I've been absoring all this discussion...
 

or at least trying to. Also, I don't mean to come off as negative or argumentative. (If I am, then I'm expressing my ideas poorly; apologies for that, but the written word can really be a poor vehicle for communication).

I don't do many weddings; (I don't think I'm good enough yet to rival the existing competition in my area, so I don't compete in that arena), but here are some additional, though maybe impractical, thoughts for marketing:

- for an over-the-top wedding package, would it be entirely impractical to offer a highlights DVD as "favors" for guests? (It would require someone to burn and print x number of DVDs in the course of the reception, but would, IMO, be more memorable - and considerably more expensive - than a book of matches, etc., and could lead to more clients). There would probably be few takers for such a package, but it would certainly be "over-the-top" for a very high-end client. Something like Microboards GX Disc Publisher might be useful for such a job, with a copy of the invitation as a cover and/or case insert.

- for video frames-as-prints, I've read that DVRACK (or whatever Adobe is calling it now) can create a frame grab in the same res as is being captured by the camera, then eventually printed. Example: if shot in HD, directly via DVRACK, supposedly nothing of the video frame is lost thru compression. Assuming the frame(s) captured were composed decently, would/could these result in better-than-acceptable prints, even after cropping? Has anyone tried that yet? I don't have DVRACK, and I know that presently means capturing directly to a laptop, (which is no fun to lug around), but might be doable during the ceremony. (If we ever see something the size of an iPhone with full laptop performance, maybe this, or some semblance of it, is the future convergence tool for video and stills)?

- for those slow periods during the year, have any of you contacted prior clients who may have only a VHS recording of their wedding and attempted to sell a re-edit and/or conversion to DVD package? The market would be as big/small as your prior clientele, minus divorces and deaths, and I suspect there would be few takers, even in light of the looming demise of VHS. But, a freshly burned and/or edited DVD could make a great, romantic, wedding anniversary gift (particularly from a husband to a wife) and might garner some income during the slow periods. Remember, too, that Valentine's Day is fast approaching, and while flowers are nice, they dry up and eventually end up in the trash. This could be a great, different, and emotion-filled gift after many years of marriage. I wonder if this might be an easy sell to husbands, as it would relieve them of much of the "pressure" of finding a gift.

If none of these ideas make sense, please pardon my ramblings. I'm in an "off mood" today, and am doing some "wishful thinking" (as in "wishing I had more work"), and I have a tendency towards ideas that are bigger but maybe impractical. (Something my family has learned to politely suffer through. Thanks for your patience in doing the same).

never be hesitant to throw out a few ideas on this forum Denis,
that is exactly why we are here, to swap ideas and ultimately reinvent the wheel. Particularly in a post like this.

Earlier I mentioned how I felt the video framegrab would/could someday replace the photos.
Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about now, as the technology currently stands. Even though its technically possible nowadays.

Surely its obvious to most of you that there is a merging of both mediums taking place? Thats exactly whats happening with the release of every new model. I personally think its crazy for anyone not to see the eventual 'priority shift' from the stills camera to the videocamera on the day. Or to argue with myself, even if the stills camera always has the edge over the video cam, its only a matter of time before the video cam reaches acceptable levels for wedding production. I don't believe for one second that 1080p is as far as this thing is going to go.
Sure, there will still be a need for an 'organiser', possibly a better paying role than either photog or videog today!
Apologies for the predicting, Im aware of some other more useful strains within this post taking place.

Photographing an event and videotaping and event are 2 totally different disciplines, and not because video cameras have inferior resolutions. Even if they were equal in pixel count, sensors etc, they are still different beasts with different philosophies.

I am not saying that you cannot get wonderful stills from a videocamera, you obviously can. But lets not go overboard. I think we should respect photographers enough, and be modest enough to know that technology is not what separates a photographer from a videographer.

This is coming from a videographer.

Great opinions, and I like anyone like to hear both sides of the story. It is funny how I as a photographer feel different not protecting my background and some of you as video guys not claiming video can do all. Guess this just shows that it is not a ego thing, but how we feel.

I will say I used to be a huge believer in that you need HUGE files. I always upgraded DSLR's to get the most pixels. I am now shooting with 2 1 the 5D and 1D Mk III. The 5D cost around $2500 and has a 12.8 mp image. The 1D Mk III is a pro camera and cost around $4500 and is only 10.1 MP. Now with both using the same lens, I can not tell a difference in print quality up to size 20X30. The 5D has a larger sensor but the 1D is better built, and mush faster but image quality is undetectable.

I once thought I would be safe putting small images on my website, since you couldnt right click on them to "save as" and they were so small. Well boy was I surprised when a buddy showed up with a really nice 8X10 of one of my images, just to show me it could be done.

I realized then technoligy will always humble me.

Hi Matt,

Options are going to depend on the timeline of the wedding days in your market. In some markets, 6 hours of time is not nearly enough and other markets, 6 hours of time is too much, so it really just depends on the local customs and timeline of the day.

$1800-2400-3000 would be a good place to start. You need to make sure that when the client goes from 1800 to 2400 they are getting a good bang for their buck, but more importantly, you must make sure that you are making a good return on your time for the extra $600. I say that because it is more important for you to make a good return on your time. If you are not making a profit, you will go out of business. That is unless of course you have another source of income.

$1800 should give them just enough coverage time to get the bare minimum. In my market, 4 hours of coverage time will cover the bare minimum. It may be different in your market. Then perhaps $2400 gets them another 2-3 hours of coverage. Just don't give them double the hours and throw in the kitchen sink for an extra $600.

Hi Matt,

You are welcome. It always been a debate to whether you should or should not have your prices on your website. If you want to sell brides on a cheap price, then you should have your prices listed, or if you have more business than you can handle and don't want to qualify Brides over the phone, then list your prices and let your website qualify the Bride.

If you are on the upper range of the market you may not want to list your prices. I say that because I want the Bride to look at my work first. If she loves my work, she may be willing to pay my price. If she sees my price first, then she may not even bother to look at my work.

If your middle package is $1800, then I say raise it. Seriously. Maybe you don't raise it tomorrow, but that middle package needs to go up, especially if the photographers are getting 3-5K. The photographer have already proven that there is some money in your market.

I'm going to cheat a little, and you will know what I mean, but here is a way to look at pricing. If you are pricing yourself too low, you can't just double or triple prices overnight. So what can your do? Go up gradually. What is your goal for the total number of weddings in 2008? When you have hit 40-50% of that goal take your prices up a few hundred dollars. If you have already booked more than 50% of your goal, then go up more than a few hundred dollars. The higher up you go the less you will usually book, but you don't have to book as many at higher prices. Do you really want to be away from your family every weekend?

You mentioned your local video association. That is great that a market your size has a video assocation. That can be a very good thing.

You also mentioned that you are using every oultet you can to get the work out, but I haven't seen you mention Wedding Day Edits, also known as, Same Day Edits. If you have not done a WDE, you need to. It's a great marketing tool. It's a wonderful way to show your work to 200-400 of the Brides closest friends on a large screen. It's also great marketing with other vendors.

Hi Kevin,

We will probably have to agree to disagree, but there is not much left to support a family on the net of a $60K gross. Between monthly business expenses, taxes, insurance, savings and not to mention replacing equipment and growing your business.

Now if you have another source of income from a spouse or an additional income and your video income only supplements the household income, then that is a different story.

Hi Dennis,

That is a great idea. We have done that twice after creating a Wedding Day Edit. With our own client, they booked a WDE and then ordered 200 DVDs as Thank You's for their guests, which were given out before the end of the reception. We charged $5.00 a disc, in addition to the WDE fee.

We did a WDE for another videographer and he sold 200 Thank You DVDs to the B&G to be handed out to the guests at the reception for $10 each. The Bride liked the WDE so much that she bought another 200 WDE DVDs to send to people who did not come to the wedding. That was a gross of $4000 in just Thank You DVDs. At the same time, it was great advertising for the videographer.

I would love to get setup to do a SDE. I can have the equipment and pull it off in most situations, but when it's hard to get the brides to pay for the product, how do you get them to throw on an extra like that and upsell them on it.

I would love to hear your opinion and anyone else that's doing these on how you got started doing them. I feel that when I watch SDE from other people, they almost have a different kind of couple than I typically see here. Most people here would see that as something that is not needed at all. Again I mentioned before that video is still something that is not needed, but added if you have the money.

Now I'm not trying to come out here and act like I can't get any money and that everyone is cheap. We do book 30 each year and do very well, but you're right that there is more money because they do see the need for the photography here. I just need to find the right formula in getting the work for what it's worth and helping to educate and develop a new mentality on how they see this service....and all of this is helping a lot. The wheels are turning! I appreciate everyone's help and comments.

Hi Matt,

I feel your pain. Upselling a Bride on a WDE can be a challenge, especially when the Brides total budget for video is less than $2k. I have seen WDE prices from $500-2000. We charge local Brides $1000. It seems like the videographers in big markets with big budgets have an easier time selling WDEs.

To help in selling a WDE, you could try doing one for free. You want to select a couple who will have a nice ceremony and reception. You also want to select a couple who is likely to friends who can afford your services.

One of the conditions for doing the WDE at no charge is that the couple will do two things. One, give you an interview after watching it. Two, send the link that you will provide of the WDE, to their friends.

You need to have two cameras rolling during the WDE presentation. One on the couple, of course from a distance and the other one from the back or the room, showing the WDE being projected. Roll cameras all through the presentation as well as for the applause after the presentation.

You can put together an edit from this footage and use it to sell WDE's to future Brides. Many Brides can't appreciate the value of a WDE, so it's up to you to show them the value.

A Marketing idea for WDE's?
 

Mark,

When showing a WDE during the reception, have you also taped those watching to get their reaction to the WDE, then use that footage in a marketing/demo reel?

Or, have you taped the b&g's reaction/response in a post-ceremony interview? The parents? Some sound-byte clips of people's reactions, interspersed with some of the WDE content itself, might be enough of a commercial for upselling, maybe from your web site.

Seems either would helpful there.

Hi Dennis,

I'm sorry for the delay in responding to you. We were in Orlando for 10 days and I am now getting caught up with everything from being gone.

Yes, we have shot the couples reactions as well as their comments after seeing the presentation. On our 2007 demo we showed a B&G watching their WDE as well as their comments about the WDE.

The best reactions we have ever had was from a couple of years ago. I wanted to put it on our 2008 demo, but ran out of time. Your post reminded me that I need to use it on our website. Thanks.

Couple of general assumptions of our customer base:

1. Customers compare a photographer's work to what they see in popular print media to subconsciously judge the skill of the photographer.

2. Customers compare a videographer's work to what they see in movies + television to subconsciously judge the skill of the videographer.

When it comes to photography, a single person can potentially spend a few thousand dollars, pack all of his gear into a backpack and capture images that are on par with stuff in print media. The artist is the bottleneck here, not the equipment.

The problem with Video is that it takes a ton of equipment, money, and man power to produce a video with a look that comes even remotely close to what we see in movies and television. After all, the negatively connotated term "video-look" was derived from this comparison. The equipment and budget, to a large extend is the bottleneck to full artistic potential.

So from our perspective, we should be charging more for our work accordingly, but that won't work and it will not change until there is industry wide bump in prices and acceptance from the customer base, which will take a long time. If not that, the customers will simply settle for the "sub par video-look" products and the artists behind the camera will forever be locked into this perpetual cycle of producing work that we know can be much better but is prohibited by the laws of economy.

ok i just read some posts ONLY at the start and here's my thought.

What if a Sony Z8 or Z9 (future camera) with a built in Nikon D3?
I hope that sort of camera would come out. haha


Would photographers fights with videographers for market shares?
what's the new job title? videophotographers or photovideographers . which one sound better?

Sony already makes something that's getting pretty close... the little SR11/12 and the new CX12... both are designed to shoot dual mode, meaning you can shoot "7.2 Mpixel" still simultaneously with shooting HD video.

Although the stills aren't on par with a good dedicated still cam (I suspect the compression algorithm is optimised for display on a large 1080i TV), they aren't bad with some post sweetening. As always, it's the composition of the shot... and that depends on the skill of the operator, but it's probably a sign of things to come.

For the "tight budget" client, hiring an experienced shooter with a dual mode cam might well be a practical solution. I'm considering trying a 2 cam, 2 op shoot (with a safety angle in the back on tripod) with this approach - something just to meet the market in a bad economy... Shoot the formals with the old DSLR, but cover most of the event with the dual mode approach.

Even wackier is the "smile mode" in the CX12 - the thing knows when someone smiles and pops off a still while it's shooting video... all by itself! I can see these being very good for front angle shots with carefully placed cams - bride smiles, click... etc...

Perhaps this is unorthodox but i thought it might be entertaining to look back on a not so old post.
Even if its just to acknowledge how far and how fast this thing is moving!

Its been almost a year since I started this post, and I have to say I still feel someone who is good at Videography will always be able to find work. I have always been able to pick up things very quickly, and did with photography, video is taking me MUCH longer, not to master but to be decent at. Sure I can set up a tripod, run a single camera of an event that requires no zooming, panning etc. But to do a wedding that requires good audio in the wedding envirement (from soft vows, to loud receptions) Multi camera angles etc. Oh yea and add in that your doing a couple weddings a month, not just one or two a year. This is a occupation that not many will be able to do. Many may try, and get in and then back out as fast as they got in. I dont see too many people jumping into this business anytime soon. Could be wrong but that is MHO.

It takes a special sort of person, that's for sure...

The job description would probably be part daredevil, part gearhead/geek, part artist, and part just plain nuts...

To shoot video is "easy"... to shoot/edit/produce video worth watching more than once (if that)... whole nother ball o' cheese! Especially doing it live with no retakes, taking the results, tossing them in the blender, and creating something with lasting significance...

If you stick with it and really enjoy it, it's fun though, keeps weddings from being dreadfully boring!

I will stick with it, have way too much invested now not to, and can finally see some better footage, and easier to edit stuff.

We're right on the verge of that changing. The frame grabs from the 5DII are great up to 8x10. And there still the option of pressing the shutter button and getting the full 21mp. The next RED cameras will produce very high quality frame grabs too.

BUT....looking at both frame grabs and still shots from on most videographers website shows me that the basics of good people photography aren't understood. There no fill light or catch light when needed, there are bright backgrounds and faces in shade. More knowledgeable B&G aren't going to buy that. And this doesn't even address proper posing for more formal shots that most couple want. This is craft stuff, not art. It's taught in books and DVDs and seminars.

My formula for adding still photography:

1) Get yourself trained in wedding photography.
2) Don't spend a lot on additional equipment. Most of the very best, and I mean very best, wedding photogs dont use what you think of as "pro" cameras.
3) Find out who the wedding photography assistants are in your area. Some of the young ones are as good as the guy they work for. Given a choice, for wedding, I would rather hire a woman than a guy.
4) Use this person to shoot weddings with you and under your direction as an employee. Pay them more than an assistant and less than a photog. Do this with an ideal (looking) client that is having their wedding at a beautiful location. This is the basis for your new show reel.

P.S. Average looking people don't want to see a show reel or stills of people who look like them.

Good points Don!

Part of the problem for video is that we can't just "flash" as needed to get light to commercially acceptable levels... low light gripes aside, a video camera can't do what a good photog with a proper flash rig can - "glamour" light the subject for best effect.

After CC, learning lighting should be a high priority item, if it isn't at the top of the list.

A properly lit subject (even a "below average" one) can look "mah-velous", and bad lighting can make a supermodel look like something the cat dragged in.

The true "art" of the craft is taking footage/stills of "average" (meaning just about everyone sometimes) people, and making them look like Pitt and Jolie, not Nick Nolte post DUI...

Some people's "good side" is a bit more challenging to find than others, but if you learn posing, lighting, camera angle, framing, soft focus when needed <I'm the REALLY fuzzy spot meself...>, and the other tricks o' the trade, that's what makes for the "money shot".

It's not "the camera", or even the subject... it's the artist behind it that makes or breaks the shot. Yeah, there are people the camera "loves", that makes things easier, but that's the exception...