Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Hey guys, I'm interested in branching out to doing photography, because if you can't beat 'em you might as well join 'em.

In fact, I'm contemplating hiring a 1DC for the day, filming a bunch of stuff in short 5-10 second bursts and creating a short highlights video as well as extracting frame grabs for the photos. (Including no long version video, and little to no audio from the day.)

Terrible idea, or do you think it's workable?

I guess the other thing is that it's been a long time since I've taken photos... This is kind of a very vague and open question, but do you think photographers look at the world in a different sort of way than videographers, in terms of shot opportunities and methods for shooting? I mean, if I'm trying to shoot both video and photos at the same time, am I making compromises on both sides?

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Hi Adrian

Yes and No!! We do photo and video packages and yes you do have to switch your brain into photog mode to do the actual stills and the mindset is totally different so if it were me I wouldn't use a still camera to shoot bursts and then extract stills from that at all. It's however quite practical to do some video at the prep and then shoot stills in-between ... I find when the limo arrives and at the ceremony, that's when I need a stills photographer as I just don't have the time nor can switch roles that quickly!! My stills lady does the limo, ceremony and congratulations afterwards and I just concentrate on the video during that period. It's then easy to put the video to one side and concentrate on being a stills photog and do the group shots and bridal party creative shots but in my opinion you really need to be totally in photog mode for that.

I've done both solo and it's not very easy ...when the limo stops take stills inside and then maybe your burst idea might work as they get out but you still need video too!!!

It's quite a tough role to handle but the biggest advantage for me is that I don't have the darn photog in my shots at all which is a HUGE help. Maybe get an assistant just for the limo/ceremony/congrats bit as the rest is simple to handle solo!!

Chris

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Hi Adrian, I do both video and stills and agree with Chris about thinking differently for both. I usually work solo and have a double trippd mount with still and video cameras on, plus extra cams for video and stills.. When posed stills are neccessary, I work as a photographer, setting up the pose, arranging dress etc. Sometimes I enlist the help of the chief bridesmaid for dress arranging, and I often use an usher or best man who knows the family to round up the groups. You also need to be able to communicate with groups of people as they expect to be organised and look to the photographer for that. During the posed and group shots, you are basically the MC who everybody looks to. During this time, I keep the video camera rolling, adjusting the framing between stills, and worry about editing out the surplus stuff later.

Other times of the day, such as ceremony, speeches etc, I put more time into the video, taking stills inbetween. I also set up extra locked off cams for these times for alternative angles. My Panasonic video cams can take 14mb stills while filming, so I frequently use the remote stills button to take stills during the service and speeches totally silently. I wouldn't use them for the money shot stills, but get excellent shots in good light where the dslr might be innappropriate, such as in some church services.

It's a higher work load doing both, but I actually find it less stressful and love being in total control over timings, location, poses etc.

Roger

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

You need to take photos, not screen grabs. Even at 4k your MP is around 12. Decent enough but not as high as it will be in stills mode.

Also consider your framerate. Your most likely want to shoot video at 1/50 but for stills you need a higher framerate to avoid motion blur, maybe 1/150 to 1/200 or above. You can shoot video like this but do you really want to?

I would say to keep photo and video separate, different people doing each job to their full. We thought the same, we can flick the camera to photo mode and snap a few as were shooting. It was actually quote hard and in the end we didnt enjoy it as much.

I will say, give it a go. Get a freebie and give it a shot to see if you can do it and how well.

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

After looking at "costofwedding.com", and the "better pay grade" photogs seem to get, it definitely crosses your mind - no audio to deal with, no clips to align, no cuts to sort out... some cropping and color correction, a little creativity (and of course you have to "nail" the shots as they happen), but if you know your photographic camera work... hmmm...

Then of course the thought is "why not do both"...

IF you seriously entertain the idea... I'd suggest you go to some "touristy" location with lots of good content, and try it under a no pressure situation... see how your brain handles it, can you "switch gears" on the fly, can you separate out landscape (16x9 no less) from portrait while still maintaining framing for the clips you need... can you switch between flash photography and video (with or without a light)...

Yep, the idea is attractive, but you'll probably find that even in a "no pressure" shooting situation, you'll shoot some "vertical video" by accident, you'll miss shots, and it's not as "easy" as you would think! Not saying it's not "possible", but you're probably better partnering with a second shooter, each taking one of the disciplines.

I like shooting stills, and there are a few cameras (like the RX10) that make using one camera and shooting both stills and video a theoretically possible option... practical execution in real life... well, not quite as simple as you expect! And if you're charging for your services (AKA a "high pressure" scenario), and you're a solo shooter, you will likely gain more frustration that returns.

Depending on your deliverable video, it's a "maybe" that you can pull it off... even though I think we all fantasize about it! I suppose with a high enough resolution sensor (for the VIDEO, so you can crop as needed), progressive capture (freezing frames at will), and very good sensitivity so you aren't fighting ambient light conditions, it might not be unreasonable... but I don't know of any camera that fits that "bill" just yet, though it may not be far off (and what if it's a cell phone? GAK!).

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

If you want to explore the practicalities of it I recommend practicing at some public events at which the presence of stills and video cameras is taken for granted and people do not react badly or react at all to being aware of being in frame.

The sorts of events include historical reenactment shows, agricultural shows, amateur sports events such as half-marathons, motorcycle scrambles etc. And carry some business cards as you will get some requests for photos - which should cover your fuel and entrance fees :- ) At some events it is very straightforward to get a freelance media pass and that will allow you to access some prime shooting spots. Even if you just wear a dayglo jacket marshals often assume you have privileged access; some events require you to wear such jackets.

Historical reenactments are particularly good because of the effort the participants put in. There are static displays from every period plus if there are horses you can practice fast moving stuff. You'll find everything from Viking sword fights to crawling through Vietcong tunnels, to WW1 trenches, and in the UK the ubiquitous Sealed Knot civil war society. WW2 Nazi and SS themes have a strong presence at some events and include restored vehicles guns motorcycles and tanks; if you can get over the subject matter it can be highly photogenic - flames pouring out of machine gun barrels etc. I've even shot some pitched battles on British Army training areas between WW2 US Marines and Waffen SS :- )

But as regards using the same body for stills and video I'd say thats a very bad idea when under pressure at an unscripted event such as a wedding regardless of the equipments capabilities. You'll find out why when you try it :- ) I've been shooting combined stills and video - with the emphasis on stills - for the past 3 years now as a sole shooter. The clients love it.

Stills is all about the light and unless you are a "natural light only" (read "I like photos that are a muddy mess") photographer you will need to use fill flash extensively both on and off camera. Frame grabs will not cut it for much of the day no matter how high the resolution.

You need to be ready to open fire at all times as well. In practice this really means having two bodies on your shoulder with lenses of different focal lengths, and if using flash then battery packs as well to enable the recycling to be fast enough. This also helps if any of the equipment decides to misbehave.

There are two secrets to pulling it off for weddings - other than having completely separate equipment. One is that with video cams know when you can rely on various auto functions (often).

The second is to know which parts of the day are best covered with stills and which with video plus which parts can easily be shot with both. Then include stills slideshows in certain parts of your delivered video.

The getting ready is probably best covered with stills though it may be possible to do both. Most if not all the video samples I've seen are excruciatingly bad slider-fests interspersed with shorts where the participants have clearly been coached to perform or repeat a certain actions. The clients recollection of this will not so much be of their actual wedding day as when the video guy asked them to do this or do that. Stills scene setting of the venues, the details such as flowers dresses, shoes, jewellery, hair and makeup in full flow etc work great as slideshows especially if you vary to have more than one shot on screen (e.g. three upright images from left to right fade in one after another) and add a bit of movement to some (e.g. panning a venue exterior shot). Much better than a bunch of groomsmen hamming it up as gangstas, or some hapless groom forced to talk about how he met his bride.

Its easy to shoot both in the ceremony and both work well obviously.

The formals - leave that to stills, video is just filler 9 times out of 10. Cocktail hour - both work.

Speeches, easy to shoot both but check beforehand how long each speech will be so you are sure to get as much as you can in short ones. Video probably has the upper hand if its either/or for obvious reasons.

1st dance - easy to do both unless you like to circle your prey with a video light and steadycam.

Later dances. Usually just fillers whether stills or video.

Live music / fireworks - usually possible to shoot both with a bit of planning.

Guest interviews. Just filler. Guests hate it.

Don't get seduced into believing that photographers earn megabucks. They do not. You'll have heard the phrase "fake it till you make it". Thats now transformed into "fake it because you used to make it". Study some blogs and client galleries and you'll soon find out the reality. A close friend of mine recently confided that he only shot 4 weddings in the whole of last year; he is in the nudging high end tier and has been full time over 20 years.

Pete

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Dont forget that while many togs charge more they have greater costs. While we deliver disk in a pretty box they have album costs to include. When we looked at supplying the likes of a Graphi or Queensbury album we were looking at over £600 for that type of album.

What we also didnt like was that it wasnt as easy as you think. You have that blink of an eye to get the perfect shot, and I mean absolutely perfect where everyones eyes are open and looking the right way (for the formals at least). That one shot is then going to be studied. Are there details in the background you dont want like waste paper bins during the preps? Is their mouth pulling a funny face? Is one eye half open? Video is more forgiving.

Thats not to say dont do it. It just makes you realise just how much your undercharging for your video work :)

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

I'd like to echo what Danny says. We did combo packages for a while but I found I really didn't enjoy the photo side of post production, nor herding the people around on the day. It is a very different experience and you have to be much more of a people person as a photographer than a videographer. Everyone is looking at you for direction all the time whereas the video guy can often go largely unnoticed.

Then there's the Uncle Bob's shooting your posed shots over your shoulder and running up the B+G showing them what they got, so the element of the couple seeing their photos for the first time when 'you' are ready to present them is gone. That hurts follow on sales big time.

There was one wedding where both bride and groom normally wear glasses, but both elected to wear contact lenses on the day. They blinked and blinked and blinked all day long. I had entire sequences of shots (more than 400 during the day) where one or both of them had eyes closed, either fully or partially.

There's only so many clicks the priest/pastor/vicar/registrar will put up with as you rattle away trying to get just one frame that's good and if you are in fleeting moments like the ring going on a finger or specific 'looks' during the vows and they have their eyes closed then you have nothing and trying to fake these things in photoshop later is painful. Video does help here because you have more frames to choose from and it's silent. What you don't get, unless you're shooting specifically for it are any portrait shots, they are all landscape.

We're still waiting to produce the album for the very last wedding we did on the combo package. It's been 18 months and the bride only just came back last week with her choices. The trouble now is they can't decide on the album orientation or how many pages / spreads they want. The video was delivered 18 months ago! The cost of albums in this case isn't a problem since they are paying extra, but if you are including albums then it's a big expense. Designing albums can either go quickly or take forever and yes the client want's input on their album and you end up doing changes.

Where stills from video come to the fore are those weddings where they really don't want many formal shots, but do want 'some' stills from the day.

The big downside is the cost of a 1Dc. The GH4 or A7s may go a long way towards negating that problem, but it remains to be seen what the quality from the stills (from video) will be like.

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

I'm a "people person", kinda like the post processing/editing, and I can "show" the unedited shots on my LCD screen too... <wink> Now do I want to "compete" with the mass of photogs out there...?

Bottom line is that while it's all "media production", stills and video are two different animals - related, using similar tools and methods some of the time, and completely different in other aspects. With increasing sensor resolutions, pulling stills "may" become more practical, but with the caveat that shutter speeds for video are not going to give the same results as a "true" still image, even while shooting "progressive".

In "ideal" conditions, lighting may not be as big an issue, but the majority of the time, you'll be fighting how to light and/or fill flash for best results. Two different animals again! At least there's no audio on stills...


This is not to say that you CAN'T do both, and perhaps "thrill" many clients with the results - I've done screen grabs I thought were atrocious (but that camera had the "right" angle at that moment...), and the clients loved the moment that was captured, and thus the "photo". Not sure if Instagram and YouTube have lowered the bar so much that the traditional "technique" and "skill" just don't rate the way they used to or what, but....


Speaking for myself, "shifting gears" is not always as smooth as I'd like, even when NOT under pressure - you can cover (as I believe Roger does, I take this approach as well) with static cams strategically placed, but there are just some times when you can't do BOTH stills and video effectively... pretty much ANY of the "live" portions of the event when you want to be "rolling", but also have some stills, some of which you want to be "portrait".

Two camera ops, one shooting stills and one shooting video are really the only way to pull this off - you're shooting the SAME subject, but the framing and lighting that's "OK" for video won't cut it for stills, and as noted, still have their own "issues" as they are just ONE frame, and if someone blinks, or hair blows around, or glasses reflect... you lose the shot - with video, you've got 59 more per second to work with (and that's why we "dream" of high rez screen grabs!).

We'll probably see a hybrid "capture device" with enough versatility and resolution to pull it off, it's "close"...

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

I know a photographer who posted videos on his facebook page video of a first dance. I'm assuming he shot the wedding & made arrangement to videotape very few segments (vows, 1st dance, speeches) the rest he just photographed. He's a very good photographer, and the video came out pretty good, good enough for someone attempting to do both (ie better than my bridal portraits still photography would probably come out). Anyway, it did make me realize that might be a package of the near future, stills with some video, and admittedly they could get a jump on the marketshare better than we could.

Admittedly right now alot of photographers do stills wayyyyy better than I could. But I agree it's something to think about getting into. Photography is a craft though, not just an add-on you can suddenly offer. Plus you really gotta dictate & lead the family, get the brides cousins together, the grooms grandparents, stepparents, know to pose people properly, balance out guy/girl/guy/girl etc. Choose a good location not just the front of the church etc. It's not just get up there and put your hands behind your back & I'll adjust proper shutter speed & aperture.

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Did anyone see the Canon booth at NAB? This photographer was shooting video with a 1DC, 4K raw. He had a printer, and was printing out frame grab closeups of the model's eyelashes blown up 16x20 inches, then passed the prints around for us to see. It was sharp sharp sharp! He had a 100mm cine prime. You really had to be there to believe the sharpness...no artifacts or blocking were visible. Mind absolutely blown because it was from video!

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

It looks like a well lit portrait session where the model is posing & keeping still. Even if it wasn't 4K the stills grabbed from the video would still look good. Contrast this with grabbing stills from a video when the subject is moving.

I shot several weddings with a C300 & while sometimes you could pull a nice still (generally when they were posing for the photographer) the number of usable still images was discouragingly small.

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Just being able to do photo and video by one and the same person on a weddingday is something that I never could understand, both are 2 totally different disciplines that require a different approach for a good end result, resolution only is not a substitute for good video and photo combined.

Even if you use 2 separate dedicated video and photocamera as a solo shooter I still don't understand how you can bring this to a good end, I allready struggle to keep it under controll for video only, shooting photos as well would certainly have a negative impact on the quality of my videos.

You might as well do the DJ part also, just a let a playlist run and occasionally go to the mike to make some announcements or adjust the volume, how hard can that be ;)

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

It was a well lit scene, and very interestingly, there WAS movement in the shots. Camera was on a slider, and he was constantly sliding back and forth while the model was putting on mascara. He put the footage on a FC 4K timeline, then scrubbed frame by frame until he got the composition he wanted, then printed it. I missed the part about his shutter speed, I'm assuming it had to be pretty fast in order to freeze any motion blur. In retrospect, he must have been at least f8 because everything in the frame was "holy cow" sharp. Below is an older video and article I just found. Prior to that demo at NAB, I've always believed (like everyone else here) that print quality from video was mediocre. Times have changed!

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Did it! Sort of. I was DJ primarily and also filmed, using mostly pre-set positions. They didn't pay for that, though, I just figured I had the gear from filming their ceremony (it's a whole story I've told in another post).

It's one thing to let someone hire your company for both photo and video, then bring 2 or 3 people, each with very specific jobs. If you wanted to solo shoot it, I think it only works when either photo or video is going to be very limited.

For instance, they could decide to have you shoot video for prep, then photo posed pictures, video the ceremony with a couple of photos, video of the reception with only a few photos. It would be relatively easy to put a camera on a tripod during toasts and use a 2nd camera to shoot a photo. During transition moments like processional/recessional, and even the first dance it seems like it would be impossible.

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

There is an awful lot of theorising going on in this thread to justify the status quo and a complete absence of actual experience or even willingness to try! Where there's a will there's a way.

An old colleague John M used to say to new trainees "You don't know how far you can go till you've been there". John achieved worldwide fame when he became a reluctant TV star mucking around on balconies:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...45_468x309.jpg

Push yourself. You might surprise yourself. You might even enjoy it :- )

Pete

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

You are so right Peter!!!

I have spent the last 30 years producing wedding video and the last 15 months producing joint video and photo packages, usually solo. Most people expressing an opinion on this thread are just theorising based on their own current practice.

When I visit a new potential client, I take examples of my videos and my photographs and their decision to book is based entirely on what they see and what they think of the quality, compared with what others are offering.. If they like the video but not the photos, they don't have to book both, but I can tell you that 80% of my bookings for 2014 are for the joint package.

Roger

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

How do you deal then with situations that does require your full attention while shooting video, do you just let a camera roll unattended, setting it wide enough with a very deep dof so you do have time to run around to take pictures? What if your subject walks out of the videocamera frame, do you run back to your videocamera to reframe it? But what do you do when there is a important photomoment at that same moment, what do you choose, have a videoframe with no subject but a decent photo or no photo but someone in the videoframe? or do you just hope for the best while trying to do 2 jobs at the same time? Not trying to be smart here, just curious how you decide what is more important in which situation? :)

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Well, I'm not "theorizing"... thus my suggestions to TRY it in a non-critical environment, and see whether it works for the OP... It's obvious to me from the responses who HAS tried it... some have deemed it a "success", others not so much... I think some of this has to do with the expectations and budgets of the particular local markets and clients.

Offering a "package deal" of photo and video is actually a VERY good business model - fewer vendors to deal with and less hassle for the client, and easier/less stressful to have a "team" on shooting day.

I took the OP's query as a single shooter scenario - CAN you do both, or pull stills off of video with success? To that the answer is "yes", but with qualifications. I WOULD NOT, from experience, simply because it's more stressful, and you WILL miss things. That's "single shooter"... now add in a second shooter, both doing double duty, but with the understanding of who shoots what and when... add a static cam (or a couple of 'em) for the ceremony, and perhaps the reception, now you have a more valuable "package" deal for the client!


Then there IS the issue of what camera(s) could you pull this off with... most cameras shooting 1080/60p would probably be "OK" for frame grabs, within reason. But you'll be limited on "portrait" orientation shots.

As the new 4K gear hits the market, IMO it's a whole new ballgame, although you still lose some flexibility over a dedicated "still" camera, at least in theory. As described above, you CAN scrub through your 24/30/50/60 frames per second and pick and choose the "perfect" one (you'll get similar results from a still camera shooting bursts), and there's a fair amount of room to crop and pan before your resolution becomes so degraded that it won't pass muster for something under an 8x10 - how many stills are actually going to be printed/viewed at even that size?

And as previously stated, LIGHTING is part of this equation - if the lighting is GOOD for video, you'll probably be able to get some nice stills... but how often do we REALLY have "good lighting"?? Now you've got the problem of how to light... fill lights... fill flash... a combination... Just things that one needs to consider, and not from a theoretical standpoint.

I've fiddled with "Hybrid" cameras for quite a while, the Sony RX10 is about as close as I've seen in something that's affordable (that Canon looks awesome, but not in most budgets if you need two, plus lenses and accessories) - most other cameras have compromised the "secondary" function enough that I'd be reluctant to try to double up with them, though I've "fiddled" with it.


I'm all for LESS equipment, lower "footprint", stealth shooting style... within reason. Just be sure it fits your disposition (well covered in other posts), your shooting style, and that your equipment is up for the challenge... AND that what you offer will be satisfactory for your local market/client, as well as something YOU can deliver with quality you're happy with. We've recently had a long discussion here about quality of deliverables in a multitasking scenario that is illustrative of the potential pitfalls and issues!

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Hi Pete and Roger

Right on but some are missing the point here. Adrian's original post was contemplating using a Canon 1D to take a series of bursts and then use that as stills which is a far cry from using a still camera to take posed stills!!

Yep it's quite practical to you and we do it all the time. I've even done it solo but that does restrict the number of stills you can do during the ceremony and also rules out stills when the guests are congratulating the couple ... Let's face it, while the photog is doing family groups we are often sitting on our backsides so it's really easy to do that part. At the reception, even solo, I used to do a dummy cake cut for stills and then just use video on the real cutting.

I still wouldn't try to use a hybrid ..I use my video cameras for video (actually the Sony EA-50's are called hybrids as they are a DSLR inside a camcorder body) and my Nikons for stills and it works. Like Roger, my wife joins me as a 2nd photog so that allows me to concentrate on the ceremony and she also does all the congrats too. While I do a stedicam video shoot with the B&G she does stills of the rest of the wedding party. It works well and the HUGE advantage is that there is no obnoxious photog getting in your way which for me is the greatest asset of all.

Chris

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

There are about a million ways to achieve the coverage you need at almost all stages of the day :- ) Likewise I'm not trying to be smart here, the real gamechanger - apart from when the cams became able to deliver acceptable results in low light such as in most ceremonies - was when cams became small, easily affordable, and with some complex auto functions that could be relied upon. This facilitated genuine multicam coverage without multiple operators having to nursemaid their equipment. Then position your cams where preferably they have an excellent composition and also where you can access as many of them as possible during long events such as the ceremony and speeches to enable you to change your compositions during said event. Use discreet mounting options such as brackets and suckers so that equipment does not show in the clips - you don't want it looking like a dentists surgery :- )

I routinely use 4 cams and sometimes 5 in big elaborate churches.

I disagree that this will necessarily mean you can only shoot a few stills. Again I routinely deliver around 500-600 stills from the 1400-1800 that I shoot on an all day booking. You would aim to move around where possible in ceremonies when shooting your stills to increase your variety so whats the big deal about having video cams already in the positions you intend to move to and taking the few seconds needed to recompose them as well. You don't need to be recomposing your main video cam every few seconds as you have the other cams which provide just as much interest value, arguably more. Don't just see them as an insurance policy covering any bloopers with your main cam. You have more than enough time to shoot your stills including multiple versions to allow for blinks etc (hence my delivery of 500-600 from 1400-1800).

If you cannot move around either due to celebrant rules or due to the physical limitations of the space your single cam video-only coverage is going to be severely restricted even with the best will in the world. In the ceremony you can compose to the couple, crop to their hands, crop to their faces, go wide to the couple and celebrant, recompose to the front row of guests. Yeah great :- ( But add a 2nd cam on the other side and straight away you've got more interest value even if you cannot access it to change the composition. Add a third at the back and likewise. And so on. AND: if your movement is restricted then the chances are that you will also be fighting the photographer for the space you need to work in the best shooting location. That inevitably will compromise your results.

Take the recessional as an example. Someone said how on earth would you shoot that. Well a cam on either side at the front will get the presentation of the marriage certificate, the front rows of guests etc, while one at the back will get the couple making their exit. That 3-cam sequence will easily compete in interest value with a single steadycam clip shot by a videographer walking backwards a few feet in front of the couple - and of course ruining it for the guests.

If you leave that cam at the back running you will often get golden footage of the bridal party and guests smiling and chatting as they also walk past it.

Also be aware that there are multiple cheap Chinese radio triggers available which can fire stills cams at will. So you can shoot stills from an unattended stills cam :- ) You are not going to be able to adjust focus exposure etc unless you pay a lot and can also budget for the setup time so you do need to set the cam up on full manual at the outset; shoot RAW so that you have maximum headroom in post.

Probably the biggest change in mindset needs to be to use the best tools for the job rather than trying to force proverbial square pegs into round holes. Then, don't use certain equipment or techniques just because you can, use them when appropriate. Using inappropriate stuff might be like me designing wedding photo albums in the style of Deviant Art members. It would appeal to some but on the whole it would be plain silly :- )

As for using multiple operators, I don't believe its desirable. You may have two photographers and two videographers all knowing their stuff and acting totally professionally. And easy to justify to clients at the enquiry stage. But to me thats like a Formula One racing pitstop; change the tyres, refuel, all very efficient. But at a wedding? Nah! Apart from which two-operator teams do not work as hard as single shooters - members must have observed this to be the case for themselves with photographers many times.

Pete

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Maybe I"m old school but for me there would be too many factors to consider doing 2 things simultaneously, eventually one will go wrong and that's a risk I never want to take, there is a difference ofcourse if you shoot video and distill frames from that, you can give your full attention to the videoshooting and get some usable stills out here and there. For people on a budget that want to have both video/photo offering both I could see them choosing a soloshooter to provide that for them but I can't imagine people paying the regular rates if they know you are a one man band offering 2 things simultaneously.

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Hi Noa

Brides couldn't care less what you shoot with and how you shoot ..all they want is decent video and photos .. I have never had a bride ask me technical questions and the only reason they want to know how many of you is to organise the right number of meals. I still cannot fathom however how videographers can shoot with 2 or even 3 "assistants" and make a decent profit. With high end weddings where price is no object and the budget is "Budget? what budget ..I don't care how much it costs!" then I can see that one could charge enough to justify 3 or 4 videographers but with the average wedding ...I know I would have to charge a heap more to justify just one extra shooter!!

Doing what Roger does (and me) which is photo/video as a hubby and wife team is not only cost effective for the bride but brilliant for me too. She keeps out of my shots cos she has seen me rant and rave about photogs that are not only blocking me but also the entire congregation too!! That alone is worth it!!

Admittedly, even solo I don't fie off 300 still frames whilst watching my main camera and shooting cutaways with the other but being able to change modes from videographer to photographer is not a difficult task at all. The change is actually nice!!

Chris

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

I think you misunderstood me, I was refering to a one man band doing photograpy and videography at the same time at a wedding, I don't question it might not be possible, that's why I said you could even be a DJ as well, so shooting video, photo and playing music at the same time, if you limit yourself to the very basics letting camera's run on auto, letting a music playlist run and shout something on the mike occasionally and run around with a photocamera around your neck taking pictures on the go.

How ridiculous it might sound, it could be done, but I expect no client to pay you the right amount for your work, they are not that stupid and ignorant to know that you can't do 2 to 3 jobs simultaneously and get excellent results. They will also know that there is a possibility that you might miss important moments in either photo or video and they know your work will be at best average but they are probably ok with that as that will reflect in your prizes.

I know of one person in my country that is working solo doing both, he offers a combo package at a big discount, if you hire him for photo only or video only the prizes separately are much higher and he knows he can"t charge those same rates when offering both at the same time. He will make more money in general at that day if he is doing both but if I look at his videosamples I can see that's where he is making the sacrifices in quality, his photos look ok though.

At the end most of us are in it for the money and getting out bills paid but from the moment I would start cutting corners to make more money and producing average results I would rather just get a 9-5 job.

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Hi Noa

I see where you are going and yes you would have an issue trying to handle two cameras and popping off stills all at the same time.

However it's quite feasible, even solo, as long as you shoot each in turn. I have done a couple of combo shoots but restricted the stills to what I could manage. As an example.

Bridal prep : Shoot some video and stills in turn (yes, put the video camera down and pick up the stills camera and then switch them.
Bridal Arrival : I restricted these to shots inside the limo and then shot video of them getting out and then stills of them posing next to the limo.

Ceremony (outdoor) - No bridal entry stills or ceremony stills, just video and then video of the signing and then stills of them posing.

Photoshoot : I did all the group and family stills and then did a stedicam video shoot. Then a stills only shoot with the bridal party.

Doing it that way you are not ever shooting video and stills at the same time but the bride loses out on the ceremony stills while you are filming. I now let my wife do all the stills while I'm doing video but I do most of the stills while not filming (or both of us) She normally does stills of the bridal party while I sneak the B&G away for a quick video shoot.

I know Pete somehow does both but I think he is mainly a photog and then runs locked down cameras during stuff like the ceremony.

Chris

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

This is the gotcha for a singlehanded stills & video shoot. What about the ring shot? What about the first kiss? You can shoot stills or you can shoot video. You can't do both at once. For some parts of the day that's fine you can shoot stills then video sequentially or vice versa but for certain set pieces (ceremony, first dance, cake cutting, bouquet toss etc) you can only concentrate on one or the other.

You can do multicam CCTV with locked off cameras while you concentrate on taking stills or operate the video camera while taking stills automatically or remotely or something but it's impossible to do justice to both.

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

I can see only one reason clients would chose such a product - to save money.
I can see only one reason someone would offer to do it - to make more money.
If you are in the budget market they'll be many couples who'll be eager to pay one price for one person to do both. I would think that it could lead to disappointment for the couples and frustration for the videographer/photographer when neither task can be completely fulfilled. I know that there are well respected and experienced operators who offer such packages and they say successfully but I can only believe it would be two lesser products. But there must be a market out there for this product which if acceptable to the clients is a money spinner for both parties.

I may be one of the closed minded but I always found video and stills to be very different skills requiring a completely different mind set. I did try it a couple of times but never found it to be a satisfactory way to work to be continually switch from director to observer and back. - "Look this way; now ignore me".

This of course is referring to shooting hybrid solo, not as a team with a tame photographer, I'd consider that to be a video/photo package where both disciplines are covered by a person dedicated to the specific task, not a video/photo hybrid which is one person juggling both which is what the OP is proposing.

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Hi Nigel

That's the main reason why I don't shoot dual packages solo any more .. too many stills that cannot be achieved practically unless you just lock down the video and hope it all pans out OK. I still would much rather work with a photog that knows me and we can stay out of each other's way (I'm sure you and your wife work well at a wedding too!) I have had nightmare photogs who have absolutely no consideration for others ..the one I worked with last Friday almost featured as much in the video as the bride!! When politely questioned about blocking me continuously he simple said "Am I?" ..Dunno about the guys here but that alone is plenty of incentive for me to shoot with my own photog and get decent video without the guy's spiky hair showing up in 60% of my footage.

Ok, I will admit that doing both solo has to be some sort of compromise and one of the other will suffer a bit. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think Pete does offer a photography package with free video (or used to anyway) so wouldn't the bride expect the best of the best as he is a photog and accept the video for what it is as it's a freebie???

Chris

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Just to add another thought to this discussion: there's a lot of people out there (okay, mainly photographers) making videos that incorporate both video footage and slideshows of photos. (Some good, some bad -- just Google for the word "fusion".)

This might be another way to make the process of hybrid shooting easier (if you don't have enough video content to fill out a highlights video).

Is it only budget couples who might be interested in this sort of package? Well, not necessarily. Just depends how you spin it. For instance, are you primarily an amazing photographer, and the video is a further bonus that gives you a unique selling proposition (a la Peter Riding)? In this case, you wouldn't need to charge budget prices.

Personally, I'm inclined to try it from the opposite direction, but maybe that's a pointless uphill battle -- that you're primarily there to make an amazing short highlights, and it's the photos that are the bonus and USP.

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

I shoot combined video and photo packages both solo and with my wife sharing the load if we only have one wedding on. My wife also shoots photo/video packages solo.

Most weddings have plenty of time to alternate between video and photography and of course when doing both, you are able to structure the use of time to suit yourself much more than when working with a photographer.

There are certain times during the day when you are working very quickly and need have a working system that is comfortable and straight forward. In addition to having one or two locked off cameras for the ceremony, I have a stills camera and video camera on my main tripod head. I keep both centered on the main subject and in addition to following the action equally with both cameras, I can take instant stills with both with a remote control for each, so for the ring shot for instance, I will zoom in on the ring when it is picked up by the groom, knowing that the stills camera is already following the move. I can then shift attention to reframe the stills camera to grab some stills as the ring is put on.

Apart from occasional instant CUs like the rings, I generally keep a slightly wider angle on the video cameras and rely quite heavily on the video camera auto focus which is very reliable and accurate. Because both cameras are aligned on the same subject, I find no difficulty taking very varied stills and video. During the main part of the ceremony, there is plenty of time to reframe both video and stills as required.

For high stress times, like the final walk down the aisle, again both cameras are pointed at the action on the same head, so the video is left running, while I stop the couple for some still shots in the aisle. The same when they come out of the church door. Groups are very straight forward, as the video camera is reframed for a full length shot and put on record while the group is posed. The stills are then shot and the video camera reframed for a CU before I release the group. there is a lot more wasted footage on the video as I don't do the tight shot lengths that I would if just shooting video, but that is just a matter of discarding more at the editing stage. In fact I often get more interesting video footage during the stills as I pick up more of the funny comments and general merriment during the setting up of the poses.

Apart from a handful of high action moments such as processional and recessional moments, and the rings, there is very little else that is not under my control for pacing, much more so than when working with a separate photographer. I can even find time to take casual stills and video of guests in between group shots, while I use enlisted ushers, best men or other family members to round people up, which they seem to enjoy.

If you know your equipment well and are well organised, it really isn't a problem, but it is essential to be in control. I also make it absolutely clear at the booking stage, that I don't do flashy vogue style and magazine cover photography, but a mixture of reportage/casual, formal groups and romantic couple only shots. If they want a heavy duty fashion style shoot, I always suggest booking a dedicated photographer as well.

Roger

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

This has been an interesting thread because of the various viewpoints. After reading the posts there are some who work as a husband-wife team and, from my perspective, I can sure see that as a plus.

Besides the fact that when working as a team, because both of you have "been there, done that", the routine is pretty-well memorized. Discussions of details can occur the event, so that is one aspect.

The maine thing, for me at least, would be that my wife has a different view on the same scene, what ever it is. Call it a male or female thing, whatever, the focus different. While I don't do weddings, she'll take pictures in the yard, say of a plant, a sunset, or whatever, and the choice of the item or scene, the picture angle or perspective, is different. I would often overlook taking that shot while she comes up with some very interesting ones. I'm absolutely positive she would do a better job than me with the choice of the shot and the composition although I'd do better, generally speaking, from the technical angle. I think the woman's brain in a wedding scenario, picking up the little details and nuances, would be a real plus. As a guy, I guess I can lug the camera gear and do the video part.

While our Government says we're all "equal" and from a legal point of view that may be so, but outside the courtroom I'm not as convinced. I'm wondering if any of the duo husband-wife or male-female teams notice something similar, a different way of looking at things?

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

John I would have to agree with that point of view, my wife sees things in a subtly different way to me. Although we both film weddings in the same sort of way and have the same shot objectives, there are distinct differences in style. She seemqns to often pick up tiny details that I may not even see for a really interesting composition of an ordinary scene. On the other hand, I am more likely to construct a shot that has more technical input, perhaps with a filter or movement.

She is exceptionally good with the girl's preps, seeming to get more emotionally involved, whereas I can built a male rapport with the guys, to get humour in the early shots. I'm sure that working with a subject the same sex as yourself gives an edge in that area and when we work together on a wedding, she will always handle the girl's side. She is also fantastic at arranging the dress and bouquets for the still shots in ways that always just seem to add something special to a shot.


Roger

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Most weddings have plenty of time to alternate between video and photography and of course when doing both, you are able to structure the use of time to suit yourself much more than when working with a photographer.

At last the voice of actual experience rather than inexperience and speculation!

Really Nigel if you could get that chip off your shoulder about CCTV you might do yourself a favour. Frequent camera movement is very much the exception not the rule in film and particularly TV production. And when it is used its wobble-free except for effect.

I just watched last weeks episode of Endeavour (a big budget – because of period detail – detective series of 2 hour episodes set in 1960's Oxford). There was as good as no camera movement at all, nor rack focusing, and all the rest of it. Just frequent cuts to different camera compositions.

Then Elementary. A US import based around a present day Sherlock Holmes. Might have expected lots of “effects” but no. Virtually nothing. Just a couple of zoom outs to give sense of location.

Then Mad Men. 1st episode of new series. Surely that wouldn't as it were let you down? But again very little movement just straight cuts between multiple angles. Just one highly stylised short of the lead meeting his actress wife at Los Angeles airport, which was so over the top that I suspect it was put in to poke fun at the show's critics.

All these productions know what their job is – and that is to tell a story in an engaging way without unnecessary distractions

Then a 4th production – W1A. A BBC2 show staring High Bonneville of Downton Abbey fame. Its niche is to poke fun at a shambolic disorganised disfunctional (fictional) version of the BBC. In this case there is camera movement virtually all the time, purposefully shot like that to give the viewer a sense of being in the room amid chaos and panic.

Getting back to weddings. The ring shots and the first kiss are some of the easiest moments to shoot in dual stills / video mode as you know exactly where and exactly when and for pretty much how long they are going to occur. If you cannot get them thats down to the one-off circumstances such as a large groom moving to block a petite bride or a celebrant inadvertently blocking your view. Then it'll be messy no matter what you're trying to do.

Nigel I watched all 5 of the samples you have online. I have to say I did not see ideal framing and smooth execution which surely ought to be easier to achieve with just one main video cam to nurse. Again in a recessional why am I seeing heads cut off? Or bride's head cut off as she exits her car on arrival? Or all that wobble? I could go on but there's no point.

Why do many members perceive the break point between what is achievable and what is risky or unachievable to be the point at which you introduce stills? There is no sense in that. Thats like saying you must use two video operators or don't bother getting out of bed. Or what about using steadycam vests? Are you shortchanging the clients by not offering that style or are you creating unwelcome and potentially dangerous distractions for the guests plus missing valuable moments whilst you are getting kitted up? What about wives / husbands as 2nd shooters? At what point are they genuine 2nd shooters and not just there because it suits you?

There is so much you can do to make things run well. For example if you use multiple cams and you cannot access them during the ceremony or speeches you have that same problem regardless of whether you are shooting just video or photos and video. End of. But if you can access them and they are on lightstands use pan and tilt heads such as small Monfrotto 701's, or Manfrotto quick release monopod heads and NOT ball heads as that will save you valuable seconds in levelling horizons plus you can do it one-handed. Pan to recompose by loosening a lightstand shaft joint – don't try to use the pan head. Oh and use lightstands that fold their own feet when lifted such as those from Cheetah.

Again the moment you have separate video and stills guys you are compromising the coverage. Thats because at most venues – in the UK at least – there is seldom enough space and you will always be fighting for the best shooting positions, trying to manoeuvre around each other, with degraded results regardless of the level of co-operation between each other.

As an example, the Oak Room at the Elvetham Hotel a high-end venue in north Hampshire. This jpg shows the view from the back. Its wide obviously but at the front left you can just make out that the space is occupied by a string quartet. On the right is a desk with a registrar sitting at it filling out the paperwork as usual mid-ceremony. As the shooter you have to share that space. How would you get a photographer and videographer in that space? I've tried, its rubbish!

Ref 121-0704-04_gmrs Ashton Lamont Photography, Copyright

Oh and you'll inevitably be in each others shots at most weddings.

You need to come up with a business plan and method of presentation that works for you. The most obvious way is to have a menu with each option itemised. But that does not work well when adding video to a photo package because most photo enquirers have a negative image of wedding videography and they simply won't engage. It will actually put some off. But if you structure it so that they – as it were – appear to receive video unless they opt out of that then the take up rate is very high. Its just a different route to the same destination.

I perceive that it may be a great deal harder to add stills to video than video to stills. That is when you are dealing with the wider public rather than the ones who have contacted you because they already know that want video. Competition is fierce, standards are high, fees are dropping sharply, SEO is at an advanced stage, and it is very easy for clients to compare stills work online.

But you have to start somewhere. And you have to force yourself to learn additional skills. For example you will need a thorough knowledge of supplementary lighting both on and off camera. Much of the time you will not need it unless you choose to use it to achieve a particular style, but then one will come along which will break the unwary. This will take a long time. But the sooner you start the sooner you'll get there! Shoot tethered to a laptop when training yourself so that you can review the results on a big screen straight away. And get thoroughly familiar with all the manual functionality. I also recommend that you set your stills cams to focus with the * button rather than the shutter release button as this will enable you to lock focus on your chosen point without affecting the exposure etc.

Pete

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Well, I did my first engagement photoshoot yesterday (a freebie). A pretty uncomfortable experience, to be honest. Very much missed the what-you-see-is-what-you-get aspect of video, and my interacting-with-couple skills were wretched to non-existent.

In terms of thinking differently about shots... Well, portrait framing didn't take much of a mindset change. Lighting was all daytime natural light, so no big issue there. Posing the couple -- if you just Google for poses, there's plenty of pages along the lines of "101 posing ideas for weddings", so that wasn't an issue. Directing the couple -- I was lucky with these guys, and didn't have to say much more than "Big smiles", "Have fun", "Pretend I said something hilarious" to get natural responses.

Having to take a whole bunch of shots so that you don't miss the decisive moment was a surprise, though. I suddenly sympathise with the machine-gunners. And, to be honest, just general camera operation was frustrating. I was completely off my game; nothing was instinctive or automatic. And I sort of felt that until all that stuff becomes second nature, you can't start to get creative or take good shots.

Results here: Benita and Garry

But the biggest surprise was when it came to post -- the freedom of raw images to colour things and pull information out of highlights. I also found you can get away with more relaxed framing in photos, for some reason, and it actually adds to the natural look. You don't have to keep your horizons level all the time, for instance.

Makes me think: if you're going to do hybrid shooting using the one camera, as I was originally planning to, maybe shooting in raw (with something like a 5D3 with Magic Lantern hack) is smarter than shooting in 4K... photo-wise anyway (would be an even bigger pain in the butt than 4K video-wise).

Anyway... Can totally understand that it's not a strategy that would suit everyone, but, for my own part, I think I need to move into hybrid shooting to stay competitive.

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

It will certainly open more opportunities for you Adrian. I have found that many of those that have booked me for both, are from the 90% that wouldn't have had a video at all, but as they liked my stills and the price, decided to have the joint package.

That would suggest that 100% of the available market is open to me rather than just the 10% for video only :-)

Roger

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Adrian, pre-wedding shoots are notoriously soulless affairs if the truth be known.There is none of the clothes, the hair, the makeup, the electricity, the excitement, the buzz of a wedding day. Just a couple of people in everyday clothes one of whom doesn't even want to be there looking to you to work some kind of magic.

Even for a portrait shoot unconnected to any wedding you might expect some - sometimes considerable - effort to make their personal appearance a bit special. That might include several changes of clothing, and multiple locations if its not studio based. But for an engagement shoot ..... well people just turn up.

Its important to separate the marketing from the reality. Many photographers offer a free/inclusive pre-wedding shoot on the pretext that it helps to get to know each other and to practice posing for the big day. Which is bull%"*t and unnecessary for any photographer with even the most rudimentary people and technical skills. They know full well that very few clients will actually take them up on it. They achieve this by excluding times of the week when clients are most able to make appointments - Saturdays and Sundays - and only accepting appointments for times when most clients cannot possibly make it due to their work commitments unless they take valuable annual or unpaid leave.

In other words its often a way to pad out a photography package to make it look more appealing without actually costing much in time or money.

Its similar to the two photographer trick. Most clients are not aware that they are not getting two accomplished experienced photographers, but rather one tog and one spouse who acts as a bag carrier and occasional shutter button presser. Try to find a photographer package where both are the real deal and you will almost certainly fail. Try to find a deal where the 2nd is the wife / husband / boyfriend / girlfriend and you'll find about a million.

So don't be disheartened. You just experienced what pre-wedding shoots are like :- ) Take a look at the samples that are the subject of frequent posts in the wedding section of fredmiranda.com Boring or what!!!

On a more general note, clients do have an expectation of receiving several hundred edited digital files from their wedding day. You need to be on top of editing individual images obviously but also the various batch processing of multiple images which you can automate for things like resizing for print runs, unsharp mask, gallery creation etc. If you don't it will break you.

Pete

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

So Adrian, are those stills extracted from raw video on a Canon 1DC? If so, great job on a first attempt!

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Hey Warren, I wish! But, nope, these were just plain stills.

Promise I'll post some 1DC frames when I can, but it will be a while. Probably: mid-June. Not only trying to improve first in terms of pure photography skills (mainly: directing the couple and getting used to the technical side, especially use of flash), but trying to get clear in my head the logistics of shooting, if I'm trying to do both video and photo on the one camera. (Am I trying to shoot the whole day in 4K, or is it 4K + stills + some 1080? For a two- or three-person team, could multiple people work at once capturing both video and stills? And, for a multi-shooter team, is just one 1DC + some 5D3s good enough, or do I need two 1DCs?)

In terms of packages, thinking of offering:

-- 1. Photos only (where I'll only use 4K occasionally to "cheat" and not miss some moments -- eg catching that ceremony kiss with two cameras, one on 4K on a tripod and another shooting proper stills; and using 4K for general candid stuff)
-- 2. Photos + highlights -- which will hopefully be the main product and selling point. I'll need to make a compromise on both the photo and video side to make it work, but I should still be able to offer a high quality product at a much cheaper price than if the couple were to hire two vendors. The compromise on the photo side is reducing the number of photos taken -- maybe 200 edited photos as end product -- shooting in a particular style, more candid than posed, so that I can maximise amount of usable video content, and creating many of the photos from 4K frame grabs rather than raw stills. The compromise on the video side might be mainly in terms of spending less time shooting video, so reducing the number of good shots, if I'm spending a lot of time doing posed photos and table shots, etc.
-- 3. Photos + highlights with two camera operators shooting both photo and video (with more photos and better quality video than package 2, to justify the upgrade to the couple)
-- 4. Photos + highlights + short form

And maybe no long form (so that I can try to market and differentiate myself as a specialist -- "Adrian is the go-to guy if you want a great short form" -- and I'm not confusing people with too many choices).

Re: Hybrid shooting -- good/bad idea?
 

Well stated Peter. Could not agree more.