I thought the concept is great, well executed and entertaining. If I were the subject, I would be very pleased. the staged shots were well staged, and I believe they added to the telling of the story. Nicely done.

Hey Travis,

That's a great video. Fun, inventive, kept my attention all the way. I even watched it twice and enjoyed it again. Great work.

I swear to you, I watched it before I saw Jason's feedback, but I had the same reaction as him. Very unflattering first shot of the couple. I understand the restrictions you had to work around, but there's always a way to fix it. How about cropping out part of the shot to show a more flattering area. You start with cropped frames, so that would have worked. Or, start with your second shot if them instead, then the first. Subconciously, we would get that these are not tiny people and would be ready for the other shot. Or just leave out the first shot of them altogether. Leaves it more mysterious. It's not a necessary shot at all.

Or mix it up a bit. Use just a couple of the later shots where they look great, that don't give the story away, but foreshadow where we're going. Then move on to the coming out of the store stuff.

The shot of her painting the glass in front of the lens was great, but I felt it led nowhere. I really wanted to see something cool after it, but was disappointed. I wanted to see the reverse of the shot, I guess.

The shot with you running through the weeds up to them. You weren't using your merlin there, were you? It looked just hand held and didn't really fit the smooth shots preceding.

Anyway, this is nitpicky stuff. I really thought it was great and they are going to love it. I liked the look you gave with the colour grading.

All right, now I watched it three times...

I had the opposite experience than you did this weeked. I got the entire bridal party to take off their shoes and walk in a fountain IN THE RAIN and they went for it. I couldn't believe it. Sometimes you get zilla, sometimes you get gold.

Great Work!
 

I agree with Bill S on the staged shots. I liked the pacing of the cuts and it looks like it cost a fortune to produce.

Whatever you're making your under paid :)

Niether of them were going to win any beauty contests and you made them look cool, so my hats off.

I can't hold a candle to your work so I feel really wierd even commenting but..... as much as I like the close up shots of a brides face I could sort of see that she may not have brushed her teeth for an undetermined period before the shoot.

Once again I loved the entire thing but in the interest of any and all feedback this was mine.

Thanks again for sharing :)

Travis,
I have two very sensitive questions here. Number one, how long did this take? Setup, shooting, editing, etc. and What did you charge? I know for me, an add-on to a video is always great, jsut curious about those things. Great job btw. The only thing I kept thinking is wondering if they were going to get around to the whole "save the date" part of it. And they did. Great concept well executed.
Bill

How is a "save the date" video used?
 

Question about the concept: How is a "save the date" video used? We don't know the concept at all here in the Netherlands. Do B&G send DVD's to their guests? Or is it placed on a website and do they mail the link to their guests?
More and more I get the idea that wedding videos and all that comes with it, is a much bigger business in your country then it is in mine. If I only see the fees you guys can charge ...

The market is still very regional. In Idaho, (hit up google to find us), wedding videos are still an "new thing" but in other larger metropolitan areas like California, they have been popular for several decades.

I was wondering about that DOF too. I actually created that in post, since I don't own a DOF adapter. I have the titles coming in and so I kept the DOF. Maybe I should consider dropping the last title and bring the focus in.

The bride purchased some sort of foam insulation. Not at all what I had asked her to buy, thus the annoying lettering on the back. I had asked her to purchase either foamcore posterboard or a cheap canvas. She also called me to ask it foam brushes would work instead of actual paint brushes - they are cheaper. Thankfully she took my advice and just spent a few dollars more for the real thing.

I'm getting better with the Merlin, but that "rocking" shot was bad. The first try was nearly perfect, but she was supposed to turn and put paint on his cheek when I gave her the word when I got close. I got close, gave her the word, and she wasn't paying attention (they were talking) and didn't do it. So I had to do it again and I wasn't nearly as stable the second time around, but she hit her cue. I would have done it a third time but I was kind of feeling rushed with the light leaving and the groom's attititude.

I'm glad you found yourself wondering what they were painting. The whole concept revolved around that, with a big reveal at the end. It sure is hard to shoot shots of them painting without showing what they are painting!

DOF is pretty easy to do on the GL2. Put on the ND filter, crank open the iris, crank up the shutter speed till exposure is even, and then engage manual focus and rack it from foreground to background. The only tricky part is the annoying servo focus control. My LANC doesn't control Focus (I don't even know if that is possible, but it should be with a servo focus control).

I've shot a few of these and they did work out pretty well. Mostly I'm shooting flowers in foreground with couple in the background.

Isn't that annoying how you walk the same shot path and one time you nail it and another time (usually the one that counts) it gets fubar'ed? I practiced my "grand exit reverse walking" path a few times on this Friday's wedding before the couple actually came out. I don't even have HD space to record the footage (HD is in the mail) so I don't know if my practice runs helped. I sure hope so.

Well, I did do DOF on that shot in-camera, but I wanted a stronger DOF so I did the rest in post. As for LANC control, my LANC's can control the GL2's focus, but they are difficult to impossible to get a "rack focus" look with.

Thanks for the comments!

I'm going to take a hard look and see what I can do to fix this shot. I already know the couple is very conscious of their appearance, so if this shot isn't sitting well with me and the rest of you, then it probably won't sit well with them.


Really? I thought it just led right into the shots of them painting. I had a shot of them both painting the "lens" together, but it was the final take of the night and they painted too hard and moved the "lens". Maybe that would have worked better, since the next shots show BOTH of them painting. By the way, I say "lens" in quotes because that shot was actually done with me holding a CD case against the lens hood on my camera. d;-)


Unfortunately, yes. That was the 2nd take, and I don't know what the heck I was doing. The first take was beautiful, but the couple wasn't paying attention and didn't hit their mark so I couldn't use it. For some reason I just screwed up the 2nd take and didn't realize is during the shoot.


Nice. I hope you post that because it sounds cool!

This was for free. So yeah, I'm getting underpaid on this one. d;-)


Very good catch. I already tried to minimize this in post with color correction, and wasn't sure if I'd done enough or not. I think at this point I may go with a shot that just removes all of the color but the red paint on her cheek. Should solve the teeth issue once and for all. Again, good catch and excellent comment ... because I was still wondering if the correction I had done was working well enough.

I'm estimating I spent around 20-25 hours total on this project. That includes all of the time spent generating the idea and refining it, then retooling it for this couple (the concept was originally planned for another couple but they had to postpone their date). And also the time to find a fitting song and edit it down (and then edit it down even further after this shoot didn't produce all of the footage I had planned). Plus the time on the phone going over details with the bride, the time spent researching locations, the time spent planning out the shoot, the time spent shooting and editing, etc. Shoot time was about 3 1/2 hours, and edit time was around 4 hours or so.

This particular video was done for free, as I am trying to get a sample together for selling this next year. Again, this was not the original couple I had planned for this idea, so this was basically plan "B". Target price point for this type of shoot for next year will be $400-600. Still trying to determine that based on idea possibilities and potential complications and so forth.

Well, I'm still working that out. At the moment I plan to offer the "Save the Date" shoot/edit for a set price, and this will include placing the video online for the couple. They could then add a link to the video in their wedding invitations. It's a way for the couple to remind their guests to save the date, but it's also more about the couple "impressing" their guests and getting them excited about the wedding.

My end goal is to get couples to send out DVD invitations. The DVD will include the "Save the Date" video as well as all of the standard invitation information. A couple could also do a "hybrid" DVD where they send out a regular physical invitation that has the DVD included as part of it. Lots of possibilities.


Only in certain parts of the US. Like Jason mentioned, in California it is big business (but that's kind of a duh because of the film industry there). In Idaho, where Jason and I live, video is generally an afterthought and is very difficult to sell. I am trying to force the market in my area, and this next year will really show how open our market can be, as I have a lot of new options coming. Although brides aren't looking for this kind of stuff here, I figure they never will if no one steps up and starts offering it. That also means I won't be making what I'm worth for a while still, but hopefully it will all pay off down the road.

Hey Travis,

Yes, I can see your reasoning. But, when you are presented with a closeup like that, you expect to see the reverse closeup, or maybe a reverse medium closeup. Or at least the reverse. Not a wide shot from the side. And the shot of her painting the glass is very "intimate", and needs to be matched with another intimate shot. And to be picky, she looks like she's painting something low to the ground, but you cut to a shot where they are painting relatively high.

But, Travis, this is so nitpicky. You did such an amazing job with no time, that it would be a miracle if you managed to pull it off with no issues. It's easy for me to watch the video and tell you what could be better, but I wasn't there dealing with all the problems, was I?

I'll post it if I can, but I'm not sure if I'll be the editor for that job. I hope so, cause it was a great day....

Travis, I can only express my appreciation of your work. It's top notch.

All the best...