audio and lighting persons are likely to make the family look and feel that their wedding is something that their peers will admire. As will the designer dresses, top of the range cars and named acts providing the music. It's a world away from the work that most of the wedding videographers here carry out to earn a living, although I'm sure there are a few here that serve that market.

Roger

Roger I was partly referencing to your finding shallow dof irritating. Close ups are irritating as well, when abused. So are a lot of things. I guess I just don't see what your remark meant.

Danny's response was cheeky/hilarious, and summed things up well. DOF is here to stay and the filmic look using the tools available to achieve that end are here to stay as well. It's the way top-grade films are shot and it's filtered down to wedding video.

The original question can be answered directly. Yes, brides LOVE the look. They love anything that makes their video memorable and beautiful. I had a bride try and describe it when she was asking me about my service. She didn't know what it was called but she loved a video where she saw a bird on a branch being in focus and then the focus changed and the couple came into focus.

DOF is here to stay

Don't be so sure. In the stills world it came, it saw, it conquered, it disappeared. It was sooooo 2007 :- )

Its now more of a tool to use when you wish to or have to shoot in low available light without auxiliary lighting. No-one is going to be impressed with your ultra narrow depth of field shots except for the occasional portrait etc. But they are going to be very UNimpressed with vip guests behind the couple during the ceremony being - as they would see it - "out of focus". A similar fate befell fisheye.

the filmic look using the tools available to achieve that end are here to stay as well

Again tastes for anything other than straight out of the camera (with the normal editing of course) come and go. Once upon a time you were nobody unless you had a stable full of the latest photoshop macros or Actions as they call them. Very similar to video effects now being flogged everywhere. Nowadays clients can do all that with stills themselves with online and mobile device free or cheap tools and they have no mystery appeal. At present there is a significant number of photo clients liking the vintage (read urine coloured) look. Don't expect that to be paying the mortgage this time next year.

I think it is inviting trouble if you ask clients such a specific question as the OP has suggested. They are unlikely to grasp its implications in full, and what do you do if they say no they want a wide depth of field - but you cannot shoot wide because there isn't enough light :- ) Likewise with cranes dollies jibs stabilisers sliders et al. You really do just need to ensure that they have endured at least a few minutes of your typical shows, and if there are any features of their day such as timeline or venue that may disrupt you from achieving the same then discuss it with them. You cannot even assume that both bride and groom have done the research - often one will do it all and the other has far less interest in all thing photo and video.

Pete

True Peter, things do come and go. It's not black and white, etc., but in wedding films our ability to use these tools has not been available until now, at least not to this extent.

The flat, video look that has been the mainstay of wedding videos is not a deliberate look nor is it aesthetically desirable. The video look sucks, does it not?

The video look was simply the best the common wedding videographer could do with the tools available, and most of us have hated it since the beginning. I know I have.

I do not see filmmaking techniques such as shallow DOF as being trends as much as editing styles are, but your point is well made. Photography and the soft cheesy look is not the same as using shallow DOF effectively in filmmaking, or is it? Maybe I'm wrong.

Yes, using fast lenses for shallow DOF could be considered a trend, and it may not be in vogue in 5 years, but it is nevertheless here to stay to come in and out of favor as it may. The option was not available before a mere few years ago to most of us.

The video look sucks, does it not?

That's always going to be subjective, and while many (most?) people in the industry would probably agree with you, if a bride wants to clearly see lots of people around her, particularly the friends and family in the front couple of rows during the ceremony then the video look is probably exactly what she's looking for.


The video look was simply the best the common wedding videographer could do with the tools available, and most of us have hated it since the beginning. I know I have.

You've probably hated it because it looks like video and not film and you secretly wanted to be a hollywood film maker and not a common wedding videographer, and until recently you didn't have the choice. Having said that, even most older video cameras were capable of shallow DOF if you stepped back and zoomed in, but I guess that's not a viable option much of the time.

When the DSLR revolution came along people suddenly saw shallow DOF as a way to differentiate themselves, and that's good, but it's not the only thing that can do that.

Like many, I absolutely love shallow DOF in the right place at the right time, but it's not the only tool in the shed and sometimes we have to put our 'arty prejudices' to one side and provide the 'wedding video' that they want.

If our style is all shallow DOF, that's all we've ever shown them and they booked us for their wedding then we can stand by the shallow look throughout the video, even if they can't see the parents and grandparents shedding a tear in the front row.

But, let's not say it's crap because it's 'not' shallow, it's a different look and now that we actually have the choice, deep DOF should be considered just as valid as shallow DOF when the time/place is right and/or that's your particular choice of style.

Dave, you state that most of us probably agree that the video look sucks, so my point is made, thank you.

Dave, you state that most of us probably agree that the video look sucks, so my point is made, thank you.

Well, I said most in the industry, yes, but to a lot of people outside the industry it looks perfectly normal and what they are used to, and let's face it, while ever there are a lot more of them than of us, and they are the paying customers, then I think we need to consider whether that 'look' is a deal breaker or not.

I hate video noise, most in the industry hate noise too, but most brides don't even see it.

Most Hollywood films are not shot with a very shallow depth of field and I think that Hollywood films tend to look quite filmic.

Most Hollywood films are not shot with a very shallow depth of field and I think that Hollywood films tend to look quite filmic.

Yeah, I was just about to bring this up. There not as shallow as what some videographers/film makers consider a filmic/cinematic look.

I only ask the question as sometimes it does seem that shallow depth of field is overly used just for self satisfaction of the film maker/videographer in a lot of cases. And I'm sure many of you encounter this as well in many areas.

A film student I know decided to buy a camera and I asked him what made it appeal to him, he said because it can have shallow depth of field.

I'm a big fan of a variety of tools and that is what shallow DOF can be. For instance, we don't use it most of a wedding day, but.... when we have a camera zoomed in on a tight shot on each the bride and groom during vows, I love shallow DOF to make it look like they're the only people in the world. I wouldn't do that on my wider shot from the back, though, because it serves zero purpose.

The same could be said of lens choice or lighting or camera angles. Each is a tool and when you use it, have a purpose, a reason for doing so.

Most Hollywood films are not shot with a very shallow depth of field and I think that Hollywood films tend to look quite filmic.

+1 100%. Just look at the great use of DEEP depth of field in 'The Best Offer'. Cinematographer Fabio Zamarion used great depth in some amazingly busy, meaning cluttered backgrounds, shots that offered so much to look at. It was the deep DOF that made these shots work and in no way detracted from the main characters discussions and dialogue. Shots like the tilt at 42.36 in the fascinating workshop scene where Virgil Oldman (Geoffrey Rush) and Robert (Jim Sturgess) are discussing the fitting together of an old automaton gearbox. Fabio’s intermix of deep and shallow DOF scenes intercut together throughout the film works beautifully. In all the film is a great example of good creative filmaking and shooting using ALL the tools depth of field can give you. The story in the film is interesting but made all the more so in the way it was shot

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

A similar question could be asked about lots of stuff. Do brides want macro shots of rings? Do brides want timelapses of reception venues? Do brides want silhouette shots of them getting makeup done? Do brides want slow motion, sliders, steadicams, GoPros, quadcopters, backlit first dances? Do brides want to see the bridal party jumping up in the air during the photoshoot?

But to turn this question around... what do brides want?

I think maybe a basic list might go, though obviously it will depend on the bride:

1. That the important moments be captured, and captured reliably
2. That they look good in the images
3. That the images be beautiful (and surely this is subjective -- reasonable minds can differ on what's beautiful / not beautiful)
4. That the images be interesting / cool / artistic / creative, and not simply something they or Uncle Bob could have taken.

And there's a fifth item. I don't think many brides will consciously realise they want this, but I think pretty much every bride will be happy if they've got it:

5. That the images be moving. That you look at them, and you feel something.

Maybe photographers are more consciously aware of this than videographers. You want strong human content, but you also want all the visual elements to align with that content, to complement it -- composition, movement, focus, sharpness, colour, brightness, whatever.

And note that the above list is about the results of the image, not about the technique for getting there. Do brides care about shallow depth of field? I personally think most of them don't. But do they care how an image makes them feel? I'd argue that most of them do, and that the shallow depth can be a very useful tool for achieving that, because of the way it simplifies and declutters an image, and because of the way it directs attention, mimicking the way humans process visual information.▬

I think Don stated it earlier - use the right tool for the right job. This would also mean that you might use shallow DoF for some shots where it adds to the image (and I believe someone else suggested when you have to time to get the shot right, with a few takes if needed), and deep DoF for others.

There is more to "film look" (to which I would ask "which FILM?!"). Color grading (yep, video is designed to look like "you are there" at little Jonnies play, not transport you into another realm... a "cinematic experience" is designed to take you to another world...), lighting, auxiliary gear, frame rate/cadence, and yeah, sure whether your camera creates an image that "looks sorta like" a really expensive cinema cam...

Then again, which director, cameraman, post production colorists "look" are you trying to emulate? Those guys all get "the big bucks" because they specialize and are very good at what they do.

You don't pick up a specific camera and suddenly produce a Michael Bay wedding extravaganza, lens flare, gigantic special effects, and all.... though that COULD be interesting... hmmm.



My camera criteria are - does the color look "right" (yeah, as in "you are there", plus a little saturation and warmth if needed), do flesh tones look "right", does the camera lock focus reliably and correctly "most" of the time, and is it easy to adjust the camera quickly on the fly if conditions warrant... to a lesser degree, how is the image stabilization, since sometimes you HAVE to be handheld.

Is it fun to play with different lenses? Sure, but don't make that the end all, be all. The CONTENT you capture is the ONLY thing that matters, what device you capture it with is but a tiny part of the equation.

I think I've used the analogy before that you could buy the same gear as Eric Clapton or Eddie Van Halen, hoping to get their "sound" (which is also incidentally a lot like a "look"!), but it simply doesn't happen like that - those guys sound great (and like themselves) on whatever gear they are on...

IOW, find YOUR style, YOUR "look", and YOUR methodology to get what YOU want... if it "works", and the customers dig it, now you've got something (and incidentally, whatever gear you've got... will get YOUR look).


<edit> While I was composing my thoughts, looks like Adrian was describing the "other side of the coin" - what the bride wants and what your gear must achieve are "two sides of the same coin" - and there are many different creative ways to get to that same place.

Hi Adrian

Spot on!! I think that a lot of especially the more hip and younger shooters do in fact come from a stills background and often have never studied the basics of making a motion picture. They simply have found out "Hey I can shoot video on this so I'm now a videographer and photographer"

I was a panel judge looking at international and local video entries as Motion Picture Division chairman and our "judging" sheets had very interesting sections which the photo to video transition people would never bother to read or learn. Most of your comments cover it in parts but rule one was always that a video must either educate or entertain or both and it must evoke some kind of emotion. On our sheets technical ability rated very low indeed (being in focus etc etc was expected at that level) but content rated very high coupled with story line and flow. There was never a section called "shallow DOF"

You are so right about motion! It's a movie so if the subjects don't move then the camera must move. As Dave also says it really doesn't matter what gear you use, if you use it correctly you will get your look.

It does take effort and some creative thinking so to answer Matt's question all I can say is you certainly cannot shoot everything with a wide open lens and expect that is all that is required to make a bride happy!

Regardless of your style content is king and always will be.

Chris

Roger I was partly referencing to your finding shallow dof irritating. Close ups are irritating as well, when abused. So are a lot of things. I guess I just don't see what your remark meant.



Missed lots of posts, had to have a nights sleep :-)

I think you are misunderstanding my point, which is probably my fault for not being clear enough. I don't dislike shallow dof or always find it irritating, indeed I use it myself when I think it adds something. I also feel the same about all the other cinematic techniques some of which I use some I don't.

What I do find irritating is when these techniques appear to be used ad nauseum for the sake of using them, or to add artificial emotion when it is at the expense of something that the client might like to have seen. All techniques can be irritating when over used or used at inappropriate moments. I am concerned that many aspiring wedding videographers can be caught up in the excitement of their art and equipment, before they have learned to understand how to get the feel of a real wedding and understand their clients.

A wedding video is not an opportunity to make a movie at someone else's expense, but a chance to use your skills to capture that wedding in a way that they will always cherish. By all means use whatever cinematic techniques are available, but use them to enhance and embellish the story that is already there rather than building a totally different one for it's art value.

Roger

DB Made a very good music point which both he and I have previously referred to. I have been a guitarist for 50 years, many years touring professionally and consider myself reasonably competent. I can go into a music shop and buy a guitar effects pedal that will enable me to select the sound of Jimi Hendrix, or Slash, or Eddie Van Halen at the push of a button. unfortunately, it doesn't also give me the skills or the feel of those musicians. When I play a guitar solo, every single note I play has my own feel, vibrato, bend or whatever, no matter what sound I am playing. If you can play 3 chords on a guitar, and plug in the Eddie van Halen sound on your pedal! I bet I can pick up the same guitar as you, with no effects and get a much more effective performance from it simply because I can play a lot more than 3 chords.

It is exactly the same with video, if you are a 3 chord videographer, no matter what camera or technique you use, you also need to be able to use and understand your equipment and how a technique can be used to best effect, but most importantly, understanding what it is you are capturing.

The whole obsession with cinematic weddings is ridiculous, we are producing an end product with the tools and skills available in a limited access environment with a fixed shooting time scale. Using all the tools and skills available doesn't make it a movie, if you want to make a movie, start a film production company. You will then have the scope to use all the scripts, storyboards, takes, crew, lighting, cameras, lenses, sound and techniques and TIME that go into making a true cinema production, if you can afford it!!!

What we are doing is making wedding videos on the fly and any resemblance to film production is cursory Those that want to call it cinematic are really kidding themselves.

Roger

The whole obsession with cinematic weddings is ridiculous

It is isn't it ...

I blame the fool that initially started calling himself a cinematographer just because he was using a 5D MK2 ... because he set the trend !

The name has catched on to all brides out there now and there is no way to reverse what has been done.

We all know or can read up on what makes you a cinematographer and what cinematic technically means. But your average bride / customer, won't know squat.

You either claim you offer cinematic weddings and get business, or you don't.

Roger? I always appreciate your point of view and it always seems to fall on my side of the fence too.

Just watching a few trailers over the years that are called "wedding films" the seemingly mandatory use of a shallow DOF, a slider shot and shots thru the tree leaves at the Church have made cinematic trailers appear attractive and if that's your thing and the market is hungry for eye candy them take advantage of it.

I however do think, if you are supplying the brides entire wedding memories in one cinematic 20 minute clip obviously something will be omitted and unless you clearly state on your website that the entire production is short form then you could quite easily end up with the same problems as Tariq where family footage wasn't shot as his (very skilful) cinematic production doesn't use them.

I have always felt that cinematic renders should be used as "brag to my friends" videos and the bride still should have a long form version for her memories.

Chris

Yes I agree Chris, by all means use what ever style you want and call it what you like, but first and foremost make sure that the couple get what they really want, not what you think they might want.

if you are making a movie, the box office receipts will tell you if tens of thousands of people liked it or not. You don't have that aspect with a wedding, you have one client and you'd better be sure they know what they are getting or the word will quickly spread.

Roger

I'm late to this game.

I am still using trusty video cameras to do my weddings.

I know there is no way I can get bokeh like a DSLR with a 50mm F1.4 etc, but I'm managing.

Recently, I've found a couple guys who use DLSRs and who I can hire to come in and get those artsy shots at events etc that I can not replicate with my NX5. Sure, if I use the whole 600mm zoom range and back up about 50' I can get some bokeh, but that's not always possible.

For 2014, my goal is to incorporate this new found artsy kind of footage into my videos. I think it will add a unique dimension to my videos that they don't currently have. We'll see.

Hi Kyle

Nothing wrong with trusty video cameras. I'm using Sony EA-50's so I CAN if needed reduce the DOF but you have to be careful you don't go too far! We might see the bride in sharp focus and the priest all fuzzy but the bride can easily take that as a poorly focussed shot as "why is the priest's face all fuzzy?"

I have seen too many shots here where the shallow DOF is really overdone and every shot has only inches of focus and it begins to get annoying as it appears to the viewer that that's all the videographer can do.

Moderately shallow DOF can enhance a shot of the couple but overdo it and it looks just plain terrible! It's important not to do an ultra shallow DOF shot just because you can or you need to impress your mates!! There is so much of that sort of eye candy going around it's getting tiresome!!

Chris

Yes, they'll want it if the focus is perfect. If your focus is bad, or if your shots consists of hunting for the correct focus, they'll hate it and ask you to get your eyes checked.

Yes, they'll want it if the focus is perfect. If your focus is bad, or if your shots consists of hunting for the correct focus, they'll hate it and ask you to get your eyes checked.

I'm afraid that this seems to be a problem for many new wedding videographers who ask for comments on their work. They seem to make the assumption that they have to have slowmo, glider shots, shallow dof on everything, because that's how they think it's done. The trouble is it is often in and out of focus, badly constructed and has no relevance to the content.

Learn to see what's going on, learn to take relevant and stable footage under all circumstances and perhaps add artsy shots that enhance the footage once you know what you are doing. You won't lose work through having properly framed sharp shots that tell the story with no artsy bits, but you will lose work if you start to use shallow dof that is constantly hunting for focus, slider shots that are wobbling badly and missing bits that the bride wanted because you didn't understand the requirements.

Roger

Hi Roger

+1 from me!!

Sadly most of the newer people entering the industry tend to skip over the basics and have no knowledge or very little of basic film making rules and techniques. It would definitely pay any newbies into wedding videos to learn that to be a wedding videographer you cannot buy a DSLR and a 50mm F1.4 lens and expect to nail it!! You have to learn the art of film making first and then add the eye candy. Try to short cut the process and most will fail miserably quite soon after they begin. Just remember the icing on the cake is pretty thin and once that has gone, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Chris

How many times have I said...Proper Exposure...Good Composure...Solid, Steady Footage is the first thing brides will see and THATS what they want before all of the sliders, gliders, shallow DoF and other eye candy. You know why? Their parents and grandparents are going to be watching the video probably more than they (the B&G) will be and us old farts want to be able to see and understand the video.

Having the artsy stuff is GREAT don't get me wrong and some here and not here can produce fantastic stuff but and this is only my opinion based on my experience in my area over my career....they want proper exposure with good composure and they want it solid and steady first and foremost.

As I've said for years...get the real shot in the can first then do whatever you feel like doing.

Maybe I'm just too old school.

Hi Don

Not really old school, just experience and professionalism. I see too many photogs over here (mainly young ladies) who leave school, do a crash course at our local college on photography, then once "qualified" Daddy springs for a Canon 5D and flash and VOILA they are professional wedding photographers. I have on countless times had to help so called photogs with my own Nikon gear because they only had one camera (that went on the blink) or only had a pop up flash on the camera (yep she used my pro flash unit all night) or couldn't do a group photo of the guests as she only had a 55-200 zoom (yet again she had to borrow my 11-16 zoom) ...The funny thing is that they charge MORE than me and have to borrow my gear and I'm just the videographer!!!!

I think that too many jump into the deep end way too early with little or poor gear. Hmmm maybe the apprentice scheme needs to be introduced to wedding video so newbies get a good grounding under the watchful eye of the experienced guy before heading off on their own??

Chris

Don't forget the sound.

It doesn't matter how gorgeous the pictures are - if the sound is sub par the whole thing is downgraded drastically. That is why some of the short form dudes do only short form. They can't nail the audio.

My first boss told me TV is 70% sound. Like it or not, as others have said: the mums & dads and grandparents want to hear the vows and the speeches. Clearly, not with boomy ambient reverb from a camera mic 5 metres away.

For new wedding videographers starting out: sure, give them a sexy montage to satisfy your artistic need or show off a bit; it doesn't hurt the showreel, but first equip and train yourself to give them a tightly edited full length cut of the ceremony and the speeches. That's the bread and butter of the job IMO.

I'll admit, when we first got our DSLR's, we ran into a problem of being poorly prepared. We had come from using video cameras, and didn't have anything other than the kit lenses. So when things got dark for the dance.... uh oh.

Then, two years later, I was DJ'ing a wedding and their cousin, who was filming, had that same problem. I loaned him my 50mm and spare batteries and never said a word, because what good would that do?

Back to the question... I tend to think of multiple cameras as being probably most important thing - both for backup, but also variety. Almost none of the filming we do on a wedding day uses shallow depth of field except vows/rings, and the first dance. The two instances where I think it should feel like they're the only people in the world (maybe the 1st look, too). Small, and intimate, if we can. Our goal, the rest of the time, is to shoot f/5.6 - f/8, if we can.

But I tend to think of things like shallow depth of field as a tool, to be used sparingly for effect. I'm also considering picking up a Canon T2i or T3i, literally so I can stick a 14mm or 20mmA lens on it to get a 'larger than life' shot of the groom when I crouch at the head of the aisle for the processional and to put on a boom and film straight down during their first dance. (it would also be an emergency backup);

Way back when I was using a chisel and hammer to make images.....well not really that long ago but back in the early early 70s (1970s NOT 1870s as my grandchildren seem to think) I learned a few tips from an old master. His first rule was "Know your gear". Like the back of your hand so you didn't have to think about gear. That way you could concentrate on the important stuff, like composition and exposure.
Second rule; get the shot, get the shot get the shot. Once you have the NEEDED shot on film, then you can go play and try to get the WANTED shot on film. His third rule was NEVER admit to the client that there was a problem be it camera, lighting, personality or personel...there is NEVER a problem on the job. Fourth rule; always be overprepared on the job. If it calls for certain equipment always have more because once you get on the site things will never be as the client described them to you.
Keep in mind that these rules were meant for still photography but IMO can be applied to video as well.

He had many others but those come to mind right away because I've never forgotten them.

After I started in video in the early 80s I had a mentor who came from a film background and he told me that the key to GREAT video is audio. Mediocre video with great audio equals OK finished product. GREAT video with lousy audio equals BAD video, ticked off client and refunds. Hard way to make a living.

Maybe I'm too old school. ;-)

Lots of great points here.

My intention for what I'll call "DSLR type" footage would primarily be for the Pre-Ceremony/Bridal preps where I'm getting a lot of detail kind of shots... and similar for filler material at the Reception. Also, general shots of the venue and venue details etc.

For the Ceremony, it would be very traditional, as that's what literally 100% of my clients in this area want. The whole Ceremony -start to finish- and we are usually very limited by the church to locked down cams with 2 or 3 operators depending. (but sometimes we can only use 1 camera in the very back for the whole Ceremony even)

I was discussing with other video friends this week, and if I was to eventually get something like a Canon C100, or a Nikon D800, or a Sony FS100, it would be relegated to a wide shot from the back for the Ceremony portion kind of thing. The NX5U and XF300's would be the main guns at the Ceremony.

I totally agree with a lot of the thoughts here. Personally, it's great to have the latest cameras and for the sharp images they can give but it's only half of it. So, so many videographers have the DSLRs and whatever but they don't know how to frame a shot at all, how a picture is and isn't balanced, the use of light and shade, depth( I don't mean bokeh here), and the best way I've found that does that is to study classic art from the great painters, photographers and film-makers, even music for it's rhythm and structure. Knowing all this gives you an identity and style. There is a fashion lately for shallow dof and for me, a lot of these guys are clones of each other. There is a sterility in their work that seems to miss a key ingredient...emotion. Bokeh here, bokeh there, cut to slider here, cut to tracking shot there....all well and good but like any icing, it soon makes you feel a bit sick.

Style and fashion are two very different things....the first is individual and the latter is for sheep.
Having the latest gear means nothing if the end result doesn't have heart. A film shot tomorrow on an old basic portapak can beat the same subject filmed with a 5D III with a two grand lens.
The talent is in the eye....not the lens and as Chris has said a few times, your average bride who may not know a DSLR from a stethascope only cares about one thing. Does her DVD make her emotions well up when she watches what her videographer has produced for her????
The greatest compliment I get from a bride is when she says it made her cry!

Hi Chris

I like your term "icing" At least now I know where the term "eye candy" might have hailed from!

Yes sadly a lot of the "new age" videographers tend to smother the movie with sugar to cover the fact that they have failed to capture any emotion at all and it does tend to be overdone. Basically if a movie does not invoke some kind of emotion then it has failed totally. Of course that doesn't mean that the bride has to burst into tears when she watches it but it must be some sort of emotion which of course can be anything from wonderment, pride and many many more BUT there has to be emotion not just sugar coated pictures!

Funny, but often the least "eye candy" style of shoot sequence will evoke the most emotion! After the ceremony when the couple are congratulations (I have an idea it's called the receiving line in the USA) and that's a simple bit of footage where you can grab almost every emotion under the sun.

I remember one bride showed me her sister's wedding and told me "the frigging videographer spent more time fiddling and adjusting his fancy camera than actually shooting the bits that really mattered to her" Good advice.

Chris

Alfred Eisenstadt a very famous photographer for Life magazine (for those that don't know what Life magazine was...google it) had more covers than any other 2 photogs including the iconic shot of the sailor kissing the nurse at the end of WWll once said "it doesn't matter to me what camera you give me to use. I see the photograph in my mind before I see it in the camera". Ansel Adams was the same on his landscapes. Henri Cartier-Bresson a contemporary of Eisenstadt was the same way. BTW, those 2 were both very small men, one German, one French both used Lieca Mll with a 50mm lens. Period!

The camera and all the fancy gear in the world means nothing. It's HOW it is used to create a series of photographs and tell a story. No matter the bride and groom lived it, they want to see it again and If it's told correctly, it is beautiful. If not, well fill in your own word.

Hey Don

I worked for while (a long time ago) as a beach photographer and my boss had been doing the job all his life and yep a 35mm Leica -old and battered but still working. He knew his exposures backwards and being on the beach day in and day out the salt air had actually corroded the aperture ring to the point where it didn't move anymore. It was only beach photography of course but his photos were always stunning!!

I think the more fancy controls you have at your disposal the more photogs tend to fiddle with them and spend less time actually on composition and framing. On video my cams are always on auto some I can use my precious time on what I'm shooting rather than playing with various features! If the image looks good in auto then that's where it stays ...obviously in tricky lighting or focus conditions I do have to over-ride settings but that's kept to a minimum so I can concentrate on what I'm shooting rather than the cameras.

Goes without saying that it's not the camera but the person behind the camera that makes the difference!

Chris

I certainly agree with all the last few posts regarding framing, composition, etc and of course the continuous sheep like over use of sugary shots at the expense of seeing the real emotion. As I have often said though, many wedding videographers come from the photographic world and are great at all the above, but what sometimes seems to be missing is the visual flow that comes from learning how to build the story with a series of flowing interacting images. Successful emotive video is not just about individual shots, it's knowing exactly how long a shot should be, and constructing and presenting a longer scene, by drawing the viewer to the bits that really matter and little details that are picked up.

In a film performance, all action and scenes would be carefully and painstakingly storyboarded and scripted. You can't do that with a wedding, but experience gives you that ability to carry a storyboard in your head and know instinctively what shots to take to be able to knit them all together for that vital visual flow.

Roger

I've decided to try and make a list of what most brides want and in order of how important they may be..

1) All the right bits covered
2) All the right people covered
3) Being able to hear clearly
4) Being able to spot most of their guests at least once
5) The videographer to not be demanding (the togs do plenty of that).
7) * The video quality to be better than old school - generally this means sharp, but at least some DOF that separates the background from the fore - Not too shallow though.
7) Variety of camera angles in service and speeches.
8) Some creative shots
9) A 'story'. (I believe most know their own story and don't need you to creatively make it emotive)


* on number 5, just to clarify - If you show a bride two options - one with old school camcorder footage with everything in frame in perfect focus, and a shot with some DOF ie. the background slightly out of focus, accentuating the fore - the bride will choose the latter and will declare that it is better quality. Of course, there is a limit - I think in Church Services f4.5 is a pretty good place to be.

Thoughts? Any disagreements?

Hi Clive

That's a pretty comprehensive list ! Well done .. any bride would be happy if you can do all that.

I cheat a bit on Point 4!! As soon as the bride has come into the reception I then go around the tables with the camera doing a slow pan of each in turn and that usually keeps the bride happy as she can see everyone who has come!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with selective focussing as long as you know what sort of DOF to expect ... a soft background behind you filming a couple is magic and always looks good but try and shoot stuff at F1.8 and a group of 10 people at a table will result in someone being out of focus for sure!!

I'm also a bit lazy with speeches and just shoot on 2 cams ..one on the person making the speech and then lot's of cutaways on the second cam so you are not just filming a talking head and shoulders!!

Chris

In my country I see a new generation of videographers, I often check out "competitors" portfolios, just because I like to watch others work but also to see what others are up to, I start to see more and more photogs offering shortform videos. They all work with 5d"s (something I can see based on the very shallow dof all their shots have) and they don't care about sound.

Their videos are some kind of extension of their photography meaning much attention to how a shot is framed, often frames that intentional don't follow the "rules", they all shoot handheld meaning lots of shaky footage and they engage a lot with the couple, you can see there is a lot more interaction going on between videographer, couple and family, same as a photog would do, lots of shots that are staged and all shots have a very shallow dof where you constantly see them struggle to keep good focus, the result however is a actually fun to watch short video, they also colorcorrect in a way the video gets a distinct but to my eyes weird and unnatural look, something artsy fartsy for a couple that want's something different. I"d link such a video here but prefer not to as they can see where their videos are embedded and can follow what is been said about them.

Thing is, that fine for a 3 minute trailer but I can't imagine this to be a 30 to 45 minute version, especially since they don't invest in sound, just like a photog they like to travel light, shoot candid video and just carry around one 5DIII all day, no tripod, no light, no sound.

Maybe this is the future and I"m becoming a dinosaur? :)

Hi Noa

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Looking at wedding short form done on a DSLR you can easily spot the photography style breaking through! Suddenly the bridal prep becomes shots of all the dresses, jewellery, makeup exactly like a photog would shoot it. Basically they are still shooting a still shot but just adding a slider sometimes so it makes it very easy for them and they stay completely within their comfort zone. If you take someone who has done a lot of videography and decides to switch to DSLR's the style is immediately different ... they are still videographers and are simply using a different tool to practice their craft.

If you have been a photog at weddings for all those years you will have developed a style of your own so it would be very tricky to try and develop a completely new style for video and even if you do, your experience as a photographer will always shine through.

It would of course be interesting to get a comment from someone here who was never a wedding photographer and simply decided that they liked DSLR's to make wedding videos ... Anyone in that situation here with no wedding photog experience and went directly to wedding video with a DSLR??

Chris