Photogs stepping into the videog's turf?
 

The Nichols Family! on Vimeo

Amazing work..

More important question is, if photographers can offer something like this - Not a true long-form/continuous video like our typical wedding video, but something that offers motion, sound, and intercut with photographs, would many clients be inclined to go with that instead of paying for a dedicated video person?

I think YES, these type of products will be a direct competition to the typical videography offerings. Not in the sense that from our perspective, these are similar things, but to the client, even if they just got a little bit of video, it might satisfy their video needs..

Let us hear you thoughts..

Hi Yang,

Seems as though the still camera manufacturers are causing convergence to happen in a way I didn't think it would. I thought videographers would be printing stills way before photographers were doing videos. I believe technically good things will come out of it though - bigger, more light sensitive sensors for video cameras being the most important with shallow depth of field more sensitivity. Far from being in a funk about it I look at the whole situation as beneficial. At present less than 20% of weddings have a pro videographer. The more exposure moving images get, whether its from a still camera or a video camera, can only mean more business for those that work with moving images for a living. I'm interested to see what talented photographers do with moving images. I've always known that the better videographers are experienced photographers that already instinctively know how to work with composition and light. How they interpret that into story telling, with the added elements of timing, natural audio, music, texture and mood will be really fun to watch (and learn from).

With Canon and Nikon adding relatively impressive video specs to the camera, it does open up some room for crossover. But keep in mind that a Jack of All Trades at a wedding might not be as effective as you might think. While they do cover similar territory, a photographer and videographer often times capture things that the other doesn't for one reason or another. The two disciplines actually work best complimenting each other, not converging into one role. With Scarlet and Epic from Red, there is the possibility of having cameras with incredible versatility. I suppose time will tell if financially it makes more sense for B+G to just hire one person to do it all. What is more appealing to me is to keep them separate and when the photographer sees a cool moment, switches into video mode and gets the shot and when a videographer sees a good stills opportunity, switches into still mode and gets a good shot. That to me is where it gets interesting.

I completely agree that photography and videography are complimentary, and I don't see many people being able to do both well. I think most photographers that try to incorporate video on a large scale will find that they need to hire someone who is competent with shooting video (and probably even editing it). That's going to cause the photog to have to charge more to make up for the new service, and eventually you probably get back to the same price point as hiring a separate photog and video contractor. The point becomes moot.

I think a photog offering bits of video is mostly going to appeal to the crowd that didn't really want to spend money on a good videographer anyways. It's the same crowd that will hire a lesser photog just because the photog gives them a disc with all of the original images. For those couples who really want a quality video, I still see them hiring a true videographer.

I think NO, the video you linked to showed an image of a great camera, not a great videographer. If tomorrow canon brings out a xh-a2 that can shoot stills up to 100 miljon pixel, do you think the whole photog community will fear we will take their clients? Don't think so, even considering the fact that a videocamera is so much better then a photo camera because it captures 25 frames every single second continuously, no need to wait for the right time to make your snapshot, just pick out the frame that had the best looking emotion.

It takes much more then just a great camera to make a great movie, since the 5d came out I read many of these kind of topics of videographers fearing to loose clients but I can't understand why.

I wouldn't loose any sleep over this, just continue what you do best, deliver great video/sound and let the photogs do what they do best, take photo's.

I think a large part of this hype will die off when it is soon discovered how much space this footage requires and the time it takes to edit something together to make a wedding story.

Noah,
I have to agree with you completely. I can't imagine a person using a camera to shoot a wedding and the presentation to people at the wedding. If we think about it as a guest all I can picture is a person at the front of the church holding a DSLR filming the bride and grandma Sally in the second pew with her cybershot doing the same thing. While the 5D can be used as an additional tool It certainly will not be a video killer, and if you are worried about that then you should really re-evaluate your business plan.

As a vidographer, you'll never be able to take a photo on the wedding day like a photographer can and still shoot video. It's not your concentration.. just like no photographer can ever produce a full wedding film like you while trying to shoot photo.

Will they be able to provide neat add on services for their clients.

Heck yes.

Will it affect your business? Probably not. In fact, if you're smart you'll use it to add value to the products you already produce. You have post skills, audio, and the ability to tell a story.

As photographers, we only really know about what we do. I don't think Patrick, who is one of the guys who makes the films our company, could shoot a full photo wedding on his own. He wouldn't be prepared for that. I could shoot a small clip well for cinema, but I sure as heck wouldn't shoot a wedding.. let alone edit it!

j.

....here's something to think about. What if you are shooting an event and the professional photographer is shooting some video all while doing stills....THEN, he or she puts something up on their blog within a week or so while your client sits waiting while you(and me) catch up on our backlog. If that video actually looks good....i doubt any of us are going to be thrilled about that besides the b&g and photog. that is a very real scenario.

I can see contracts getting edited in the near future that stipulate no videography by your photographer;)

personally I'm not concerned with all the hype. like some others said, I think there will be a very small market with this and even smaller for ones who do it well.

Interesting point. I agree that the photographer could be able to cut & render some little clip or two from the footage. And it may even look great. Probably not going to sound great, but they could cover that with a soundtrack of some sort. But I do see it putting a little pressure on those of us with embarrassing backlog times. Might be the motivation needed to kick things up a bit and push through the already p[aid for work.

Ultimately, it's a TOOL, people. Does a charcoal artist worry about oil paint making his craft obsolete??

The real question is how it fits into YOUR creative vision. Does it offer something new and exciting that justifies the cost? Will it expand your horizons? Or will it frustrate the heck out of you because it's not your "video camera"? Conversely, for many photographers it presents the same sorts of questions...

The small Sony AVCHD cameras do OK at "double duty" considering they can shoot stills simultaneously with video. As a practical matter, by the time you're concentrating on framing, exposure, etc., remembering to push the "photo" button is a few too many rungs down the ladder. And they ain't a DSLR. The Canon comes at it from the opposite direction and with apparently outstanding success...

IMO, having a camera which can do "both" disciplines well doesn't necessarily translate into an operator that can do that live... each cam operator needs to know what they are trying to capture and stick to that "under fire". Or be supremely talented at "multitasking"...

Can you shoot some pretty impressive video with the Canon? I'm pretty sure it can be done <wink>. Good stills, check... would this be a great creative "toy"... let's just say you'd be an idjit if you got peeved if Santa left one under your tree. On second thought just send it to me <wink>!

I'd not even bother with the Nikon from what I've seen, but the Canon is a sign of good things to come.

Keep in mind that when everybody's dog has a 20 bazillion megapixel camera shooting full frame 4K video there will be more "competition", for sure, but there's no spec sheet for TALENT, SKILL, DISCIPLINE, VISION, CREATIVITY, etc. You could put a Brownie box cam in the hands of someone with those traits and get brilliance, or that fancy 5DMkII in the hands of someone without those traits and get... nothing.

It's the old saw of 10,000 monkeys and 10,000 typewriters... it ain't Shakespeare... doesn't matter how long you let the experiment go on.

Personally I'll be keeping my eye out for a slightly used MkII, I know there will be a LOT of people who go out and "buy the best", and get it home and discover they'd rather have had a pocket point and shoot. I"m quite certain others will latch onto it and come up with some brilliant stuff... I'd love to spend some serious time with one, even if it was just for "fun", I can see it has potential!

Great movie - Love it!
 

Thank you for this thread, this is important to me and the future of the business.

I believe the turf, as referred to in the title for this thread, belongs completely to the client. We are guests. Period.

First I respectfully disagree on a point made earlier. IMO this was a mediocre (video)camera being utilized by a good photographer/videographer. They would not consider themselves a videographer yet, but they are. Shots were well framed, and the video experience was outstanding. The reaction to the video says it all. The word love was used in describing the feelings it brought out for people when watching it. A typical client won't care about the fact that it technically wasn't perfect video. It looked good, period. The photographer's use of lighting was outstanding.

For the conventional wedding videographer this will pose a challenge, but only in the relavtively distant future.

I say this for several reasons:

Many brides and grooms would be happy with a minimal amount of video to complement their photos, especially edited mixed with photos.

I currently mix professional photos with video and it is the absolute favorite thing of every single prospect who views my work. They love it. I love it. It is beautiful and artistic.

Plenty of clients really only want a small portion of video anyway. Many really don't even know what they want...this would win me over if I were shopping around. This would win me over instantly. What is it? 90% of brides don't even have a video done? This narrows that gap for a portion of that 90%.

Most photographers would have to be dragged into this kicking and screaming. There are, to this day, still phototgraphers who resist giving CDs of their work to clients, which is understandable since they make the bulk of their money on albums. But that is changing because everything is going digital, whether they like it or not. I would not be surprised if in the not too distant future paper photos will be the luxury of only the well to do. As our natural resources dwindle prices for photo paper will be out of reach of the ordinary person.

The next generation of photographers, in my opinion, will be doing what we've seen in this video routinely. The current crop will fight it tooth and nail, with a few jumping in because they are open-minded and creative.

The wording of the title of this thread is unfortunate. Turf? I hate that word. I know what you mean by it, and you don't mean anything wrong by it, but I still hate it.

IMO: This business should be viewed as about the about the client, not "turf". Someone said they can imagine contracts specifying no video shooting to compete with the videographer.

Won't happen. If it does it won't last for the person that tries it. Photographers would rule out video if possible if they could get away with it, but they would be out of work if they insisted on no video. Most of them hate us there just on the basis that we tend to be an unnecessary distraction and interference. Because the client wants us, we are there. It is not because the photographers allow us to be there. We are all guests, but often times we seem to think it is our domain. It is not.

On top of it all, the video images from that Canon camera would be poor without add-on light. Photographer had what appeared to be a soft box off to side in one scene. For wedding videography purposes the camera technology available on a still camera is insufficient to be useful for most paid situations anyway. As of now there is absolutley no threat to anyone.

In the future the biggest challenge will be for the client who will be challenged with an additional option to consider when selecting a means of recording their wedding day.

Again, I love this approach as I am already doing it more or less as an additional option. It's great stuff.

FWIW, in the next year I have planned to buy my first still camera. This makes me only want it more!

Let me add: everything Dave B said.

Already started : the [b] school blog

hehe... Maybe photographers will empathize with videographers more...That's always good.

Interesting, clearly at least 2 shooters, and maybe more in that video, including one dedicated video cam?

The amount of activity on the 5DmkII threads here on DVinfo is indicative that this camera is a pivotal piece of tech (much as the first HD cameras changed things), and it has many possibilities.

I just wish the D90 at $1K would do what the Canon can do at 3x the price... I'd probably already have spec'd out how to switch over some of my gear! For now, I'm just watching and waiting. I've got enough invested in video and DSLR cameras and auxilliary gear that do their jobs well, so it's not a "gotta do it now" proposition... for now.

But I'm pretty sure the NEXT still camera upgrade will be a "dual purpose" camera - my other big disappointment is that Sony completely dropped the ball on their FF offering... DUH... and what is my primary gear of choice... DUH... SONY, what are ya thinkin'??? Otherwise I'd be selling 2 DSLR's and 2 video cams and converting them to DVSLR's...

If you're budgeting or in the market for an "additional cam" and didn't at least look at the 5DmkII as a possible option, I think you'd be making a big mistake - from what I've seen it's quite good with minimal light, and it's hard to argue with the output that's already hitting the street.


<Philosophical tangent alert>
We live in a time of change... that can be scary or exciting, depending on your perspective! The quality levels that can be produced with under 10K of equipment (and that no doubt will drop...) are nice for someone wanting to be creative. But it certainly is an precarious time if you are one to rest on your laurels... not a good time to be doing that, IMO.

This probably is the time to start thinking co-operative "team" not "competitor", if you're not already doing it.

Photography and video (and most "media" for that matter) are just 1's and 0's now...

BUT all we really are is a storyteller around a crackling fire... how will we entertain, educate, elevate, inform or otherwise earn our status with our "tribe"?

Take a few moments to forget about the gear, and find your "voice", your vision, your concept, your message... THEN go toy shopping if needed!

Chances are you'll find some cool stuff that will allow you to do great things - but if you don't have a vision, you're only fooling yourself...

When the screen flickers in the darkness, have you made an impact... or a dull thud...

Joe is correct. Without a vision for your story it is all kind of pointless.

I think Chris is right on point.

Put the labels of videographer and photographer aside and deliver what best pleases your client. If that's multimedia, then that's what it is.

Everyone should be thinking about the bride hiring one company to produce the services and media (all types) that she wants to buy. Good coverage is going to require two or more people anyway. Are they shooting video or stills or both on the same device? I don't know, and different parts of the day may require different combinations. People who can create a compelling product and sell their vision to the bride will be the winners.

Good points Don.

I'm starting to think that having willing photographers send me their best photos of the day would spice up my videos dramatically. I did it once with great results. I can do the one thing the photographer cannot do -- stamp their credit in the video.

The tricky part is waiting for the photos. Pry the best route is to request them within a time period while I edit the job; then if they don't come I'll proceed as normal. If they do come it would be a nice surprise to the couple, and a relationship builder with the photographer. If the photographer has copyright or time issues, that's fine. I think the photographer would benefit from the exposure.

Since I shoot video and my wife shoots stills, I've always got the advantage <wink>. But when working with others, it's important to develop that rapport - it pays off in the long run. Frankly the energy of working with other "creatives" in a positive environment is better than drugs! For instance, I love seeing Pat's "team"... pumps me up just watching them and their work.

I am set up so I've got the "backup" still rig handy (just got a slingbag so it's easy access), and there's always a video cam handy for my wife - her eye is good, just wish she'd use it more for video!!! IOW, the ideal in my mind is to have a "multimedia team" with specialists in one area who can double up as needed, and the equipment to back it up.

When another friend who shoots still mentioned he was looking for a new camera, I immediately suggested the D90 (would have suggested the Canon, but it's out of his budget, and I knew that... sigh, I want one to play with and no one I know can afford it with the economy!!!!) - since he was upgrading ANYWAY, why not get his feet wet?

Getting pigeonholed into "videographer" of "photographer" isn't a good future proof business plan in a multimedia world. It takes more work to learn all the various aspects, but in the end each new thing you add to your quiver gives you an advantage in ALL the aspects of a visual media (starting from video you of course are already an audio superstar, right?).

Media is changing, you either change with it, or join the "typsetter" in the Museum "dinosaurs of just before yesterday" display. The underlying skills and craft really don't change, but the expression method and tools will no doubt be VASTLY different due to change in technology and the world in general...

PS - not sure who I am anymore, but hopefully the concepts are helpful... just credit them to "Dave" <wink>!

Dana, I don't get my photos from the photographer. I get them from the clients. Getting them from the photographer is tough because they are already so busy, as I am. I have had more than one promise to send me their disc and not follow through.

When I put the credit for their work on my website it has driven a fair number of customers to them. I highly recommend the photographers whose work appears in my videos, and customers love the prospect of working with a videographer and photographer that really know each other. Of course the vast majority of my prospects have already hired a photographer when they visit with me, but not all.

What is interesting is several of photographers were not particularly impressed with the whole deal..they seemed indifferent, usually the higher end ones. They are already succesful, and I think they are a tad uncomfortable with their work being used in ways they cannot control. Yes I had been given full rights to use the photos, and they SAID didn't mind, but they didn't embrace it like the smaller, lower-end folks have. Overall I don't think they liked it, but that is just a feeling I had. The customers loved it, of course. They always do.

If a photog wants to do all the work to produce photo and video, I say let'em have at it. Some of the top wedding videographers in both the states and abroad started out as photogs and then found passion in video. This really is nothing new.

Honestly, the only thing that would disappoint me, would be if brides were more apt in the future to settle for just a small amount of video these new cams would provide. If that really happened on a global scale, I would be forced to change my game to compete in the market.

I agree Tim, that would be disappointing to see. I don't think that will happen though. Video is too powerful. I think that most couples who don't do video simply don't know what they're missing.

>Dana, I don't get my photos from the photographer. I get them from the clients. Getting them from the photographer is tough because they are already so busy, as I am. I have had more than one promise to send me their disc and not follow through.

True, but I don't want to bug the client, and am more than fine not doing it. Some photographers are more enthusiastic and will jump all over it. An excellent photo or two makes my music videos pop, so it's worth asking.

Another good thing about featuring photographers is that it shows future clients that we're team players.

Dana, you don't have to bug the client. You simply tell them if they want their videos mixed with photos they can give you their cds when they get them from the photographer.

I have not had a single client that had to even be reminded. They can't wait to get them to me. To put it more accurately, they often run directly to my place with CDs in hand. They often stay in touch with me and update me as to when they are getting them. What is funny they also are often apologizing to me when it takes a long time. Of course the longer it takes the happier I am because I'm often behind anyway.

While I think, photographers having the ability to shoot very high quality video with their "still" cameras is something I want to keep an eye on as a businessman. I don't know how much of a threat it is to most videographers.

As much as we all like to get enamored with Steadicams, Brevis lens mounts and other cinematic treats, in my experience, the most important things for the bride is the competent capturing of the important moments of the day. They want to see and HEAR the vows, the first kiss, the cake cutting, the walk down the aisle. That is the meat and potatoes of what we do. A photographer will need to either give up their mobility or have another photographer dedicated to get the video and audio of these events.

Photographer speaking here.
Video guys have nothing to worry about. I have a great photography business, and added video because there just is none in my small rural area. I quickly realized I made a mistake way too much involved, but because I booked weddings (straight edit single cam) I had no choice but to keep spending and learning spending and learning. I am better than most family members, and thats what I tell clients.

Photographers will quickly realize there loosing money trying to do both, the labor alone will cost them money, let alone dealing with audio etc.

I feel like the video included with the new DSLR's will be enough to let photographers realize video is a different beast.

I was going to get a 5D Mark II as a back up camera, ended up going with the 1Ds Mark III instead. When I do video my XH-A1's will be what I use, not a DSLR.

its going to really tough to choose bet both video n photo during those "moments" on actual days. They serve different functions. I do the same, mixing photo+videos n the clients love it. I do not see it as a threat now. But if the chap is hired to shoot photos, he will have to stay focused on his primary job. Even if u r doing both, how will u choose when to shoot video n when to do photos?

In fact I see such cameras as a great tool for videographers with the great choice of lens. Ha ha but the backlog thingy is very true and that will be quite a pressure!

The main threat I guess would be pre wedding videos. The photographers could be doing both under those no pressure situations.

Ohh, good point. Engagement shoots would take on a whole new meaning with some short videos. That's an arrow for their quiver.

God bless you Denny. I don't see photography as something I would do well at. It's more of a type A personality thing. I kind of enjoy letting them plan the shots and give me cool backgrounds. I get to focus on audio, angles and F-stops.

Good luck with that :)

It's not about a photographer being uncooperative, it's about improving your work at the expense of reducing the impact of his photos. I would enjoy working with you as a photog for a wedding, but you ain't gettin my money shots.

Don, if you are getting credit for the photos in a video, wouldn't you want your best shots in there?

I don't see how including your best photos in a video would diminish your work. It would seem that the opposite makes more sense.

One of my favorite photographers will absolutely not allow his work to appear in my customer's video, and as a result how can I refer him?

Another photographer, who is not quite as great a photographer, happily encourages her customer's full use of photos in video, and has gotten several jobs this year as a result of customers watching my demo and seeing the photos.

As I have said only a very few clients talking to me have not first hired their photographer. But the few that have not are often easily pushed towards one or another.

Customers also really like that the two of us can work so well together. That really puts them at ease and makes everyone look good.

If I were to tell a customer that "I can use some of Don's shots in your video, but there are certain ones he won't allow" I'm sure the look on the customers face would be of complete bewilderment. And I would be at a complete loss to give an explanation that would make sense to them as customers.

Here's the deal (my wife's a photographer so I can understand the situation).

Wedding photography tends to be a very low profit margin business model (much like video). This is why most photographers prefer to shoot families and seniors over weddings.

Photographers really need to make print sales usually to make shooting a wedding worthwhile. Couples, on the other hand, are always looking for ways to get their hands on the images while paying a little as possible. So, if they know the videographer is going to dump 15-20 of their favorite shots into the video, it could conceivably create less demand for prints of any of those images.

You also have the issue of how the photographs will be represented in the video. A bad videography can shed a bad light on great photography.

These are some of the issues I could see a photographer having.

Good explanation Travis, makes sense. I can see if it would affect sales for a photographer how they would resist. Perfectly understandable.

If that is the reason my friend has for not providing photos it would have been nice had he explained. I never pressed him, I just wondered what the deal was, he just seemed to go silent when I brought it up a during a couple of shoots.

On the other hand the photographers who give CDs for their customers to print themselves are the ones who don't seem to mind, so it is all starting to make sense.

It seems the younger photogs are of the latter group and the veterans fall into the former group. The veterans sometimes offer a CD to customers, but only at an added cost. The "new school" photographers seem to just give the CDs as part of the deal.

Your post has really cleared this up for me Travis, thanks!

After having worked with the 5DMKII before Christmas (Nov/Dec), I must say that with the right lens/lenses it is truly a PHENOMENAL tool. There are limitations that I'll expand on in the new year, but also workarounds. We're ABSOLUTELY incorporating them into our '09 workflow.

And in case you missed it: www.fusionisnow.smugmug.com

Some was shot with an EX1 since Canon only sent one 5D but it's possible to mix the footage quite well, IMO.

It's important to see the two philosophies. If a photographer doesn't want to give away his print revenue, I totally understand, which is why I really don't care if he sends me photos to use, and would still refer people to him based on his personality and portfolio.

Wedding photography tends to be a very low profit margin business model (much like video). This is why most photographers prefer to shoot families and seniors over weddings.

Photographers really need to make print sales usually to make shooting a wedding worthwhile. Couples, on the other hand, are always looking for ways to get their hands on the images while paying a little as possible. So, if they know the videographer is going to dump 15-20 of their favorite shots into the video, it could conceivably create less demand for prints of any of those images.

You also have the issue of how the photographs will be represented in the video. A bad videography can shed a bad light on great photography.

These are some of the issues I could see a photographer having.[/QUOTE]



Travis- this might be true in other parts of the US but certainly not in Southern California..."most" of the photographers I am in a network with start at around $4,500.00 for a base price package and that basically covers 2 shooters for the day...no book included at that price.
The profit margin between video and photos out here is much higher for the photographers.

On another note, since your wife is a photographer...do you two work together a lot and does she often work with other videographers?

Regarding profit margin, that seems to be another good point, different take on things, Joe. Most photographers I work with start at 2.5K and they seem to average about $3-4K.

I have no idea how much time they spend processing photos before delivery, but I know the last 3cam wedding I did had over 1200 cuts. Additionally there was: time spent on film effects, color tweaking, processing, selecting and cropping of photos, creating custom backgrounds for photos, etc.

I charged under 2K for the whole deal. While it is possible the photographer had as much time and effort in their package, I doubt it. In this case their price was close to 5K.

So they received over double what I did for what likely was less effort. I don't know that, but I would suspect it. Please keep in mind I don't really care, I'm just kicking this around since it was brought up.

In the end, it doesn't matter. It varies from shop to shop, and if photographers are making more per dollar spent than I, it is irrelevent to my business anyway. Video is not seen as essential by the vast majority of b&gs, and this is just the way it is.

Anyway that camera really is intriquing...I can't see it as my first still camera...no justification since I already have video...but what a cool toy.

Interesting very different in your area, here in Oz how photogs charging $4g's for 8 hours with a 10 page album and digital proofs only, how is that low profit margin? Only if I could charge the same right now for video; 8 hour shoot, a 3-4min highlight with a printed case/dvd and that's it, people would laugh in my face....that's where the industry is at here.

Yeah, no one is charging even close to that much here and not offering a book. Different markets I guess.

To answer your question, about 75-80% of the weddings my wife shoots, I'm there. And for those when I'm not there, another videographer is present maybe 5% of the time or less. Very rare. When they are booking with us, if they don't book me they usually have no plans to book a videographer.

I think some of the rest of you missed my point. I wasn't saying that photography has a similar profit margin (number-wise) to videography. I'm saying that for a photographer, there is much more profit to be made in portraits than in weddings.

As my wife is a photographer I can tell you that my projects take MUCH more time to complete. That said, my wife spends MUCH more time working on images and albums than most other photographers. She's a perfectionist like me. But yes, I would say that videographers probably spend more time on a wedding project than photographers on average.

However, videographers have very low hard costs associated with each project. Photographers have to pay for prints and albums and so on. So while a photographer might be making $2k more than you, and work less hours, they are also spending $1k on prints and an album (or more).

So again, my point was that weddings are typically a low-profit-margin avenue for both photographers and videographers. Videographers have it worse on average, and photographers have better profit opportunities with portrait work. Those were my points.

Thanks for the explanation Travis. As you say, to put it in another way, few of us has it as easy or as great as it may appear on the surface!