|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 31st, 2007, 12:05 AM
|
#1 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 72
|
My wedding video portfolio.
Hello Everyone,
Here is my wedding video portfolio: http://www.youtube.com/weddingfilmstory Enjoy! Marcin
__________________
Marcin Wilczek zoom-studio.net |
|
|
|
July 31st, 2007, 08:13 AM
|
#2 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 126
|
Are you wanting a critique?
|
|
|
|
|
July 31st, 2007, 08:30 AM
|
#3 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 72
|
Feel free to critique, let me know what you think.
Thanks
__________________
Marcin Wilczek zoom-studio.net |
|
|
|
|
July 31st, 2007, 09:28 AM
|
#4 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Hi Marcin,
I watched just the one video currently at the top of your YouTube page... the Kimberly & Craig clip. It's a charming little piece, nicely edited. I don't know that I've ever seen so many Dutch angles used in a wedding highlights clip, though. But if that's your style and your customers like it, then more power to you. However I do have a particular criticism for you that I feel rather strongly about -- I'm not at all a fan of the "fake film look" what with all of the added scratches and the darkened corners. As a former film projectionist, I can assure those folks who might believe that "fake scratches" somehow equals a film look, that this really is not a desirable thing to have in my opinion, and is not at all representative of what a "film look" should be all about. Properly handled film never looks like that. Scratches are a result of poor handling and dirty projectors... point being, in my opinion, adding scratches and lines, etc. doesn't enhance the look of the piece; instead it does quite the opposite: that effect actually degrades the image. Again, just an opinion, but I think your highlights clip would have looked significantly better without the fake film scratches and the darkened corners... why not give your customers the best looking image that you're capable of producing, rather than marring it with a highly generic and sadly over-used digital effect? But -- as I said, all that counts is that the people who are paying for it are happy with the results. If it's getting business for you, that's what really matters. |
|
|
|
|
July 31st, 2007, 10:45 AM
|
#5 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 680
|
in the nicest possible way i agree with Chris.
The old film look is good when used momentarily, but almost becomes distracting for the sort of durations you have used. Good stuff otherwise! |
|
|
|
|
July 31st, 2007, 04:45 PM
|
#6 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 126
|
I agree totally about the scratches, I just didn't want to say so if you weren't looking for criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
August 8th, 2007, 03:39 AM
|
#7 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 9,510
|
When chris said "Dutch angles" I thought he was refering to looking at something from my point of view but having it looked up in the dictionary I learned something new now :)
This is something I noticed as well, I see this technique in a lot of wedding videographer demo's and I also use it now and then but here it felt overdone. Also the aged filter shouldn't been used throughout a complete film. I must say that beside these 2 remarks everything looked very nice and proffesional. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
