Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

There is a fuller article on the Daily Telegraph website. Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...itic-rant.html The videographer in question apparently has an interesting background.

Aside from the idiotic racism it's a case in point where the couple got what they paid for. £600 for a two man shoot of a wedding in Central London is a stupid cheap price. The reception venue is just off Trafalgar Square & probably £100-£150 per guest for 150 guests. The guy is clearly not a pro & took 9 months to deliver a crap wedding video & was trying to appease the couple by giving them all the raw footage. A gesture that has backfired spectacularly.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

I agree Nigel - that is a ridiculous price - having said that I would assume the couple had shopped around and should have been aware that the price was way low and should have been rightfully suspicious - you get what you pay for IMO. I'm not saying they deserved a crap video just that they should had applied some common sense when they saw a 2 man crew in London for £600!

Pete

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

I thought that the name Anthony Aurelius was familiar. Those of you in the UK may have seen the Google Ads for www.highdefinitionbride.com (also trading as www.raisingawarenessproductions.com). The company shut up shop in the middle of August leaving couples who had paid to have their wedding filmed not receiving anything.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Yes Nigel ... i've seen those ads many times!

Could it be him ?? Feel sorry for his other customers.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

The High Definition Bride website is now shut down but the Wayback Machine has a copy Wedding Videos by High-Definition Bride | Home

He is obviously an old school videographer who thinks a photo of a monstrous shoulder mount camera is what is going to entice the brides to book. The website also has logos of the IoV & Guild of Television Cameramen

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Here is his price list from May last year. The mind boggles!

Bronze Package – £695
Silver Package – £995
Gold Package – £1,495
Platinum Steadicam Package – £1,995
Diamond Cinematography Package – £2,995
Diamond Executive Package – £4,995


Here is a guy who clearly is just trying to take all the money he can. You simply can't be a £695 videographer but also a £4995 videographer.

I kind of think, he's a guy who is happy enough to take on £695 packages, but he sure as hell isn't going to worry about the quality. He will have an attitude of the day of 'this is only a cheap one, so I'm not going to stress and I'll cut back on the gear I use'

Also - Platinum steadicam Package? As in, he will walk around for 10 hours of a day filming entirely on steadicam??

You may as well have an iphone, a £200 handicam, a £1000 handicam, a DSLR, and a C100 and then offer different price ranges depending on which camera you bring!

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Something really puzzles me here! If he was operating last year surely he was shooting to cards and not tape? I might understand if he handed over a bunch of tape cassettes but surely he went thru them and logged the footage?? On card it would have been even easier ..just delete the rubbish clips and keep the bride happy. Don't we all log our footage so we have known what material we have to work with?

Admittedly I once (a long time ago) left a camera in standby between the ceremony and reception and ended up with depleted batteries but seriously who would leave a camera running and dump it in the car??

Maybe it's better for all that he is out of business? Reminds me a bit about the post a year or so here (also in the UK) about another photog/videog that was sued by the couple!! I guess we will always have poor operators in any business trying to make a fast buck.

Chris

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Oh come on everyone? Has nobody ever picked up and old tape or more modern card, played the first few seconds, decided that it was the right one and simply dumped it to a DVD or made a copy and handed it across to solve a problem quickly? I must have done this hundreds of times. Phone rings - client says I need another bla bla boa, and your brain makes that snap decision on if this is a serious chargeable product, or simply a helpful freebie, that really isn't worth thinking about.

This guy made the mistake of not remembering or logging, or just not thinking - that's all he is guilty of. Stupidity.

Private comments or even public comments to paying guests all have a context. Bad taste very often, but not litigious. I've given up thinking about the things you hear that would offend - as in a TV gallery when the remote feed comes up and a very ugly person is revealed, causing the Director to comment very bluntly about it into the earpieces and speakers of everyone. If he said to the person "My God you are ugly" that's very hurtful. To say somebody is ugly isn't in itself a crime - is it. Just bad taste or just rude.

People are pathetic nowadays. Surely this must be more embarrassing for the couple concerned now they've made it public - with everyone looking at her image and probably agreeing.Get a thicker skin!

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Offering packages like that is setting yourself up for work that will put you way out of your depth.

I agree, you can't be a £600 videographer and a £5000 one. It requires a different mindset and style when filming, editing and everything ... call me crazy, but that's how I feel anyway!

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

+ criminally offensive hate speech.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

It looks like we all have become judge and jury, :) He did something we all do now and then but not as extreme as he did. How many times have I seen topics passing by here complaining about the venue, the master of ceremony, the priest and even the couple. I too have been complaining about certain events that didn't go right at a wedding to a photog at the day of the wedding and vice versa and the bride or groom has been a topic of discussion more then once. I never make racist remarks but I"m sure if the couple would hear every thing I was complaining about now and then, they would be upset as well, eventhough I know I'm right :).

In a stressful run and gun moment driving from one to another location even I have had the camera in rec mode while I was driving the car and noticed only minutes later so any ongoing conversation would have been recorded as well.

Beside the fact that his racist remarks are unacceptable he was only stupid not to have checked his raw material before handing it out, I never hand over raw material right from the card except if this was a part of the assignment (if the client wants to edit himself)

It's better not to dig further into his past, like recovering his website and discussing his business model or pricing.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

No - I don't agree. He made comments in private to somebody he works with - he isn't inciting hatred.

Looking at my diary it's full of Jethro, Jim Davidson, Jimmy Carr, Chubby Brown, and I've got some old material on the shelf somewhere from Bernard Manning. In context, it's entertainment - in another it's potentially criminal. As this poor guys comments were accidentally recorded and then ended up in just the wrong place, he's had the flack. A comment in private is just a comment.There was NO criminal activity. Even the politicians get it wrong - remember the politician who forgot he was miked up and who's private comments were made public. Again, perhaps in bad taste and stupidly done - but not criminal. There is no bad taste police. If you were to make the Hitler/Jewish comments to an audience not expecting them, then that would be different -- but if a comedian wishes to deliver this bad taste material to a paying audience, then the best they can do is leave. Much of my theatre video work is a DVD in a filing cabinet, ready to be used in the future.

Criminally offensive hate speech? Just unpleasant stuff in private, accidentally made public.

Jim Davidson's in Norwich soon - he's got some good comments on the paralympics, which the audience love and is actually quite funny - and the people in wheelchairs laugh, as does my work experience lad who has cerebral palsy. If somebody in the audience put something on youtube out of context, you could accuse him of all sorts, and sometimes people do.

People are just too delicate sometimes - toughen up a bit, develop broad shoulders and smile!

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Sorry, I just see little humor in laughing and joking at people like that?! Sure, you've seen 'some' who laugh as well, however that's probably a very small percentage of those as opposed to those who would likely be irate.

As for the rates, yeah that really is a terrible idea, he most likely attracted just cheapskates anyway as a result. A $5000 bride would see him as a $600 videographer much the same way you don't buy a $60,000 Toyota, you buy a Lexus.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

Maybe we could give the guy a little slack, after all, he didn't have this on his price list:
Royal Wedding Package ......... £99,995

After having got burned over the years by people who I trusted and then they went out of business, took off for parts unknown, or what ever, with my money or things, I tell myself it'll never happen again but then it does. Fortunately I'm not in the megabuck class like some of those who gave money to shyster Bernie Madoff, but it still hurts, both monetarily and mentally.

With Madoff and his ponzi scam the victims have lawyers going after institutions where Madoff put the money. Not sure how this works if the institution took the money in good faith but have to give it up because of its source. Seems like they would be loosing too. In the case of the Madoff ponzi scam everybody was trying to get rich so it was like birds of a feather flock together.

Not sure why Government lawyers with taxpayers money are trying to make the victims whole but that's another thought.

In my case it was normally trying to buy something (deposit) or leaving something on consignment. Lesson learned: don't be too trusting. But why do I have to keep re-learning it?

Such a deal I have for you today. Because its Saturday and you seem like a nice sucker, er ... I mean, person, you can have this wonderful, always to be remembered, special video package for, get this, only ....(whisper amount because its such a good deal) .... but you have to get it now.

Re: 'Not a very attractive bride'
 

To be honest, I wouldn't like any of my in-the-car conversations to be heard by the B&G.

I don't know what you guys talk about en route, but previous conversations I've had have included such topics as:

-- the main one: moaning over having done a bad job. "I did a terrible job at the groom's house. I have to make up for it at the bride's." Or: "My ceremony shot was blocked by mobile phone. I really should have thought camera placement through better."
-- complaining about photographers
-- commenting that so-and-so is attractive. I remember one guy I worked with telling me that the bridesmaid was making eyes at him... and he was right -- she later asked him out during the reception. I don't ever recall, though, having heard or having said that so-and-so is unattractive.
-- just the general shorthand language I use with my main shooting partner is not bride-friendly. It's joking shorthand. For instance, we refer to any place -- church, person's house, reception -- as a "joint".

There's also that point that, apart from offence, quite private matters are often discussed in transit unrelated to the wedding.