Ofcourse, playing the dj is also nothing more then autoplaying a playlist of a lot of songs and just take a wireless mike along so you can announce things while you shoot some photos and while your videocamera's are on autorecord. :) I"m joking but actually, it could be done right?

I actually wasn't joking about the shooting video in 4K and take photos from that, I can take good stills from my 4K recordings, you even might reserve the photoshoot for a photocamera only of the couple and their family so you get some decent controlled raw photos and then do the rest of the day like you normally would do a videoshoot and extract all your stills from that, in that way you can put your full attention on what you are shooting and still deliver a quality product. That wouldn't be more effort on the weddingday (only extra work in post) but a reason to charge extra for it. Mmmh, this has got me thinking...:)

Oh, I didn't mean 4K stills, I meant 4K would allow reframing in post, so then I could focus more on stills with a separate camera. My bad.

For instance, I like cameras up front, in the side aisles (all our churches here have them), so that, during vows, I can get a great tight shot of either the bride or groom's face. A 4K camera would let me setup a 3 shot, but during post, turn it into a tight shot during the vows. Same with an aisle cam.

During the ceremony, most photogs I see take relatively few photos, but they're during key moments like the entrance, exit, vows, kiss, same time I'm busy with video.

3-5 pre-focused 4K cameras for video would do 80% of the ceremony work for me.

I still wouldn't do it, though, along with the conflicts the rest of the day, I'd rather use that strategy for better video, since then I can focus on that last 20% of footage that can help make the video great.

Exactly what I mean, the auto iris of a camera will not adjust the right way if the sun disappears or reappears, if you have strong backlight and the couple standing in the shade you have to expose manually to get it right, unless you don't mind a over or underexposed image that might not be fixable in post.

Not so with the TM series cams. they have a very effective backlight compensation function which you enable separately to any general auto-exposure function. If the backlight compensation feature is NOT enabled the auto-exposure would only be as good as adjusting for variable light falling on the couple. If it IS enabled then it will also adjust for varying amounts of backlighting on the fly, independently of the auto-exposure

My larger cleverer Panasonic AC90 does not work in the same way. Its backlight compensation is more like exposure compensation and its either on or its not. So while it does a good job of auto-exposure, adjusting for changes in the room,it does not compensate for variable backlighting in the same way that the TM's do. In that sense the little TM's are a superior piece of kit and particularly well suited to weddings. Again the TM's are good at maintaining focus on a moving subject and so excel at covering you when they are locked down and inaccessible during ceremonies.

In some particularly challenging exposure conditions I'll frame the TM's off-centre so as the auto-exposure value changes, then crop in post. Rather like you can do to defeat the GoPro's auto-exposure function.

And as I say the more cams you have the less stress. If you have 5 running and one craps out ..... probably not a big deal. If you have two running and one craps out .... you better make sure everything from the remaining cam is just right!

I've often read with interest your comments Noa on the great results you get with your little Sonys. But I've not tried one because I as far as I can tell they don't offer a similar functionality to the TM's. I think one member, Peter R possibly, switched from TM's to the Sonys but he may not use his cams in the way that I do so the functionality I have described may not have been important to him.

Really, exposing with the TM's is not a lot different to how I use my Canon 5 series stills cams up to a point. I may have them on auto-exposure, or auto with exposure compensation dialed in, or on full manual. I each instance I might also be using a flashgun, who's job may be fill-flash or the main light source. The flashgun itself may be on full auto or auto with its own compensation dialed in or full manual. It will nearly always be bounced off a ceiling or wall to soften the source. At certain times I may also have up to five off-camera flashguns fired by wireless triggers. But for all its sophistication the 5-series cannot do that TM trick.

If I'm unlucky the TM's may change the white balance temporarily for the worse but I can compensate for that in post. It does not have to be perfect. In a strictly business sense perfect = over-engineered. In other words in a general sense you are supplying something the client hasn't paid for and doesn't appreciate or need. But if you as the operator enjoy it for your own satisfaction thats fine. Its not business though.

Here is a longform ceremony illustrating backlight compensation. Its a short modest video and I've only used 3 cams. There really wasn't much point in frequent recomposing of the one video cam that I could access during the ceremony. I had one TM900at the back on lockdown on a lightstand. If you go to 4:56 for example you will see the severe variable backlighting. A second TM900 lock down hidden in a wall decoration at the front on the grooms right. I also had that on backlight compensation to allow for the white walls behind the couple. I was positioned to the brides left with an AC90 on a tripod. I shot stills throughout. There is minimal editing to the final video:
wedding videographers lillibrooke manor maidenhead berkshire jenny and james ashton lamont sample wedding video (http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/videos/lillibrooke-manor-maidenhead-berkshire-wedding-video-ceremony-639-ojlj.html)

Audio is from an H1 hidden in the flower arrangement on the top table.

It also illustrates that from a brides point of view the more depth of field the better so that she can see her guests as well as herself.

This is what the room looks like from the rear (15mm fisheye):

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/919-c/gal01-919-c/s/161-1929-04_ojlj.jpg

Imagine what having two operators at the front would do to the ambience.

As regards stills from 4k and 8k video it will work up to a point but only up to a point. You will have enough pixels for sure. But so much more at weddings depends on some extra sparkle, some extra lift, from fill-flash whether that be on-camera or off-camera. There has been a shift in tastes away from grungy available light style to bright and breezy and of greater technical merit. No amount of extra pixels can give you that because pixels alone have nothing to do with the direction and quality of light.

Pete

[b]Here is a longform ceremony illustrating backlight compensation. Its a short modest video and I've only used 3 cams. There really wasn't much point in frequent recomposing of the one video cam that I could access during the ceremony. I had one TM900at the back on lockdown on a lightstand. If you go to 4:56 for example you will see the severe variable backlighting. A second TM900 lock down hidden in a wall decoration at the front on the grooms right. I also had that on backlight compensation to allow for the white walls behind the couple. I was positioned to the brides left with an AC90 on a tripod. I shot stills throughout. There is minimal editing to the final video:
wedding videographers lillibrooke manor maidenhead berkshire jenny and james ashton lamont sample wedding video (http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/videos/lillibrooke-manor-maidenhead-berkshire-wedding-video-ceremony-639-ojlj.html)

Audio is from an H1 hidden in the flower arrangement on the top table.
Pete

Pete, thanks for posting this. So, just to be clear, there were two unattended (video) cameras at the front and you were at the back with another video camera and taking stills? No stills from the front. Is that correct?

In a situation like that, with a small venue, we would definitely not use a full crew on that. 2 people max.

I could make the case for single person doing both photo and video as there is no wedding party and no real obtrusive decorations which would limit camera placement.

Pete, thanks for posting this. So, just to be clear, there were two unattended (video) cameras at the front and you were at the back with another video camera and taking stills? No stills from the front. Is that correct?

No thats not it Dave.

I shot stills from a position at the back as the bridal party made their entrance:
http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/919-c/gal01-919-c/s/149-0979-03_ojlj.jpg

I did try to shoot video using the video cam at the back as well but there was so much guest activity in that confined area it was like a rugby scrum and the video footage from that cam at the back was not great. Once the bridal party had passed by I repositioned and recomposed the video cam at the back and also shot a couple of scene setting stills from the back:
http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/919-c/gal01-919-c/s/156-0997-03_ojlj.jpg

Then whilst the registrar was introducing herself etc I moved to the front without causing distractions. The rear cam remained lock down. It made a good job of exposing even though the sun through that huge window at the front kept going in and out of clouds. It also had to adjust exposure when the guests stood up mid-ceremony because then it had a load of dark clothing in the foreground.

The locked down inaccessible TM900 at the front on the grooms side was clamped to one of those wagon wheels on the wall so it was hardly noticeable at all.

I remained in the front left corner manning my AC90 on a tripod and with my two stills cams on my shoulders. One of these had a 24-105mm f4L IS, and the other a 70-200 f2.8L IS.

I could have added a GoPro to the AC90 but really there wasn't much point as those large flower decorations visible at the front left and right obscured much of the guests from my position in the left front corner. Thats also why I didn't do much recomposing with the front AC90 other than tighter to get the ring exchange etc.

I reckon that cutting between the bride and groom as they say their bits and cutting to the father of the bride as he gives her away, and cutting to the rear for some of the reading works pretty well.

And probably much more in line with what the bride will want to watch in future years rather than a breathless short mixing up parts of the day together with audio clips and high tempo music.

But it doesn't have the same sort of appeal for new clients as an MTV style short for sure. Thats a dilemma.

I've always admired improvisation and making use of what you've got in new ways. In my early military career a big part was reconnaissance in hostile territory. Two men per big badass motorbike at one point. Inevitably the tyres got shot out. The grizzled old seg.major who was my oppo forced the tyres off their rims with his bare hands and stuffed the innards with straw. Forced the tyres back on and we were back in action. Made a huge impression on me! I wanna be him. Wish I was a tenth as imaginative and resourceful as that old git.

Pete

[b]Then whilst the registrar was introducing herself etc I moved to the front without causing distractions.
Pete

Got it - thanks.

Here is a longform ceremony illustrating backlight compensation

Nope, still not convinced and I do know the backlight function, there are still too many variables to be considered, you can see in your example how quickly the autoexposure adjusts exposure depending on where the subject is in the frame. You example is still quite controlled as the indoorlight towards the subject doesn't change, not like a outside wedding. You just are more lucky to have mostly indoor weddings with controlled light, I unfortunately am not and the automode will not help getting it exactly right when you leave it up to the camera to decide when lightconditions are tricky. I"m afraid we have to agree to disagree here.

Very interesting watching the video Pete as I have several of the SD only versions of your TM cameras and I love them. Your video though did show me that although we both offer joint video and photography, my videos are very different to yours.

Probably as my background comes more from video, I use a lot more movement in my videos rather than cutting from camera to camera with some reframing. So for instance, when the pageboy brought the rings forward, I would have covered that with a gentle zoom in to show the cushion and rings in closeup, before followning the ring being taken by the groom. During the vows I would use a very slow move in on the shot to give a more intimate feel and I would also use pan movements where necessary to cover movement of people at the ceremony desk. To me, camera movement is essential during times like the ceremony when action is minimal. I see the locked cameras as a means to drop in a cutaway while I am changing the main camera to a new focal point and getting closer detail shots.

Your way of working is considerably different to mine, so potential clients would need to see both to be aware of what style they may prefer. But that is no different to choosing a videographer or photographer only. Offering a joint package doesn't mean that all the offerings will be the same and it is up to the individual to tailor their package in the way that they feel gives them the best results.

Roger

I think fair play to the guys that are doing this successfully. I tried it myself about 10 years ago and the couple were very happy. For me, I like working the video camera exclusively. I get good to great stuff during the photoshoot that gets me more business all the time. If I can get a 4k full frame DSLR to use for framegrabs I will when its available/affordable. Photographers sales of print copies died with film so if anything it will be a bonus for the photographer to have a video running that could rescue them from a problem some day.
I think there probably will always be a need for an organiser to arrange photo setups etc...
Time are changing and framerabs from 4k and 8k video footage will be useful in general. But some photographers are ultra fussy and wont be willing to cast their 24 million + pixels and raw control to one side any time soon... Thankfully

Can I just add that while I think fair play to anyone doing this, I would advise any others to think very carefully before offering it. Its a guaranteed way to get the photographers in the locality pretty peed off :) Expect some very aggressive counter punches...

Some of the worst so-called 'professional' videos I've seen are by those offering more than one service, particularly DJ's. They add $500-600 to their disc jockey package, and then have some schmuck assistant tape the festivities.

Can I just add that while I think fair play to anyone doing this, I would advise any others to think very carefully before offering it. Its a guaranteed way to get the photographers in the locality pretty peed off :) Expect some very aggressive counter punches...

Where I live it's just the opposite, I see several photogs starting to offer video as well as combination package, very basic stuff, no sound, shaky footage, extreme shallow dof and vintage colours is the easiest way to describe what they do and they have the nerve to charge premium for it.

I was at a wedding show a couple of weeks ago where there was a wedding car company offering photography to their clients. With the technology available, everyone is going to be offering video and photography soon, there will even be a camera in the cake to get them cutting it :-).

To be honest, the more the merrier, because as word spreads about how bad they all are, people will come to the professionals to get the job done properly. As regards photographers getting pissed off, if they are good at what they do, why should they worry about it, after all they've already got 90% of the market, perhaps the've had it their own way for too long. If you can't sell your product, you are either not marketing it properly, or it's not what people want.

There a pound shops and cheap shops all over the UK, but it doesn't stop conventional retailers selling their products. Competition will make more people aware of video and some will book cheap crap, but more will look further and find that there is better quality around. Increasing awareness won't be a bad thing in my opinion.

Roger

I"m afraid we have to agree to disagree here.

At risk of being the proverbial dog with a bone I have to say that your observations are more those I'd expect to hear from someone viewing this longform ceremony who is actively looking for ways in which they would have done the shoot and the edit differently / better rather than as a bride who might think "yes I'd love to be able to watch a video of my wedding just like that". It gets like that in photography circles as well when people post album designs.

At the same time I do admire your results Noa and if we worked in the same region I would be recommending you no question.

Roger - I dislike deliberate camera movement except in particular circumstances. The style is a conscious decision by me - though I will tip my hat to the possibility of influences by our respective histories and professional experience. I simply don't subscribe at all to some of the practices in wedding videography such as "if your subject is stationary your cam should be moving" etc. You just don't see that in TV or cinema except when used to achieve a particular feeling - and even then only momentarily. Not sure why it pervades wedding "cinematography" - and I'm not suggesting for a moment that you are a guilty party. Maybe its a case of "I can do it therefore I am going to do it" together with a determination to be different to "traditional" wedding video which never even existed anyway. It is a source of huge regret to me that I see excesses of it almost without exception in the videographers returned on the 1st page of google. Its the norm. Oh dear :- (

I was heartened to see a recent review of Stations Of The Cross by Mark Kermode a few days ago. He makes a particular point of emphasising how well static shooting positions worked in this recent arthouse release. Not sure if this iplayer link will work, if it does go to 08:40:

BBC iPlayer - The Film Review - 28/11/2014 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04t26k0/the-film-review-28112014)

Pete

Peter, what I find missing in your video and this is a technique supported widely in TV and Films, are the close ups. Not extreme close ups, up the nose affairs, but different focal lengths. Your 2 front cameras have similar focal lengths, wide shots of the room and that's fine, I'd do the same myself to capture the mood of the room, but I'd be using a 4th camera manned by me for cutting to close ups, such as a 2 person shot of the Couple after the Bride has walked down the aisle to really show off their feelings for each other; remember it's not just the Bride who sees the video, their Parents and one day their children too in the future. A close up sells the person's personality in a way a wider shot does not. In Ceremonies, I'll also use my 4th camera to get close ups of close family members and Bridesmaids if they're showing emotion during the Ceremony. There's a place for wide in coverage no doubt about it, but there's such a thing that with too much detail, you not really seeing the people at all. You're quite willing to cut to a rear shot of the couple's heads, so why not a close up to add variety too. Is your Photography similarly limited? And that's the problem.

Your video style is influenced by the fact that it's an addition to your Photography and you're trying to find examples out there in the World to justify what is perhaps more a limitation of balancing 2 Professions than visual style. Now please don't get me wrong. Your coverage is good, hell better than some Videographers I've seen working exclusively on video capture. You're obviously very skilled at balancing both professions given your Photography too I've seen and this is to be commended and applauded. But please do not presume that your methods of capture is the best and only way of covering a Wedding Ceremony; that's like me telling you my 4K stills of a Ceremony is a worthwhile replacement for your Photography. That is not the case and an insult to your profession. I'm sure your clients appreciate your video as my clients appreciate mine and in the end that's the important thing. However your clients come to you with different expectations than mine. Some of mine have detailed meetings with me as to what they want in my video capture; they've studied multiple videos online and have chosen me for my style that balances a wider range of shots than yours. No 2 clients are the same and what is acceptable to one isn't acceptable to another.

None of us can really say that what we offer is the default standard in any profession; it's just the level we pitch at and what our clients come to us for.

Steve- I agree that we all work different ways and it is down to individual clients to look at whats on offer and make their choice. I think that we can all look at someone else's work and see ways that we would do it different, but it is rather like choosing a restaurant, the basic food os the same, it is how it is cooked that we make our choices on.

Pete-iI also don't like camera position movement during a shot, but I do like movement in the framing and structure of the shot such as slowly zooming in to emphasise the vows, or a gentle pull out or pan to capture spumone's reaction in the background.

We all work differently though and it would be very boring if we were all the same.

Roger

Steve, one final observation (hopefully!). Remember the video I linked to is not a showreel / greatest hits / critique-this, its just a regular longform of an ordinary civil ceremony which I used to illustrate how changes in exposure and backlighting with locked-down inaccessible video cams may not be as big a challenge as some imagine it to be. Nor is it edited to perfection, obviously.

But its pretty good for being one of several for illustrating to prospective brides how they could also watch their own wedding. I don't really want perfectly polished samples because that then sets you up to struggle to deliver something comparable in the (normally) less than ideal shooting conditions of everyday weddings. Same thing happens with photo albums - tempting though it is to feature gorgeous couples in high-end venues (and I have several at "Downton Abbey" that I could feature).

As regards close-ups, thats really a feature of that particular short ceremony rather than the norm. Usually I would recompose multiple times, not only to the couple but also onto the VIP guests especially individuals in the wedding party and parents. If the venue circumstances are such that I can move around I'll do likewise from the other video cams as well, especially if its a church and therefore a longer ceremony with more going on. What I don't like is shaky hand-held stuff. My AC90 has a separate setting and rocker switch specifically allowing zooming and that can be set from fast through to very slow and works well. At that ceremony I had only one possible shooting position at which i could control a cam at all and what with the large flower arrangements around me it was a choice of wide or tight on the couple, nothing else. I've gone tighter for the rings etc but really that was all I could do. I think the two other cams made it a much more engaging video than it would otherwise have been.

I used to do a lot of very close compositions in my early stills days. I loved the look from a 70-200f2.8L. Older wiser heads berated me for losing the context by being too tightly cropped. They would regularly shoot with just 24mm 35mm and 50mm primes - nothing longer. I thought they were plain wrong. Now I'm doing much more wide content though I must admit I still shoot a lot of close-up as well.

I think these two BBC videos on YouTube show well how no close-up stuff at all does work best in the right circumstances. First Sophie Ellis Bextor dancing the Charleston:

Sophie Ellis-Bextor & Brendan Charleston to 'Rock It For Me' - Strictly Come Dancing - BBC One - YouTube

And Mark Benton dancing goodness knows what:

Mark Benton & Iveta Salsa to 'Bom Bom' - Strictly Come Dancing 2013: Week 2 - BBC One - YouTube

Of course we could never hope to have the luxury of such good lighting or that freedom to use cranes and jibs but those are other subjects.

Probably the best wedding video ever made is the Royal Wedding from 2011, which is on Youtube in full now:

The Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton - YouTube

What always struck me about that was the total absence of equipment in view. I wish more videographers would be mindful of that. They did of course have access to remote control.

It has a lot of use of wide, scene setting and showing the context very well. If you go from say 1:46:50 which is wide, to 1:47:01 which crops to a speaker, that is what I look to do if I can access the appropriate cams.

Its interesting to see that even at the Royal Wedding there were moments when the couple looked less than flattering - just the sort of thing we get :- ) Look at their faces at 1:37:18 Yikes!

Yep Roger we do probably need to shake off a lot of stuff and focus on why exactly we do what we do at any particular point in the day, rather than continuing with more of the same simply because it served us well in the past.

Fascinating discussion for me.

Pete

I edit a lot of videos for various wedding videographers from around the world, so I get to see a lot of different styles. As yet I've not edited any from a One-Man band attempting to do Photo plus Video at the same time, but I have seen a few examples and they haven't impressed me compared with material I've edited from other wedding videographers who solely focus on video.

Now remember I see a large number of different weddings each month, from a variety of clients whose skill levels range from excellent to less than excellent (every wedding has a price point and not all brides can afford the top of the range wedding videos, so you know, I edit without judgment).

Anyway, the thing I noticed straight away about some of the one-man band videos (and it has to be said this is through my own research, I haven't knowingly looked at any examples in this thread) were often very static edits, there was a lack of a roving cam, no zoom in on the fingers for the rings, no close ups of the heads for the vows. I saw some closeups for pulpit reading and such like, these were preset cameras, as I would expect in a non-oneman-band video edit, but they weren't supplemented by any roving camera shots, which can make a 50 minute multicam edit look a bit dull when all that's happening is the POV changing from the same wide shot to the same pulpit close up.

It has to be said that some of the shots were not great either, with blown out highlights in some areas and soft focus in others.

To my mind the one-man band thing is an interesting idea, it will help cut costs for brides on a tight budget, but it made me wonder how much quality suffers in this scenario, and indeed how much money the operator makes from filming, photography, then editing video, then editing photographs. That's a LOT of work!

I stress again, my opinions here are based on work I see on my own computer and research I have conducted recently into wedding videography, they are not comments on any video examples that may have been posted in this thread, which I have not knowingly viewed.

Paul

Paul, there are a lot of people making wedding videos out there and there are a lot who don't have a clue how to shoot video, no matter what price they are charging. Whether you shoot with one camera or 10 static ones, or have several different cameraman, if you don't know how to shoot video it still won't be great.

Do you film weddings yourself, or do you just edit those filmed by other people? After 30 years of filming and editing weddings, I can't imagine giving my raw footage to someone else to edit as their ideas of the finished product would be different to mine and it would lose my own style and insight. It would also cost more to pay someone else to do it, so I would assume that your clients are at the higher end of the pricing range.

If you are seeing poor video from 'One man bands' as you call them, then I would assume that they are not very competent. Adding more crew doesn't make you more professional, it just gives you more footage and also more chance of others getting it wrong unless you are using and paying very competent people. having said that! a large number of solo shooters are beginners and a lot are also photographers who decide to use the video facility on their dslr without any idea of the differences between shooting stills and video. So many seem to think that if you point a camera at a scene and press record that you end up with a video.

I'm really not surprised that you see so many static and boring video clips as the art of real video making seems to be disappearing and being replaced with safety in numbers. Whenever I am at a wedding show, the few video companies that I see are either showing stylised wedding music videos or not very well taken footage. It's rare that I see anything that impresses me.

Roger

....Anyway, the thing I noticed straight away about some of the one-man band videos (and it has to be said this is through my own research, I haven't knowingly looked at any examples in this thread) were often very static edits, there was a lack of a roving cam, no zoom in on the fingers for the rings, no close ups of the heads for the vows. I saw some closeups for pulpit reading and such like, these were preset cameras, as I would expect in a non-oneman-band video edit, but they weren't supplemented by any roving camera shots, which can make a 50 minute multicam edit look a bit dull when all that's happening is the POV changing from the same wide shot to the same pulpit close up.


Thanks for your input Paul, it is much appreciated.

The thing most of us forget from time to time is that we're not making a Hollywood blockbuster designed to be enjoyed by millions of people, none of whom are in the cast of the film, nor is there the planning, time or budget for it.

It's designed to document the day of two specific people accompanied on their special day by friends and family. For the couple, it may be the only ceremony they've ever been to, it could be the very first ceremony they've ever watched on video and guess what? They're in it! That's far higher production value to them than anything you can show them from other people's weddings.

As videographers / film makers we're not in the video. We've seen / filmed / edited more ceremonies than there are words in 1 Corinthians 13 and so it's easy to be bored by the repetition and want to get more arty to add personal satisfaction. But, the film isn't for us, it's for them.

The first few questions really need to be:

1) Who are the photos and video for? Are they for us for samples and our show reel, or are they primarily for the couple (or person paying for it)? Forget all delusions of 'art' for a second, ultimately who is the patron and what do they want?

2) Is this video something merely to entertain them an give bragging rights in the next few weeks, or something for them to treasure and get all weepy about when they look back in 25 years time? They may love the music in the highlights video today but cringe when they hear it in years to come.

3) How much of their day is about getting photos taken and a video made (for some it's all about that) compared to how much are they merely tolerating those things being there because it's the 'done thing'? I would suggest that for most couples it's the latter. They'd rather enjoy their day without all the photo / video distractions but tolerate itbecause it's the done thing. They may look back in years to come and be happy they did it, but at the time they'd rather be with family and friends downing a glass of something and eating the nibbles.

High Production Value
If they are looking for the high production value results then clearly you may need more crew and different equipment, such as DSLRs / C100 etc with fast f1.4 glass, sliders, jibs etc etc. You'll also need to spend a LOT more time in editing too.

If you're planning on moving around to get the high value shots during a ceremony in the UK you better also plan on being thrown out. If you're thinking about similar shots during speeches then it better be a big venue with very few guests, because my experience shows that there isn't room to move anywhere in the majority of venues, they pack'em in tight and we're often squeezed between tables with no wiggle room at all.

The high production value comes from shooting and editing the extra bits shot before the ceremony, between the ceremony and sitting down to eat and again after speeches. I've done it for more years than I care to remember and really that's where most of the time is spent and its totally out of proportion to the parts of the video that most people will treasure in years to come.

Coming back to static vs roving shots for a moment, of course the roving shots add production value if they are done well, but shaky hand held video is worse than static video in my book, yet I see it on so many videos on the web. I just don't want to feel seasick watching a video.

The shallow DOF that is so popular with the film maker may not be what the bride actually wants or expects. Why can't I see my family in the back ground? Aren't your cameras good enough to do that? You can show them all the samples you like before the day and they can be mightily impressed with them because as a film maker / editor you drew their eye where 'you' wanted them to look. But realise they weren't looking for their own family and friends in someone else's video yet when it comes to their own video they may actually want to see them and didn't realise from your samples that the background would be out of focus the entire day. How many people go to the trouble of pointing that out to them? I suspect not many because as an industry we expect prospective clients to know and understand what they are looking at.

There are also lots of videographers who love those slow zoom-in shots, yet I not only avoid doing them, I actively remove those from edits since as a guest I would never stand up and slowly walk towards the couple to get a 'zoomed-in' look and it just looks so unnatural to me. IMHO they need to be straight cuts, wide to close, or not at all. As I said others like them, and that's fine.

Types of Couples
It seems to me there are 3 main groups of couples (1, 2, & 3) and two sub groups (a+b) :

1) Those who want an excellent high production value film of their day with a shortform story (or highlights) set to music.
a) Those who are willing / able to pay for it - they understand it takes time and effort
b) Those who are not willing / able to pay for it.

2) Those who just want to be able to see their day as it happened (long form)
a) Those who are willing to pay a lot (you can add production value)
b) Those who want it on a budget - you need to produce accordingly

3) Those who don't want a video at all (the vast majority of weddings in the UK)

Of course there can be some variations and crossover, but these are the basic types.

If they just want an easy to watch, never miss a moment, see it as it happened, don't let editing get in the way memory of their day, then a number of static cameras during the ceremony and speeches will suffice. I've had brides say to me "I don't want a story, I don't want it juggled around, I want to see it as it happened". It can be boring to edit, but it sure is faster and usually turns in to more money per hour.

Creative editing can be very satisfying. Add good production value through skilled shooting and the right equipment and you can make an amazing film. Is that what every bride wants? I suggest not.

Many brides are looking for the cheapest option because they don't want anything fancy, they don't want their day to be about photos and videos. Combo packages may be boring to you and me to watch but if that's what they want should we be turning them away?

+1 Dave, great post!

Roger

I think these two BBC videos on YouTube show well how no close-up stuff at all does work best in the right circumstances. First Sophie Ellis Bextor dancing the Charleston:

Pete

Peter, I'm not sure with some of that last post if you're taking the piss with me. :) Or if you think I'd need a timely reminder that for a fast paced dance sequence, I shouldn't be reaching for my 75mm lens; well not unless I wanted my audience to vomit. As I said before, shots range from extreme wide to extreme close and it's my job to pick the right one at a given time. Now with event filming you can't be expected to follow the rules in the way TV and Film Productions can, but I do feel a better product is gained by giving video your undivided attention. Now in your case your product is dictated by the fact you're serving Photography as well and you'd be letting the client down if you didn't give both equal priority. So your priorities are different to mine, but as much as you may knock the techniques some of us Videographers use, consider that whilst you're competing with other Photographers and in some case other joint Photo/Video companies, my competition is other Videographers. So I need to be as versatile and competent as possible in a wide range of Filming techniques and demonstrate this in my videos in order to compete in a competitive market. My Business model and future plans are going to be quite different to yours and as such, my equipment choice and methods will reflect that.

Some great points and well made David. I guess I need to put my self in the punters shoes to understand the appeal of the combo deal. And it has to be said I've also get sent poor footage from shoots that had two camera operators, I remember on that showed in my multicam window that the two operators were standing about 4 feet apart, filming the same subject, one was overexposed andnthenotyher had soft focus! Whatcha gonna do with that?

Good point about dof on crowd shots, not something I thought about really but it is a valid point that some people may not want that visual effect in their lifetime memory.

In answer to Roger, I have shot weddings in the past, on my own with 2 cams not much in the way of sound and editing in SD to those new fangled DVDs and not so much as a multicam timeline to shake a stick at. So I've been away from combat for sometime, possibly the landscape has changed.

The actual process Roger, of handing over raw files to another editor isn't as traumatic as you might think so long as you both use the same software, and Same version. Then its a case of my syncing up the footage, doing a multicam edit (effectively rejecting any unusable footage) then playing with sound. I then return the project to the videographer who can dive in and fine tune the edit, adding their own personal style to e edit without having to do the donkey work.

I work with a few videographer s like that, although some also like to have the finished article.

I guess it all depends on how much you value your time and/or by ur willingness to do the donkey work of syncing files and rejecting unusualble clips.

No offence intended Steve, just trying to make general observations for the wider audience based on my own experiences and what I take from watching wedding clips v. more general film and TV productions. I haven't seen your own work. Perhaps a better example might be Sky Sports coverage of Premier League matches. Extreme close-ups of individual players are of interest from time to time - there is a place for that obviously - but the moment they do that you as the viewer lose the ability to anticipate the flow of the game. So its good that they tend to limit it to points when the ball is out of play. Likewise when they pick out an individual piece of eye candy in the crowd :- )

Had to laugh a few weeks ago when a high-end videographer in my area who I worked with just doing the stills on that occasion, commented about a one-time frequent contributor to this board who has also been very insulting and dismissive of my views on video: this member he said had 2nd shot for him and although their technical knowledge was impressive they failed to shoot anything usable for him. Nothing at all :- )

I'm dipping into this thread during breaks from mind-numbing revision of HTML CSS and Javascript. My concentration and choice of phrases is not all it could be so apologies again.

I remember on that showed in my multicam window that the two operators were standing about 4 feet apart, filming the same subject

Paul that is just par for the course whether it be videographers or photographers. Multi-operator crews often make a big thing to clients about how they can provide much greater variety but in practice that doesn't happen. They just get tangled up with each other and degrade the enjoyment of guests. If you are planning to work as a sole operator its worth building up a portfolio of images and clips to illustrate this to prospective clients. Once they realise what really happens then the apparent attractiveness of getting "2 for 1" evaporates.

Pete

No offence intended Steve, just trying to make general observations for the wider audience based on my own experiences and what I take from watching wedding clips v. more general film and TV productions.

Pete

Wasn't offended at all; more amused by the observations. You have strong opinions clearly. I would certainly hire you as a joint Photographer/Videographer; alas probably not as a sole Videographer. I'm sure you have a good work ethic, but I find strong opinions can also be inflexible. I for one am highly critical of my own video work. I don't ascribe to the idea that one should compare their work to those doing it badly, but rather to those doing it very well, and yes I find some of my own work lacking in comparison and needs improvement. Still it's something to work towards. I am also under no illusion that when I combine Wedding Video and Marryoke on a single day, that both can be compromised under some situations, like the Bride being an hour late to the church.

On the subject of being hired by other Companies, it is actually regular work for me - approx 10-15% of my Bookings. I've been hired by two Photographers this year who were tasked by Brides to source a Videographer. Both plan to continue using me and already I have a booking next year as a result. I also shoot Weddings for an Editing Company, who I supply the footage to, plus I've worked for other Videography Companies on multiple shoots and a Photographer on an Indian Wedding as one of a team of 3 Video guys. In all cases, I've secured further work from them. However I should point out it is very hard working for another company like this. As has been frequently noted, we all work differently and it can be quite challenging trying to adapt your own style to theirs, and some make it harder by not necessarily communicating their style at all. The Indian Wedding, I was told nothing, no details, no names, no timetable despite asking. I was given an address and a time to turn up, and arrived thinking it was the Photographer's house; turned out it was the Bride's house and I was to film a pre-Wedding party. However it was only through casual chat I learned this. My work still led to further offers from the Photographer, but it could have been better with more info. I would have used a different camera for a start.

I remember on that showed in my multicam window that the two operators were standing about 4 feet apart, filming the same subject

Paul that is just par for the course whether it be videographers or photographers. Multi-operator crews often make a big thing to clients about how they can provide much greater variety but in practice that doesn't happen. They just get tangled up with each other and degrade the enjoyment of guests. If you are planning to work as a sole operator its worth building up a portfolio of images and clips to illustrate this to prospective clients. Once they realise what really happens then the apparent attractiveness of getting "2 for 1" evaporates.

Pete

I think this a huge generalization. Obviously there are teams of 2 or more that don't work well together, but there are also well organized teams of multiple people who really do add extra coverage, different perspectives or different angles because they can be in multiple places.

Yes it's true that not all two man teams create cool footage, but I've also edited a number of weddings where two operators have created some stunning shots that really compliment each other and the unmanned cameras.

It's swings and roundabouts. Personally my gut feeling is one person attempting two different skill sets at the same time is never going to be as good as two people focusing on one of those disciplines.

But that's me speaking as an editor, a filmmaker and a photographer, it maybe that a bride won't see the difference in quality, only price.

Again that's just my personal viewpoint. I'm not putting it in the frame of a fact.

I think this a huge generalization. Obviously there are teams of 2 or more that don't work well together, but there are also well organized teams of multiple people who really do add extra coverage, different perspectives or different angles because they can be in multiple places.

I've seen both types in Photographers too; some are almost competing with each other or else scared that one of them won't get the shot, they have the other as back up. Others though work very well as a well oiled team, mostly separate throughout the day. I've worked in teams and in all cases, I've hardly had much contact with the other Videographers, we're each assigned a different duty during the day. It couldn't be more opposite to providing a Photo/Video service; from almost total control, to just being a cog in a larger machine.

Multi-operator crews often make a big thing to clients about how they can provide much greater variety but in practice that doesn't happen. They just get tangled up with each other and degrade the enjoyment of guests.

My impression at all weddings I have done over the years is that it is often the photog who is very present throughout the day and can degrade the enjoyment of guests, at a ceremony they are the ones being very visible and often intrusive and in more then one occasion have caused the priest to stop talking to ask if they pls can sit down. Now I don't want to generalize as not all are like that but the majority of who I worked with are.

Good videographers often don't move around and shoot from fixed locations, I always hear my clients say that they didn't even notice me throughout the day which they can't say about their photog. If 2 videographers are involved it depends how professional they are and how experienced they are as a team and if they are good the couple and the guests will still notice them less then one photog.

Sometimes I have clients visiting me where the bride or groom asks if I"m not going to be too intrusive and I always tell them it's not me they have to worry about :)

It's swings and roundabouts. Personally my gut feeling is one person attempting two different skill sets at the same time is never going to be as good as two people focusing on one of those disciplines.


I see your point Paul, but then I don't see it as two different skill sets. I see it as one extended skill set that covers the main elements of video and photography. I don't see it as something that everyone would or could do, but remember that I have filmed so many weddings over 30 years that I am totally comfortable and very fast with every type wedding that I take. I have also been a photographer for my own interest for over 20 years, so combining the two seems completely natural to me.

Surprisingly, I find doing both to be quite relaxing, with no photographer/s to worry about, working at my own pace and a closer relationship with the family and guests. Then there is my choice of poses, no trying to keep out of the way of the photographers shot, or them walking through mine. Wherever I want to be in the speeches and first dance- Heaven :-) Then of course when we only have one wedding on and my wife works with me, it's almost like a social day out.

It's also good that prior to posting this, I have just signed and enveloped another five contracts for next year, four joint packages and one video only, so we're having no trouble marketing it.

Roger

I see your point Paul, but then I don't see it as two different skill sets. I see it as one extended skill set that covers the main elements of video and photography.

I agree with Roger. While many like to think of this as two separate skill sets, often justifying to themselves that photographers can't do video, I've come to realise it's just a single skill set extended and applied in slightly different ways.

Both are based on the same technicals of composition, lighting, shutter speeds, apertures etc.

Photography adds the need to interact with the couples more, be able to pose them, get the right fraction of a moment in time and post process accordingly.

Video adds the need for audio, movement, continuity, thinking in 3D space not just for additional angles to cut to, but because focus and exposure needs to be maintained continually rather then momentarily as people move around.

Changing light conditions also make video trickier than stills, though low light can make stills a challenge when trying to keep the shutter speed up to freeze motion.

Video has the occasional need for constant lighting. Photography can add the need for (good) flash photography, which many people totally fail to master.

These are complimentary rather than mutually exclusive skill sets.

Having said that, if one person is multi-tasking between them both then I would agree there has to be some dumbing down.
If you're shooting stills you can't be shooting that smooth cinematic move at the same time, and if you're executing that cinematic move you can't be high res taking stills with any accuracy. However, if that's not the style you sold to the custom then actually it doesn't matter.

Browsing some of the companies offering a combined service, I see a wide range of prices from an incredibly cheap £899 charged by one company somewhere up north plus a 40% discount on that price if you book this month, to other companies charging close to around 2k. There's clearly a market for it and at the end of the day we're running a Business and need to market a product that clients want. As Dave said, we're not shooting movies. This has been a fascinating thread and certainly one that has led me to think of adding a Photo option to my services in 2016 that covers from the Speeches to 10pm when I usually finish. I've worked several Weddings this year where the Photographer was booked only up to the Reception arrival and some argue that photos are less important after the formals; at least for some couples. So I think there'd be a market for such a service.

Yes the latter part of the day is usually speeches, evening guest arrivals and first dance, none of which are important parts of the photography when they are being comprehensively covered by video. I take stills at those times, but the main emphasis is video.

Regarding slider and other cinematic style shots, I would consider them less important during the formats, perhaps some during the romantics, but these only take a short time. When you are controlling the pace, they are not difficult to do.

Roger

This has been a fascinating thread and certainly one that has led me to think of adding a Photo option to my services

Ah, we're getting there at last!

There is an awkward gap at the moment in that 1) there aren't suitable colleagues to refer bookings to 2) there aren't multi-tasking colleagues who could step in in the event of emergencies. I cover that in my contract and in how the joint package is actually marketed.

As others have said there aren't really new skills involved in the main part, more just a case of learning where the different knobs and dials are. Even the story telling aspect is more similar than it may appear - the same principles apply where you design a wedding photo album.

Even mastering flash is not that big a deal. There are just three things to keep in mind in a wedding scenario 1) bounce it whenever possible to give even flattering light 2) use exposure adjustment on the actual gun so that the output ranges from no more than a kiss of fill to full-on main light source with maybe a couple of stops extra dialled in; gun may be on ETTL or full manual 3) VERY IMPORTANT learn what high speed sync is.

In a nutshell, your cam body has a maximum shutter speed of e.g. 1/200th. If you use a gun and the max shutter speed is being exceeded because e.g. you are outside and using aperture priority to control your depth of field, your gun will massively over-expose the scene. But if you set the gun to high speed sync it will fire a series of short bursts instead of one big blast and you will get correct exposure. The downside is that the guns range goes down a lot but typically you don't need a long range when using fill-flash for outdoor daytime portraiture. Most modern guns will switch to using HSS if you dial it in in the first place n.b. you might be shooting a recessional at 1/100th f4 and HSS is not required so the cam will not actually use it even though you've activated it. But as soon as you step outside your cam wants 1/2000th at f4. Now it most certainly DOES need hss and it will automatically switch to that so long as you have enabled it on the gun.

This is the single biggest flash factor that trips event photographers up. They never grasp this principle and use workarounds like going to shutter priority instead.

In reality you could go an entire career without knowing the first thing about off-cam flash. But its nice to master - so long as your shots don't all then start looking professionally lit and over fussy. It needs to be subtle unless your specific purpose is to be edgy.

Hey Steve I'm sorry you're not seeing the relevance of the examples I posted. But that may be more to do with how far wedding videography has removed itself from the mainstream principles of good film-making. I cringe when I look at some of the special effects us stillers churned out a few years ago. I already feel the same about the current state of video.

I looked out again last night for what was happening behind the scenes in a couple of shows. A TV comedy "Toast Of London", camera movement was almost non-existent as was anything closer than whole of upper body. Static all the way and just cutting from one speaking character to another other than a few special effects that were put in as part of the actual storyline - a wink towards The Exorcist.

Then Goodfellas. Well the movement was relentless virtually all the way through including this famous steadycam scene of over 3 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJEEVtqXdK8#t=20

Apparently it needed 8 takes and they were of course pro actors. And the director had all the resources he could wish for. But we are not making movies as you say.

Pete

[b]

Hey Steve I'm sorry you're not seeing the relevance of the examples I posted. But that may be more to do with how far wedding videography has removed itself from the mainstream principles of good film-making. I cringe when I look at some of the special effects us stillers churned out a few years ago. I already feel the same about the current state of video.

Pete

On the contrary Peter, I see a great deal of relevance in your video. They along with your photos demonstrate that you juggle the demands of video and photo very well, producing work I'm sure pleases both yourself and the couples who receive your work. Roger and you are adapting to a corner of the market that is asking for a single operator doing both and although I along with others may disagree with the assumption that it doesn't in any way compromise the work when compared to two people doing the job very well, the fact that you are both making a go for it and succeeding is an inspiration.
Moving aside this, you seem reluctant to admit that Film Making when done well Professionally is not a simple case of plonking 3 cameras at prime position in a room, set on wide and then adjusting the focal length occasionally in between taking Photos. It's a good way to offer a joint service yes, but not necessarily good film making. Now some may argue very well that certain techniques of good film making have little place in the Wedding Industry. Others of course can make very good arguments why they do have a place. In the end we should be allowed to work the way we do and as long as our clients are happy and our Business is successful, any criticisms of the techniques we employ in our work from the wider Video community are largely irrelevant. And in that, I also include criticisms of techniques like depth of field, sliders and camera movement.

I totally agree with you Steve that film making and indeed wedding video making is not about plonking down 3 cameras at prime positions with the occasional reframing. I don't work that way and never have. For me, the main camera is about constantly changing shots and visual interest. The locked off cams are to allow me to quickly change to something that catches my attention on the main cam, and for an overview. I really doubt that you would be able to tell much difference between my joint package video and the video only package. The only real difference that springs to mind, is that you would hear my voice talking to groups from time to time, rather than that of another photographer.

Roger