I see that some (Roger + others) offer photo + video packages and seem to get lots of bookings because if it.

Having done both myself, but never alone, I puzzled how you handle those moments like entering and exiting a church, especially those churches where it's not a straight isle. they come int he door then turn a corner.

Where is the priority? Photo or video? What if you're stood at the front, what's the rear camera doing, or don't you even have one?

When does video take priority over photos and when do photos take priority over video?

Hi Dave,

If we only have one wedding on the day, my wife comes along aswell, but if we are both filming a wedding independently, then I have s stills camera and video camera mounted on the same tripod. I take stills and video up to the door of the church on the way in, then dash down to the ceremony end to get the walk down the aisle. I also have a locked off camera at the ceremony end and a GoPro for an overall shot.. I also sometimes have another video camera on a clamp on the tripod central column for a wide fixed view, while I am using the main camera for closeups etc. I take still shots whenever I need them in the ceremony, sometimes from the tripod and sometimes with the the stills camera round my neck.

If the officiant won't allow flash and/or shutter/mirror noises, I use a bridge camera for silent shots and can also take 13mp stills with the video cameras while I am filming.

The walk back down the aisle is straight forward as I stop them where I want for stills and the videos keep running. The rest of the day is a doddle, as it is completely under my control. During any formal groups, the priority is on the stills, so the camera runs on the tripod and I just stop and reframe inbetween stills. I sometimes leave the video off slightly to one side to give a different angle and to reduce the sound of my voice. Romantic shots are also easy as the emphasis is on the posed still, and the video on any posed shots is secondary. Any extra footage is easily edited out.

I also do lots of casual video and stills throughout the day, and again that is all under my control, so no pressure. I actually find doing both stills and video to be a lot more relaxing than working with a photographer. I can set the poses I want, work completely at my own pace and build a good friendly relationship with the guests in a way that you can't with video only.

I'll be getting a 4k camera shortly and will be interested to see how the stills from video stand up from that. It could make life a lot easier if they are useable.

Roger

I do exactly as Roger and my wife does stills while I'm shooting video and this is mainly a priority for inside the limo when it arrives and of course aisle walks. I have done a wedding entirely on my own and boy, it's tough ... you can technically have a DSLR (or two) on a harness plus have a shoulder mount video camera and then another video camera on a tripod.

I have done maybe half a dozen like that and really all I do is sacrifice aisle shots for video and also you cannot take photos and video when the receiving line is going on.

Of course having video and photo with two people at the reception is often a waste so we add an open photobooth option and my wife runs that which keeps her busy while I really have plenty of time to do a few still inbetween video during speeches, first dance and cake cutting (you can dummy those anyway!!)

Dave, IF you want to do it on your own why not consider a few staged shots in the aisle after the service? There are many many times when as a photog I have done ring closeups after it's all over

Chris

I have to ask, because I find this crazy! :)

Would it not be worth your while to hire an assistant for the day to take pics/video whenever you are busy doing other stuff?? How much could a young/college assistant cost for the day - $150??

I have to ask, because I find this crazy! :)

Would it not be worth your while to hire an assistant for the day to take pics/video whenever you are busy doing other stuff?? How much could a young/college assistant cost for the day - $150??

Would you seriously trust an inexperienced assistant to set up still shots or take video of a client's wedding? I consider taking wedding video or photographs a very skilled job, which is why people pay a lot of money for it and don't expect to have a college student turn up. If a student could do my job as well as me for $150, I would hire two of them and sit at home with my feet up. Uncle Bob Videos sounds like a good name for the business.

The whole reason I added photography to our video package is because of the poor quality of work done by spme photographers at weddings I have filmed at.

Roger

I think you have to make choice, you can either have decent photos and a very simple videocoverage or a good videocoverage and simple photos, no way you will be able to deliver a good standard on both at once if you shoot alone.

Another option would be to shoot video with 4K camera's only, if the couple would understand that a hugh print might cause issues because the resolution might not be sufficient then you should be able to just concentrate on the videopart only and extract all your stills afterwards, the photoshoot with the couple and family is something you could combine with a video and a photocamera or maybe just use the photocamera then and don't video it al all because there you have time and control and that's the most important part of the day, all the rest you can just extract from 4K.

What Roger says is worth thinking about! I have had "experienced" Uni students with supposedly 4 years video experience make a total hash of a wedding. It's simple ..pay peanuts and you get a monkey..I would never hire a photog!!! I recommended my mate who was supposedly a "pro" and had done many many weddings and guess what ..50% were out of focus!! His response was "that's normal"

If you want something done properly do it yourself or get someone you have trained to shoot your way. That's why wives are good to shoot with.

With Noa's idea of using 4K video and getting stills might work for stuff you cannot shoot while you are on video but I would still do the photoshoot with a proper DSLR especially for posed shots.

I often find it quite frustrating to be shooting video of a particular scene , bride walking up isle for example , and to be sharing the moment with a photographer who insists on getting a good still every second. It just seems illogical to me. It makes sense to divide the times of the day and give the best way to cover that part. Eg, the vows are obviously video. The photo session is obviously photos (with a small bit of video perhaps) . The speeches are primarily video. The first dance is mixed due to the need for a higher shutter speed to grab a still. But yes all in all I do think a nice system can be worked out to give a 'fusion' of photos and video done by one skilled operator.
My only main concern is that this doesnt get used by professionals just to get work and who dont actually charge accordingly. We will fall into the trap that photographers fell into back when digital took over. They took photos of everything and charged nothing extra. Now it has become the norm to take 1000's of pics and the money is the same as it ever was.
This is the only pitfall. If the customer wants both done, make them pay for both.

Most of what Ger says I completely agree with, the part I would disagree with is regarding the extra cost. It takes me no longer on the day to take stills and video as against just video. The only difference at all is the time that it takes to process the stills. I supply all the stills on disc, with no album unless they want to pay extra for that. the price I charge reflects the extra time taken for the processing.

I don't agree with other posters that both video and stills suffer if you do both, because there is enough time during the day to get exactly what you want when you are in complete control, with no photographer constantly taking the prime position. A large amount of the stills that photographers take at a wedding are of passing interest only, when there is a video aswell. The constant all day photography is really unecessary and is often the photographer justifying his time. Do the couple really want stills of the speeches or the first dance hanging on their wall? The photos that are going to be blown up and hung on the wall, are invariably going to be from the formal groups or more likely the romantic shots. These are precisely the ones that I take the time and care taken over and when the video is less intense.

I would not suggest that everybody should or could do it, but I never feel pressure with a wedding shoot, with 30 years to perfect my filming style and speed of working. Adding photography is something that feels very natural to me, but you need to be very comfortable and confident to consider it. 4k will almost certainly help for certain shots and 8k will probably see the start of the end for conventional wedding photography. The times they are a changing!

I would also say that the vast majority holding their hands up in horror at the idea of both, are speaking from the viewpoint of never having done it, whereas I am doing it most weekends.:-) I am also looking at it from the requirements of my potential clients, not to satisfy theorists and analysts and for me and my clients it works.

Roger

Would you seriously trust an inexperienced assistant to set up still shots or take video of a client's wedding? I consider taking wedding video or photographs a very skilled job, which is why people pay a lot of money for it and don't expect to have a college student turn up. If a student could do my job as well as me for $150, I would hire two of them and sit at home with my feet up. Uncle Bob Videos sounds like a good name for the business.

The whole reason I added photography to our video package is because of the poor quality of work done by spme photographers at weddings I have filmed at.

Roger

I would expect them to do a better job than someone trying to do both jobs at the same time, yes :)

Personally I cannot see how anyone could do a good job while trying to do both at the same time and what I meant was that during the parts of the day when two people are needed would it not make sense to train some student to give you a hand? During the vows for example, would it not be easier and make your video look better if there was someone operating the video camera while you took stills rather than a remote camera on a tripod? What happens if the shutter in your stills camera fails during the vows and you go into state of panic? Wouldn't it be easier if there was someone else there to help out?

I'm not having a go at how you work or what it looks like, I've never seen it!! I'm just wondering if it would make life easier if you had some help. If you are providing both services then Im sure it would be pretty easy to charge an additional $150 for your assistant so your not out of pocket. In the long run it might improve your product even allowing you to charge more!! :)

Personally I cannot see how anyone could do a good job while trying to do both at the same time

..... and personally I can't see how anyone can fly a remote spacecraft on a 10 year mission and land it on a comet. But it happened.

Or did it :- )

There are lots of much more mundane everyday things that I don't understand but none the less happen all day every day.

In my youth I was for a while an instructor on the selection wing of one of HM's special forces. The sorts of recruits who were successful were not supermans performing superhuman tasks superhumanly. They were just good all-rounders who knew their stuff and had quiet self-confidence. And had the ability to put pre-conceptions to one side - to think "out of the box" to use that awful management speak.

Just do it. Just get on with it. You'll find a way.Don't bother with whining "this won't work" as you try to justify the status quo.

Thats not to say I haven't fallen into the same trap. I also worked as a sales director in financial services. In my early time personal income was all generated by commission and this was impenetrable to the consumer. Then legislation changed requiring all commission and fees to be declared in writing up front - and this was GROSS income NOT net after business expenses. Us old-timers imagined that this would spell the end of the world. No client would buy anything if they had to sign a piece of paper with all that on it. But guess what? The new sales people came in and just got on with it. They had known nothing else and consequently had none of our reservations.

The only barrier is whats between your ears.

I'm not going to spell out chapter and verse how I do it. I used to do that in photography circles and guess what? Part-timers masquerading as pros came along and ate our lunch.

My methods have some similarities with Rogers but also big differences. For example I require much more fluidity in the use of my two stills cams so they are always on my shoulders rather than on supports.

Three key elements are to 1) have a lot of detail from a pre-wedding brief about who is doing what and where and when 2) be super-familiar with at least one discipline whether that be stills or video 3) use multiple cams for video - more cams = less pressure.

Look closely at your current product and why you offer what you offer / why you shoot how you shoot. How could you change to be more appealing to actual clients.

Other than that make your own mistakes and learn from them. The man who never did anything wrong never did anything.

Pete

The trouble here is Aindreas is that you are looking at it from the point of view of what you would be able to do and how you would feel. After well over 2000 weddings over 30 years, I don't panic period. you may need two or more people when you film a wedding but I don't. If we only have one wedding on, then my wife may well come along as well, because it lightens the work load and is company. She is also a solo video and photo shooter. A junior assistant would simply not be up to the job, I would have to constantly watch them and move them when they are in my way.

You are missing the whole point and also not reading my posts properly as I am not trying to do two jobs, this is what you are not understanding. Much of the work of the photographer is not necessary during the day and the same applies to the videographer, so what I am doing is one job that is a mix of video and photograpghy that blend together. There is a misunderstanding that everything has to be covered by video and photos all day, but that is not the case. When you know your business inside and out, you know what and when you need to shoot and when you don't.

In your example of the vows for instance, probably one of the most important parts of the day, you seem to feel that if I had a trainee taking video shots while I was taking stills, both would be so much better. Wrong! The trainee would not have my insight and camera skills to get better video than me. You also don't get the way that I handle that moment of the day, because I don't have a remote camera taking the video while I am shooting the stills. I have my main camera on my lightweight tripod for stability and I am operating that to get the closeups and detail shots. A few inches away on the double tripod plate is my stills camera which is pointing at exactly what my main camera is pointing at. There is a remote shutter control for the stills camera so that I can take a still of whatever I am shooting without stopping filming. It's also very easy to take a few seconds for camera adjustments as necessary. The main tripod also has a second video camera for wide shots, or I will place it as a locked off camera for a different angle. There is also a GoPro positioned for an overview depending on space and venue type.

Regarding going into a state of panic if the shutter fails on my stills camera during the vows. Again you are viewing it from your own perspective as I never panic about anything to do with weddings. If the shutter failed on a camera it would be down to using crap or poorly maintained gear. I also have a second camera hanging round my neck, as preparation and being ready for anything is what wedding work is all about. I would think there would be more chance of an assistant tripping over his camera strap and breaking his neck, or fainting into the Bride's bosom.

Video and photography is a new combined skill and one that requires a slightly different approach, but 5 years down the road it will be commonplace.

Roger

Great post Pete, I nearly choked on my tea over your spacecraft-comet analogy. Absolutely dead right though, just because you can't or won't do something yourself, doesn't mean others can't. While others are whinging and saying it's not possible, you, me and Chris are picking up the work.

It wasn't long ago that photographers were complaining about digital cameras and that they didn't understand computers and the quality would never match film etc.etc. News video crews used to go out with a sound recordist, lighting guy, video recorder operator and cameraman and producer. Now it's often just a self contained ENG guy. So many people seem to be stuck with the idea that this is what photographers do and this is what videographers do, so that it how it is. Well I don't subscribe to that, technology is changing, client's expectations are changing and the ideas of professionals need to change with them. In the UK, wedding video has about 10% of the available market, photography over 90%, so offering both opens up a lot more of the available market.

Roger

I don't agree with other posters that both video and stills suffer if you do both, because there is enough time during the day to get exactly what you want when you are in complete control

Just do it. Just get on with it.

I more then once shot a ceremony with multiple camera's outside when the sun was coming from behind the clouds and hiding again so light conditions constantly changed, the couple was also sitting under either some trees or a small tent in the shade. I was not able to run my camera's in autoexposure because of harsh background light and a subject sitting in the shade, the disappearing and reappearing sun had me manual controlling the exposure of all my camera's one by one with each light intensity change. What I"m saying here that if I would have tried to let my camera's handle it automatically for video while I was off to shoot photo's my videofootage would have been useless, either badly underexposed or badly over exposed. My camera's required 100% of my attention to make sure I would get home with usable video footage.

How would you "just do this" if you work alone? So cover such a ceremony while getting your photos as well if you are not extracting stills from your videocamera? Time is not the issue, control is, unless you can control the sun? :)

use multiple cams for video - more cams = less pressure.

I guess you always shoot a ceremony inside with controlled and not changing light situations and with people standing in fixed positions, then this this approach works and you can just let the camera's roll , if it's like my above example it's exactly the opposite meaning very high pressure as you have to manually control each camera depending on the lightconditions.

It wasn't long ago that photographers were complaining about digital cameras and that they didn't understand computers and the quality would never match film etc.etc. News video crews used to go out with a sound recordist, lighting guy, video recorder operator and cameraman and producer. Now it's often just a self contained ENG guy. So many people seem to be stuck with the idea that this is what photographers do and this is what videographers do, so that it how it is. Well I don't subscribe to that, technology is changing, client's expectations are changing and the ideas of professionals need to change with them. In the UK, wedding video has about 10% of the available market, photography over 90%, so offering both opens up a lot more of the available market.

Roger

For some of my Weddings I'm juggling Marryoke, Guest Messages, a full video and occasionally a same day edit, so I know it's possible with a good work ethic to do what you do. I also know that it works better for some Weddings over others. I have my successes; I also have some where I know that either one or the other have been compromised in some way by juggling too many hats. Are the couple still happy,of course and some say that is the point. However as they never see their videos captured differently, they can't really judge what might have been.

Speaking to Photographers, some are keen to venture in Video, others are against it and they make an excellent case also. Any Profession needs to adapt, but standards shouldn't be lost as a consequence. I appreciate you have a great deal of experience Roger and can manage this dual role, but should it take off, can you say the same of any others who attempt it. For couples, there is only one main benefit they'd see in hiring one person to do both, and that is to save money. It's a great 2 for 1 offer. However many who try will just not be cut out for it, leading to terrible work and a poor reputation. If someone local to you tried to offer the same thing and really screwed it up, would it encourage couples to go to you or would they rethink the whole notion of getting one person to do both. A bad Videographer will be blamed for being a bad Videographer, whilst a bad Photo/Video guy will just as likely be blamed for trying to be a jack of all trades and mastering none.

That said, it's something to watch out for, and if I see a trend, I always give it a try. I've done some Photo work alongside my Video work and 4K makes a difference. However in my mind, I still see there's a place for a Professional Photographer and a Professional Videographer in the future. Combining the two makes good business sense, can be easier for the couple hiring and no doubt gets great feedback, but even with the best experience, no one can really work both and put in the same care and attention a separate Videographer and Photographer can do if they're at the top of their game.

My favorite photographer has been offering video for awhile now. His video is pretty bad. His photos are still good, but the quality has suffered. His photos run about $5K and I still don't understand why he got into video, but that's none of my business. He makes so much doing photos, and is SO popular, it just seems crazy to add to the stress of the day with video and then to end up putting out a shoddy product.

I shoot with 4 cams alone at weddings routinely. It is a lot of work, especially setting up and tearing down and moving from place to place. But I do it.

To offer photos as well? It would be a lower end product for sure, but anyone could do it. It is the quality that would be questionable in my mind. Quality is a relative concept for some people anyway, so in then end if the people pay for it and are happy that's all that matters.

To offer photos as well? It would be a lower end product for sure, but anyone could do it. It is the quality that would be questionable in my mind.

Exactly my thought, I could shoot video, do photo and play dj the same time as well if I really wanted, like Peter said, just do it, but it's oversimplifying things as if video is nothing more then splashing many camera's all over the place and let them roll unattended while you go off and multitask, it almost makes it sound like a monkey can deliver a quality video.

A lot depends on what your own standards are and if the client is willing to accept and pay for that, if they are ok with that, then you have a business but don't come and tell me here that you can do both simultaneously in very uncontrolled situations and still deliver a "quality" product, it will be very average at best, you also might just put up a few dslr's randomly and have them autotake photo's every few seconds while you go of and shoot video, to me that sounds equally ridiculous but if you can get that sold, then why not?

I still believe it can be done though but the circumstances have to be exactly right, in my previous example I gave with the changing light conditions you are basically scr*wed unless you don't care about the outcome if you juggle video and photo camera's simultaneously.

To be fair, if a Photographer was able to tap into the people who wouldn't have considered a video and persuade them to include one in their package, this can only be a positive thing to the Wedding Video Industry, which is frequently cited as the most undervalued of all the Wedding services. Those couples that do get a video as an add on are not expecting a top quality video in the way some of my clients expect from me. Expectations are lower and its easy to deliver in those cases. For a Videographer to add on a Photo service, you would need clients who view Photography in much the same way. Some do, but I'd say it's easier for Photographers to add Video than Videographers to add Photos, given we're the last to be hired usually. I get so many comments from couples who said they never even thought of a Wedding Video until they saw their friends Trailer/Video. If Photographers branching out contribute to this, I'm all in favour.

This is a timely discussion, as it's related to one I've been having with my primary second shooter over the past couple weeks.

Now, I don't know about this "one-man" stuff... lol There's no way I could pull that off, nor would I want to.

But what I did do is start of offer combo packages for my upper end stuff and it'll be interesting to see if I have any takers this year. I couch it as video is primary and photos are secondary. So I'll have to have couples who are ok with that idea.

Over this past year, we shot some photos at weddings where there was a pro photographer and the comments and such were incredibly positive. We shot them for our own purposes, not trying to replace the photographer or anything. Nonetheless, based on the positive feedback from not only the couples but also their friends and family members, we figured it would be worth a shot to start offering combos.

Now, there are usually 3-4 of us on site to begin with. And my second shooter is actually a "photographer" to begin with, as he's been shooting since high school.

I think for us it would work out great, since we all work together all the time, it would be "easier" for us to pose and get shots for BOTH photo and video purposes without feeling like we are intruding or whatever.

A lot of the comments are really missing so many of the points that I was trying to make that I seem to be repeating myself.

Noa, you gave the scenario of lighting conditions constantly changing and that a video left running while you are taking the stills would not handle the changes on auto. I have said previously that I regularly check and adjust all camera settings, but as a professional, I work with the conditions, so if the conditions are changing that much, then still and video cameras both are being set appropriately because I will be using my twin camera rig. If the conditions remain the same, then I may let the video run longer and shorten the clips at the editing stage. We are not talking about 10 minutes of continuous video here, we are talking about clips of maybe 20 seconds rather 6 or 7 secs, It is just me controlling the situation at my own pace. the posed groups are not a great subject for video, so I will often split the groups into sections to get lots of video of other things while they are sorting themselves out, rather than an endless chain of groups that bore everybody whilst trying to also cover it all with video. There are many ways of arranging the day to make it all work well, but it does involve some lateral thinking, which I love.

Steve, you made the point that if lots of people start offering joint packages, bad results may turn clients away from the idea. I would disagree with that, as one of the reasons that we started to offer a joint package is because of some of the diabolical results that some photographers (and videographers) were getting, leading clients to ask us if we could make an album from stills from the video. The poor photographers however, haven't turned people away from photography.

Jeff, you have a friend who is a great photographer and has started offering videos that you consider bad. if his videos are indeed bad, then he shouldn't be offering them at all. Also when it comes to promotion, most of our totally new non recommendation work comes from wedding shows where we are now advertising and promoting a joint video/photography package. That attracts the majority potential photo clients in addition to the ones already interested in video. You also said that you work with up to 4 video cameras that take a while to set up and break down, but I work with 4 cameras and also audio recorders that take me a couple of minutes to set up and break down, due to using multi mount tripods and clamps.

The thing is, whatever way you work now, being photography or video, if you offer a serious joint package, you have to work differently to achieve consistently good results from both. If you aren't a competent videographer and photographer, you should NEVER consider doing both or they will both be poor. However the similarities between stills and video are many, but you have to fully understand the differences as well. It is vital to understand visual flow in video, but with photography you also need to understand the subtleties of dress arrangement, foot and hand positions, the tilt of a head and a myriad other things. A joint package is not about doing two jobs, it is about understanding all aspects and making them work as one new job.

As regards pricing, some people may consider they are paying less for a joint package, but most book us because they love our photos and our documentary video. they also love that there won't be two companies competing for the best shots and angles all day, just one company moving smoothly with emphasis on what is important at each stage.

Roger

Kyle I forgot to comment on your post, which I do agree with. Whether you are a joint solo shooter or working with a team as you do, the point is you are not competing or intruding on someone else all day. You know what you want to achieve, and your one team is geared to make that work smoothly and efficiently. It's no good bringing in an outside photographer who will do what he always does, your photographer must work as part of the team, properly integrated and fully aware of what everyone else's requirements are.

Roger

We are not talking about 10 minutes of continuous video here, we are talking about clips of maybe 20 seconds rather 6 or 7 secs, It is just me controlling the situation at my own pace. the posed groups are not a great subject for video, so I will often split the groups into sections to get lots of video of other things while they are sorting themselves out, rather than an endless chain of groups that bore everybody whilst trying to also cover it all with video.

Not sure we are talking about the same thing, I"m talking about a ceremony coverage.

Not sure we are talking about the same thing, I"m talking about a ceremony coverage.

Oops, sorry Noa, thought you were talking about poses and groups. Same solution for me though, the main still and video cameras would be side by side, always tripod mounted and I adjust both as required. Apart from the rings and the kiss, there are always a few seconds to make changes and if the light changes right as they are doing the quick moments, it would have an effect if I was just doing the video or photos only. I don't recall having ever had that sort of problem, but if I did, I would probably put the video on auto and worry about it later and reset the dslr. The thing is every wedding brings some sort of minor problem or compromise and we do whatever is necessary to sort them.

Roger

Well kudos to you if you can handle all that simultaneously, I have had enough multicamera ceremonies that required 100% of my attention just to be able to come home with something that I would consider good enough, I could not even imagine taking another dslr and doing the photopart as well while controlling my videocamera's, not without scr*wing up one or the other.

Steve, you made the point that if lots of people start offering joint packages, bad results may turn clients away from the idea. I would disagree with that, as one of the reasons that we started to offer a joint package is because of some of the diabolical results that some photographers (and videographers) were getting, leading clients to ask us if we could make an album from stills from the video. The poor photographers however, haven't turned people away from photography.

Roger

I think you misunderstood. If a Bride gets a bad Photographer, I would expect a Facebook message like this, 'Don't use x Company, they're not very good', whereas a poor joint Photo/Video Company could lead to this sort of facebook message, 'Don't have your Photos and Video done by one person, I did and ended up with crap Photos and Video.'
I have no problem with companies offering both, in the same way I don't object to those who offer Shortform, Highlights only packages and even Shoot it Yourself companies. My only concern is if one style of business began to dominate the others. Although I started out with an interest in Digital Photography, these days I am very passionate about Videography and less passionate about Photography. Should joint Photo/Video Services take off as you feel it should, I could well be compelled to do this if only to survive in a competing market. Good Business decision, yes. Good for my Clients, I'm not so sure.

You obviously get a great deal of job satisfaction juggling both. For me, I'd feel I'd miss those precious moments that can often make a good Wedding Video into something very special. During the formal Photos, I'm primarily with the Guests. The video I'm currently editing has a lovely moment where the Page Boy and the Bridesmaids were being photographed by a Guest. The Page Boy kept shouting 'sausages' to the point where the Bridesmaids in jest tried to cover his mouth as the photo was being taken. It was a funny moment; my favourite footage I got of these particular Bridesmaids, who were all relaxed and laughing. It was not a moment the Photographer saw; he was busy with the formals. I can give you hundreds of similar examples where I've caught something special, whilst the Photographer has been busy with the couple. A static camera waits for content, a roving camera goes hunting for it. I've spoken to many Photographers who hate doing formals, the most boring and least creative part of the day they say it is for them. The idea of sacrificing good video content for that has no appeal.

A static camera waits for content, a roving camera goes hunting for it.

That pretty much sums it up and it goes both ways, you need to make choices what gets priority to capture these precious raw emotions but that decision will always be at the expense of losing such a moment on either your video or photocamera. If your clients understand that you can sell it that way but for me these little details make a far greater product then just a cctv like recording, those moments won't jump in front of your unmanned camera's, you have to look and act upon it and that can only be done with the camera in your hands.

A lot of the comments are really missing so many of the points that I was trying to make that I seem to be repeating myself.

You can say that again :- (

In fact you probably will have to :- )

Minds are made up. Gotta say its really quite insulting for anyone to say or imply that just because they cannot figure out how to do something or because they can't see the point or the need, that somehow the results from those who are …. er ….. a little more broad-minded, must by definition be poor or lacking in some way. We claim to be creatives ..... well the "cinematic" brigade anyway. How about some creative thinking!

There are many ways to do things right. For example in a separate but related issue Roger has often explained that he meets every prospective client before booking and never accepts a booking at the time of the meeting (he'd be shot at dawn by any sales manager but thats another matter!). And he delivers the finished product in person.

I on the other hand am geared up for online. I meet less than 20% of my clients before the day. So if we both have 50 wedding bookings a year thats 50 Roger has met and 40 I haven't met. The ones I do meet often come to me rather than me travel to them. I don't hand deliver the finished product unless it is a heavy photo album and is local. Clearly there are time and cost benefits if the process can be streamlined.

Some prospective clients don't want to meet / don't see the point for them and would rather base their decision on online research. Others fear a hard sell having experienced that elsewhere. Yet more are recommendations and feel that a meeting is irrelevant.

We are reaching similar ends by different methods. Each happy with their own procedure. And crucially WE ARE DOING IT - not armchair theorising about it. I booked two decent ones for next year yesterday. Both had responded to an adwords entry believe it or not (again, another subject as to how to make it work for you). Both made an initial short phone enquiry and both made their deposit bank transfers and emailed their scanned booking paperwork straight away.

I'll answer a couple of points in the thread:

Noa I think of your product as more of a boutique product than a mainstream one and it may well be considerably more difficult to integrate it into a photo-video package. Again you aim to travel light in order to service the market in congested urban areas with minimal transport issues. It would be problematic for you to carry the extensive off-camera stills flash equipment I always have for use in shooting formals inside in poor weather or after dark.

Noa, the locked down video cams are seldom completely inaccessible unless there are very strict rules regarding movement during ceremony or if the interior architecture or lack of space preclude movement. Therefore they can be recomposed frequently. For example one at the rear may take in a wide scene setter by default then be recomposed to a lectern for a reader then later recomposed to capture the couples exit followed by all the guests. I am almost invariably next to one video cam or other throughout the ceremony and that can be recomposed at will. How many recompositions do you want in a 20 minute civil ceremony anyway without it getting thoroughly distracting for the viewer? In the vows for example: cut to the bride on the main cam, then cut to and fro with the groom as he says each line. The groom being on a distreet locked down cam pre-positioned to not show in the video or photo compositions. Recompose with the main cam from close ups as the rings are taken from the best man and so on. Mix it in post with footage from the rear cam, and possibly from other cams on the guests etc. Whats so hard about that? Whats so undesirable about that?

The small b-cams I use are in the Panasonic TM family. They cope great on the fly with changes in exposure white balance and focus subject; they do not need babysitting. For example a rear cam focused on a couple getting married in front of a large window through which variable amounts of sunshine flood as the sun goes behind clouds then out again. Often its a complete non-issue.

The video I'm currently editing has a lovely moment where the Page Boy and the Bridesmaids were being photographed by a Guest

Steve you got that because you were in the right place at the right time. You missed dozens of other moments simply because you were not in the right place at the right time and you never even knew about them. Just like the rest of us at every wedding. Its nothing to do with multitasking, its only to do with seeing.

I was in the right place at the right time for this, where the pageboy grabbed the bestman's speech and started aping him:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/907-c/images/349-Pageboy-pretends-to-make-a-speech-during-wedding-breakfast-at-the-Elvetham-Hotel.jpg

I agree that it would probably be far harder to add photo to video than video to photo. Thats because competition for photo is so cut-throat.

Prospective photo clients expect to see sample galleries like this even though its the formals that invariably make it into their album selections:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/elvetham-hotel-wedding-photographers.html

Probably its not feasible just to say "yeah we can do you some photos. You need to be building a portfolio NOW.

Now, there are usually 3-4 of us on site to begin with.*

As a client that would be my idea of hell on earth. A major attraction of joint packages with solo shooters is the client perceives it will be genuinely non-intrusive rather than a circus. Thats how they see it.

Pete

[b]

Steve you got that because you were in the right place at the right time. You missed dozens of other moments simply because you were not in the right place at the right time and you never even knew about them. Just like the rest of us at every wedding. Its nothing to do with multitasking, its only to do with seeing.

Pete

I've no doubt I miss many moments in a single Wedding, the point is I would have missed even more shots if I was doing the formal photos and relying on a static camera to cover the video side.

I can see many advantages to joint Photo and Video, for the supplier and for the couple hiring; I can also see disadvantages. This doesn't come from a lack of understanding how you go about achieving this combined service. I can see in my mind how I would go about it and yes I could do it. It would mean prioritising your day, good time management and a cool head. I've juggled on a single day Guest Messages, Marryokes, setting up Projectors for same day edits and a Wedding Video and all without complaint. I also man 2 video cameras for Ceremony and Speeches, adjusting both throughout. And I've already twice this year done combined video and photos, in a reduced capacity admittedly.

Purely as a personal desire not to add Photography to my service, for my sake, I hope combined Video/Photo doesn't take off. I love Video too much and I hate doing the formals. I'd rather quit the Wedding Industry than suffer that. Capturing video when they're being done is much more fun, and some of my favourite parts of the day.

Aside from that, it's comments like this...


The constant all day photography is really unecessary and is often the photographer justifying his time. Do the couple really want stills of the speeches or the first dance hanging on their wall?

Roger

and similar ones I'm sure I recall you've made about the Videography Professionals that stick out. I don't think either profession who work hard all day on either Photo or Video are always doing so unnecessary. It points more to attacking the profession you wish to add on, in order to justify the reduced time you can give to it compared to others.

I don't think either you or Roger are being questioned on your ability to achieve both Photo and Video and do a good job with it; it's the idea that you can do both and deliver a product that's as good or even better than those who devote their entire day to a Wedding Video that seems to me to smack more of hubris.

Digital Photography has completely changed weddings as now you can take 3000 exposures without batting an eyelid. I was shooting weddings as a photog back in the days when some of you guys were not born on Mamiya RB67 cameras and a 220 film roll allowed a massive 16 frames and if you carried 10 rolls of film with you then it was a BIG wedding. A few formals at the house (no getting ready shots) and then a couple of the bride in the car. During the ceremony? Not done ! You might pose a few with the priest afterwards and do dummy ring shots and then a confetti one outside the Church. The bulk of your shots were formals and then drop into the reception to do a dummy cake cutting and home often for dinner!!

Photogs are crazy now ..I have had two stand either side of me during speeches and shoot an estimated 100 - 200 exposures EACH!! Of What? Some guys with a mic stuck in his mouth???

When we do dual packages I put down the video gear and pick up my still gear for the formals so there is no need for multi-tasking. I wonder if brides really want 4 x DVD's of multiple shots to have to sift thru???
There are certainly not going to print or use much more than 100 photos at most.

Photogs are crazy now ..I have had two stand either side of me during speeches and shoot an estimated 100 - 200 exposures EACH!! Of What? Some guys with a mic stuck in his mouth???

I get this a lot from other videographers also :)

The bride will only receive (generally) 4 or 5 of these pics and they will be the ones with the best expressions. If you take just one pic each time then their eyes could be closed, not smiling properly etc etc so if you take plenty then you can pick out the best afterwards. If you use something like photomechanic then you can fly through hundreds of pics in seconds and pick out the ones you want.

If you ever watch a press conference take notice of the sounds next time. Whenever the speaker's expression changes or anything happens in the conference listen out for the shutters of the cameras. It's like machine gun fire when someone smiles - simple reason - pick out the best expression afterwards!!!

Whats so hard about that? Whats so undesirable about that?
Framing is not the issue, that's the easy part, it's maintaining the right exposure if you have strong backlight when your subject is sitting in the shade and changing lightconditions on outside weddings on a partially cloudy day.


They cope great on the fly with changes in exposure white balance and focus subject; they do not need babysitting.

I have enough experience in shooting multicam ceremonies on my own with cameras that are good in auto everything if needed but I have encountered several occasions where I absolutely needed to control and adjust most of them all throughout the ceremony to adapt to constantly changing lightconditions in outside weddings, not babysitting the camera's would have meant unusable footage, if you think this is ok that means we have different standards when it comes to video. During those ceremonies it would have been impossible to free up time to do photography as well without this having a negative impact on the video quailty.

I think that Pete has answered everything very clearly and I will just add a couple of extra comments.

Steve, you have again come back to this idea of a wide static video camera taking an overview while the group shots are being taken. This is a complete misunderstanding of how I work as I sometimes have a separate camera covering a wide view, but always have the main video and stlls cameras together. I work lightweight with the ability to move and change shots very quickly with stills and video. I always have one eye open for the little things as those are an important part of my videos. There is no point in quoting one instance of something that you caught on video that I might have missed while I was taking stills. I could give you dozens of examples of little incidents that I captured on video during group shots that you would have missed while you were off filming somewhere else. Those offering short form cinematic videos miss or don't include so many of exactly the type of shots that you and i would take Steve, but their clients still seem happy with the results.

You have also misunderstood my point about photographers spending a long time taking completely unnecessary shots. Pete has covered that pretty well, but my point is that photographers will often take continuous shots during the speeches for example which are completely pointless when it is being covered by video. By all means take stills of the speakers, but not continuously. I had a wedding last month with speeches lasting 40 minutes that I covered with two cameras. The photographer using a large and very noisy dslr, shot so many stills that I counted the shutter clicks on the audio and there were 421. Now what is the point of that? Him and the sound of his camera were very intrusive for that whole time. There are plenty of other times during the day when this also applies and it is something that has grown rapidly with the rise of digital photography and the removal of the need to get it right with every shutter press.

I have worked with hundreds of great photographers over the years and in no way suggest that I do a better job than they do. During that time i have also often asked why they take so many apart from the obvious eyes shut thing. One of the common answers is that when there is a videographer present, they feel that they should also be working if the video guy is, and I feel exactly the same. If the photographer is taken endless still shots, I feel I should be taking video to justify my presence. this means that I often take very similar shots of the same people and more footage than I will ever need. When we do the joint package, everything is geared towards what works best with both media in a much more controlled and non intrusive way.

The joint package is an alternative product that will grow in popularity with clients and professionals, but it is a different product. Short form cinematic video is also a different product and there have been similar deep discussions over short and long form that we are seeing here. Joint photo and video packages are just another growing product that some will argue can't be as good and some will feel is a great idea. It's not better or worse than separate photography or video, it is just a different approach. Like any product, the client needs to make their own choice of what they want and it needs to be quite clear to them what they will get. Let's not forget that we are discussing one person packages here which some will argue is insufficient for video only let alone both. There is though every opportunity to offer integrated packages with more personnel involved without the conflict sometimes found with two different companies.

Those that can't or don't want to do it will argue that the client won't be getting such a good product, those that enjoy it and see the positives, will simply get on with it.

Roger

Those that can't or don't want to do it will argue that the client won't be getting such a good product, those that enjoy it and see the positives, will simply get on with it.


That's just the whole point, ofcourse you can do both simultaneously but it will always have a impact on the versatility and quality of your end product compared to someone doing photography or video separately, if you can live with that and sell it like this then this is ok. I for instance shoot video alone and that also has a impact on what I deliver compared to the videocompanies that shoot with 2 or 3 persons, their work will always be more versatile in the kind of shots they are able to take and their shots will always have good focus and exposure because they operate their camera instead of letting them run unmanned. I also work around that and for me it works but I know I could deliver a better product if I had a equally experienced second shooter.

Those that can't or don't want to do it will argue that the client won't be getting such a good product, those that enjoy it and see the positives, will simply get on with it.

Roger

Roger, I really have no problem with you offering something different. It is very important if video and photo to survive to be innovative and try new ways of working.
My concerns is more the idea that those who do offer this service will not accept that they are offering a product that will in some way be compromised when compared to two professionals doing the same job. By all means market it as a different product, but if you're marketing it as just as good or even better because most Photographers and Videographers are shooting more than they need, getting in each others way, taking similar shots, lots of unnecessary arty farty stuff etc etc; this I do have a problem with.
Now why this is an issue for me, is perhaps best explained by an experience I had earlier in the year. A couple who I filmed their Wedding for in April almost didn't go with a Videographer and even when they did were extremely concerned, almost anxious as to how I would work with the Photographer to the point where we had meetings prior to the day. The reason for this anxiety was that the Groom's sister had got married the year before and her Photographer who offered a combined service had dissuaded the Groom's sister from hiring someone separate to do video with lots of horror stories. As the couple I filmed already had a Photographer who didn't offer both, these stories were on their mind when hiring me. I almost lost a good booking and the couple fretted unnecessarily. The Photographer and I worked very well together and within a limited timetable did I feel an excellent job. I'm sure he got some great close ups of Guests reactions during the Speeches, whilst I was busy capturing the person speaking and the Bride and Groom's reactions. Similarly I got some lovely material with the guests arriving at the Reception in an old fashioned bus, whilst he was with the couple at some lake. Something the Bride and Groom only got to see thanks to my video as the bus had left by the time they arrived. An advantage to 2 people doing the job I'm quite sure the Photographer who filmed the Grooms' Sister's Wedding would not have brought up when pushing his video add on service.

Steve, you can quote examples to prove a point, I can quote examples to prove the opposite point. None of it matters providing the couple get what they want and expect. A joint package is not a compromise it is a different package, one of the main features being that it is far more discreet and unobtrusive than having multi operators, which is very important to some couples. Some couples love the idea of multi operators, so I wouldn't get a look in.

I had a couple this year who spent £1800 on their photographer and didn't want a video. Mum wanted a video and paid for me to film it. When I delivered the video, the couple were delighted with it and over the moon that Mum had decided to book me. It seems that the couple were taking action against the photographer for falsely representing his business. They decided that only 5 pictures were up to the expected standard so I made an album for them from pictures that I had taken for titling and credits.

Another wedding last year had a slightly different outcome, because they told me on delivery of the video that they had asked the photographer for lots of shots of them kissing, as the joke in their family was that they never stop. They were disappointed to find that they had none, even though he can clearly be heard throughout the video saying 'Just another little kiss please', with lots shown on the video. They were also disappointed that he took no shots of the rings, the bouquet, in the car etc. I took some on the day and you can hear him say in the background 'I don't do cheesy shots'. What about what the couple would like?

Another wedding this year I worked with a photographer that I have never seen before and we worked perfectly together. So much so that we have both been booked by a guest for their wedding next year.

Finally, one of my couples last year were adamant that they didn't want a photographer at all as they said they had been to a number of weddings recently where the photographers had seemed to be running the day and using it as a photo opportunity for themselves. They just had the video and were very happy.

Like I have said on many occasions, it's all about what the couple want, not what we may think is best. I just want to maximise my customer base.

Roger

Roger you tell some lovely stories, they don't in any way address my concerns regarding joint Photo/Video packages. Which is that with Videography frequently undervalued by couples and with technology changing, more and more Photographers may if only to compete and follow others example, offer video as well. As they frequently meet the couple before I get even a look in, they are in prime position to dissuade the couple from booking a Videographer in order to secure a little extra money for themselves, whether this is in the best interest of the couple or not. Now as long as enough couples still see the value in hiring a Videographer and a Photographer, I have no problem with Video/Photo combi packages as a viable alternative, but if the future of Wedding Videos is to offer both Photos and Video at the expense of quality, I'd be wanting out before we got to that point. There are plenty of other people not getting married who do value Video enough to see it done well.

Lets take a look at what actually happens when you have more than one operator.

Far from improving, the coverage is often COMPROMISED. The exact opposite of your aims.

Take this ceremony room from a wedding I shot a few months ago. I was doing video only as there was a two person photo team:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/907-c/images/011-The-Oak-Room-in-which-wedding-ceremonies-take-place-at-the=Elvetham-Hotel.jpg

That photo is shot with a Canon 15mm f2.8L fish-eye to take in the whole of the room, so please excuse the distortion.

The registrars have no problem what so ever with operators doing anything they want. They are some of the most pleasant and easy-going in the country. Aldershot office to be precise.

However it is not feasible to move from rear to front during the ceremony without causing a major distraction by using the centre aisle.

On the day I had one small cam on a lightstand at the rear roughly in the place where this photo was shot from.

I had a second small cam clamped to the speaker bracket in the left front corner - you can see the speaker half way up the wall just above the panelling. It was not practical to use any other form of support because that corner was occupied by a string quartet during the ceremony. Plus two fully kitted out starwars stormtroopers believe it or not! That cam captured the groom facing the bride and the reaction of the guests behind him.

I had a third small cam attached to a wood panel by the window just to the right of the 2nd registrars desk to take in that side of the guests.

Usually I have my main video cam on a tripod in the right corner next to the desk as well. On this occasion I had it on a monopod instead because I anticipated problems with one photographer being anxious to occupy that same very tiny space.

Obviously I could do anything I wanted with the main cam and with the b-cam next to me. But I could not access the rear cam or the cam on the left corner once the ceremony was underway. Thats just a fact of life - nothing at all to do with combined packages.

The view from the rear cam was lovely and I cut to it many times in the multi-cam edit:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/images/dvi/clearshot-01.jpg

Now lets see what happens at one of the most crucial moments of all:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/images/dvi/clearshot-02.jpg

Yes the registrar had to move out of the lead photographers way so he could shoot, quote, "what the couple are expecting from seeing my portfolio. And yes that is a his second photographer on the left shooting pretty much the same thing.

And both of them using flash :- (

He could have just as easily shot from the corner as in this photo at the same venue in which I did both the stills and the video:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/907-c/images/122-Father-of-the-bride-gives-his-daughters-hand-to-groom-during-wedding-ceremony-at-the-Elvetham-Hotel.jpg

I like to be able to act quickly to recompose stills so having stills cams on tripods as Roger does isn't suitable for me:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/907-c/images/123-Elvetham-Hotel-wedding-photography.jpg

Another instance:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/907-c/images/129-Elvetham-Hotel-wedding-photography.jpg

The MOG bought several extra copies of the video and sent me a note afterwards Thanks for the videos. Fantastic memories of a wonderful day which you captured fantastically thanks very much

if you think this is ok that means we have different standards when it comes to video

To reply in similar passive aggressive vein NO it means you are stuck in your ways :- ) Ceremonies in England are not legal outside unless the couple are under a permanent structure as here:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/828-bjhs/images/039-Oxford-Thames-Four-Pillars-Hotel-wedding-photography.jpg

That is the venue's mic on the table by the way, and no it wasn't possible to get a feed or to tune into their frequency. Their audio was rubbish anyway because it was very windy. Fortunately I got decent audio for the most part from the lav I put on the groom. The exposure was changing all the time in this ceremony because of the sun. I had my main cam to the left of the registrar, a b-cam in the same position as this photo was shot from, and a third cam at the rear of the guests. All the cams coped fine. At points when any cam adjusted its exposure I just cut to an alternative cam.

I do turn away requests for photo-video if I perceive that it will not be feasible to shoot both, for example this busy Hindu wedding where I did photos only:

hindu wedding photographers videographers buckinghamshire photography video asha and sandip ashton lamont photo galleries (http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/hindu-wedding-photographers-buckinghamshire.html)

As regards photographers shooting “too many” stills, particularly of parts of the day which will never end up in print. Yes I agree up to a point. But its also important to realise that the product is no longer prints, its no longer even albums. Its the facility to relive the day in all its parts. As a photographer if you were to only supply coverage of just the parts which are popular in print you would very soon starve.

I love Video too much and I hate doing the formals. I'd rather quit the Wedding Industry than suffer that. Capturing video when they're being done is much more fun, and some of my favourite parts of the day.

I can relate to that. I have the same attitude to silly special effects such as “vintage” which has been very popular in stills. Again we are probably all guilty of our products containing a large measure of what we ourselves enjoy doing rather than prioritising the brides preferences – assuming she knows her mind in the first place.

Pete

Now, there are usually 3-4 of us on site to begin with.*

As a client that would be my idea of hell on earth. A major attraction of joint packages with solo shooters is the client perceives it will be genuinely non-intrusive rather than a circus. Thats how they see it.

Pete

It's not that bad. We have one person with the groomsmen who are in one location. Another person with the bridesmaids at the other location. Then we have someone who follows the photographer around. I've always stressed that we are pretty hands off and work to be as invisible as possible on the day. We may do a few staged shots for the highlight reel, but that's about it.

If it's a larger higher end wedding and we are using a 4 man team, I will usually take the task of setting up tripods and working on getting wireless mics set up and audio recorders, and checking all the stuff for the Ceremony to make sure that is ready to do.

There aren't 3 or 4 video guys just hovering around the photographer all the time.

It also helps ensure we get to capture those moments that no one else sees.

To reply in similar passive aggressive vein NO it means you are stuck in your ways :- ) Ceremonies in England are not legal outside unless the couple are under a permanent structure as here:

http://www.ashtonlamont.co.uk/828-bjhs/images/039-Oxford-Thames-Four-Pillars-Hotel-wedding-photography.jpg

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.

Roger you tell some lovely stories, they don't in any way address my concerns regarding joint Photo/Video packages. Which is that with Videography frequently undervalued by couples and with technology changing, more and more Photographers may if only to compete and follow others example, offer video as well. As they frequently meet the couple before I get even a look in, they are in prime position to dissuade the couple from booking a Videographer in order to secure a little extra money for themselves, whether this is in the best interest of the couple or not. Now as long as enough couples still see the value in hiring a Videographer and a Photographer, I have no problem with Video/Photo combi packages as a viable alternative, but if the future of Wedding Videos is to offer both Photos and Video at the expense of quality, I'd be wanting out before we got to that point. There are plenty of other people not getting married who do value Video enough to see it done well.

Steve I do feel from the tone of your posts that you are more concerned with losing work to someone who does both badly, than anything else. You are also raising unsubstantiated concerns by claiming that video quality will suffer when somebody does both. You may well be right in some instances but the same applies to existing videographers and photographers. You also have no way of knowing if the video quality of my joint package is streets ahead of your own, or greatly inferior as there is no clear yardstick and huge variation.

Firstly, if you are worried about someone else getting in first and persuading their client that they don't want a separate videographer, then you are assuming a number of things without real substance. E.G. the couple are not capable of thinking for themselves and drawing their own conclusions, the person that is trying to take your work away is a photographer and not a videographer offering photos, he may be a very experienced joint package operator that can blow away your own efforts as regards giving the couple what they actually want. If you are concerned about competition, then you need to ensure that what you are offering is well packaged product, that your product is well promoted and highly visible and that potential clients are aware of you.

Just incase you think that I am one of those trying to offer a substandard package and lure your clients away, I have always had a policy of not taking bookings on a visit to clients, always showing them comprehensive examples of our work and advising them to look at alternatives before making their decision. My selling is very positive, not negative and I am confident enough with what I do to encourage people to shop around. Most here think my marketing techniques are against best practice, but it gives me a very reliable and high booking rate.

I am also not a photographer offering a substandard video to keep them quiet, My main business has been wedding video for 30 years and I have a huge library of work and a good reputation, so in no way would let my standards slip. Most of my work is through recommendation and I frequently take bookings on the quality of my video or my photos or both. All clients look at both before they book if they want the joint package. They can also book a joint package with two of us if they wish, both switching between video and stills as required. I can't of course speak for anyone else offering a joint package as the quality of their work is between them and their client.

I have seen some terrible wedding videos taken by 3 man crews as I am sure many here have and I would be embarrassed to present such poor work. I have also seen work that I would not be able to achieve and is in a different league to my own. Both ends also apply to photography. What I offer is a choice of very competent wedding video, or very competent wedding video with very competent photography. If I didn't do it well I wouldn't still be in business.

Peter- one slight correction, I am not restricted to a stills camera on my double tripod mount, as I also have a stills camera round my neck for quick unexpected shots and my video cameras are all quick release or spring clamp mounted.

Roger

Actually, when I think about it, the most easy way would be to shoot a entire wedding with max two 4K video camera's so you can have good control over what you are doing the entire day and just extract the frames afterwards in post, so at least they will be getting a good videocoverage and the frames you select can be perfectly timed so they all will be more then sufficient quality for most of your clients. Your 4K camera will become a combined video/photo camera.

Roger, I'm not attacking your work. I'm suggesting that 2 Professionals doing Video and Photo are in a better position to capture the day and serve both Video and Photo extremely well rather than 1 person. Whether these 2 Professionals capitalise on that advantage and deliver good work is another matter. Competition isn't a problem, a future where you're expected to deliver both Photo and Video regardless whether you can do both very well is. It would be an interesting future where my competition would no longer be other Videographers, but also Photographers too. I suppose they're equally concerned with their work being undermined by Videographers telling Brides that their 4K stills can cover Speeches, 1st Dance and Evening do, so why hire a Photographer for the day. Why not just hire them for the Ceremony and formals. As technology changes, what becomes impossible last year becomes the trend the next. Your business is certainly innovative, offering something new and different to couples. Would it remain so valued if everyone was working to the same model.

Frankly I have no desire to do Photo and as long as your business model doesn't take over the Wedding Industry and force me down the route to keep in, I'm happy. Because if given a choice on adding another Wedding Profession to my own, I'd rather bake the bloody cake. I can whip up a mean sponge.

Exactly my thought, I could shoot video, do photo and play dj the same time as well if I really wanted, like Peter said, just do it, but it's oversimplifying things as if video is nothing more then splashing many camera's all over the place and let them roll unattended while you go off and multitask, it almost makes it sound like a monkey can deliver a quality video..

Ha, LOLz.

As a DJ/Videographer, I agree, multi-tasking stinks. We finally got our prices high enough that when we go do our next wedding with both, we'll have a 3rd person, so my wife will shoot video, James will be my DJ, and I'll float between both as needed.

To do both video and photo *during the ceremony*, I'd probably do a similar strategy as solo video in a big church. Either lots of cameras, or several 4K cameras, so that you can get different looks from the same positions, or have one or two cameras stashed in spots that will get you that random shot (like a camera in front pre-focused for the parents in their seats, or a GoPro to get a wide shot of the whole church).

If I had four 4K cameras, I could almost just press record and not touch them again until tear down, and put together something pretty close to what I do now (right now is without 4K).

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...:)

Whoa! I go on a 4 day shoot, come back and you guys have really had at it :)

It seems to me a case of where the expectations have been set. If a bride is paying £1500 for photos and £1500 for video then she expects totally awesome results. If she is paying £995 for a combined package and has seen plenty of samples of previous work then clearly there has to be some lowering of expectations.

If video cameras are fixed and not moveable (i.e. remote cameras) then we have to accept what they get and live with it. Acting on your own at least you don't have other photographers walking / standing in front of them at the wrong time. Guests are however another matter ;)

In terms of auto exposure vs manual exposure, I've been in enough nasty situations to see Noa's point entirely and I'd hate to have to go back to a bride and say that the footage was all blown because the sun came out (which can happen indoors as well as out), or it was set while the sun was out and now it's too dark because the clouds came over.

It's still tricky for me to understand the full flow and final results. I agree it's hard to see how the combined package isn't some how compromised with a single operator. By compromised I don't mean quality as such, I mean the production value, things that even single video operators find hard to achieve, like the couple walking up to the door (say in an entrance) then doors opening and you see them walk through fro the other side and the cameras follow them. You can't do that even on your own for video, but if you're taking photos too you have to choose which one you're going to get.... or maybe you don't. Maybe it's having the right tools instead.

Weddings have to be both profitable and enjoyable or they can suck the life out of you. Lots of room for thought here.

The thing is Steve there will always be a demand for both or joint and the way that technology is rapidly developing, so many people are taking there own video and photos that I want to be sure that I can stay ahead of the game and offer them a quality professional service.

When I started taking wedding video 30 years ago, the norm for photographers was shots at the church door of Bride, Dad and the Bridesmaids, signing of the register and walk down the aisle at the end, then formal groups. There would be some of the couple at the reception, a setup cake shot before the meal, then the photographer would be gone. It is comparatively recently that photographers have started taking pics during the ceremony and speeches, informal shots and lots of romantic shots. It's even more recently that they have started to stay for the evening and get evening guests and first dance. Even the couple used to leave the reception after the meal to go on honeymoon 30-40 years ago.

I think much of the increased photography is due the perceived competition from videography and the ease of taking and processing large numbers of digital stills. Things will continue to change and evolve with technology and fashion and inspite of my advancing years I will enjoy the new challenges.

Noa- I will shortly be getting my first 4k camera and it will be fascinating to see if it changes how I work. 4k and 8k will almost certainly see the complete amalgamation of video and photographic cameras eventually, but it will be up to the operators whether they specialise in either or both.

Roger

Hi Dave, welcome back, the phrase light the blue touch paper and retire springs to mind :-)

It's certainly an interesting topic and one that is as important to discuss openly as the short/longform debate. Things are constantly changing and we are sometimes led by necessity rather than preference. There will never be a right or wrong way and I think that informed choices are always welcome.

As regards pricing, our joint package has been so successful that we will be increasing prices next year, strangely enough on the advice of clients.

Roger

The thing is Steve there will always be a demand for both or joint and the way that technology is rapidly developing, so many people are taking there own video and photos that I want to be sure that I can stay ahead of the game and offer them a quality professional service.

Roger

Staying ahead of the game is my goal to; I just prefer to stay ahead by doing one thing really well, rather then 2 things, one of which would be very well, the other not so well. One of the reasons I love Video is that few of the guests are taking it in comparison to Photo. I mean with photo, they're all at it. Iphones, tablets, proper cameras, and there's rarely a non showing of the budding enthusiast with their SLR. Whilst the formal Photo Session is a circus of Photography from all corners, I'm there capturing the behind the scenes with video, in most cases the only one who is capturing video. Its the moments like these that make what I do worth doing.
In regards to combining the 2, I can be flexible. Grabbing 4k stills, no problem. Non Weddings, yeah I'll do both. Weddings where the couple can't afford a proper Photographer, yeah I did one of those this year, so got to say yes to that too. For other Weddings, I just don't want to be yet another guy snapping away with my camera with everyone else; I'd rather be the one person getting video. Still there's room for both approaches.

Oh and on the subject of 4K stills, I've shot loads of 4K footage, and focusing with video can be a tough nut to crack and less forgiveable with a still. I'm seriously considering an external monitor because of it.