Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

I think we often bemoan the fact that they do, but I don't know if we've ever squarely discussed why they do.

From a videographer perspective, it almost feels absurd. There seem to be lots of brides who wouldn't think twice about dropping 2,500, 3,500, 7,000, even 10,000 on a photography package, but begrudge spending, well, anything at all on video, though the videographer might be using a lot of the same techniques, getting a lot of the same shots, working a lot harder, spending a lot more time in post, spending a lot more money on gear, etc. I was reading a bridal review of an apparently well known photographer from San Francisco named Ben Chrisman, and this bride said she'd shifted the date of her wedding in order to make sure he could be there.

So... why the difference in perception?

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Its just the way it is Adrian, i think its just tradition that will not go away
Here is one for you!! I sent out 50 emails, 50 txt messages to clients last week, explained who we are and would they like a wedding video! ( If i say wedding video it is a simple saying, if i say wedding feature film/story they go (what??) Confusing yes, anyway.
Out of 100 messages i had at least 70 say! Oh i already have a photographer!! No i said would you like a wedding videographer!! What do you mean half of them said!! Now Adrian you tell me, some of them do not even know what a video o grapher is!!!
That is why on the day photogs get treated like royalty and we are just the VIDEO GUY.... Shucks...

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Hey Fellow Video Guys!

We are tough and suck it up so we don't mind being video guys! Look at it this way. When video was totally unpractical for weddings because of lighting and the fact you needed a trailer to tote the 1" reel to reel recorder with you, cameras could still do a pretty respectable image on film so they had quite a few years jump on us ... In those days you could ONLY have a photog!! As Steve says it's traditional as it was the only way to record your wedding a few decades ago. By the time VHS/Betamax/SVHS arrived cameras and prints were pretty fancy already (I was shooting 6x7 negs on a Mamiya RB67 camera and the resolution and dynamic range was stunning then, whilst VHS could barely resolve 200 lines on a CRT TV.

We will catch up in the end! I think we need to put our thinking caps on and find a term that brides will instantly recognise as moving pictures with sound rather than "Can you take a photo of us please" "It's a video camera !" I doubt whether many brides could spell videographer and now guys are talking about being cinematographers and producing cinematic wedding films ...no wonder brides have no idea what video is!!

There must be a simpler way to get the message across and start catching up with photogs??

Chris

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

I too shot the RB67...once. It sounded like a cannon going off so I went back to my Graflex XL 6x7 rangefinder for ceremonies. :-)
Anyway I have heard this from brides so many times over the years I lost count..."but when would I watch a video" I am shaking my head even now. with the advent of smart phones, tablets and the small GoPro type camera I think there will be an increase in business but I DON'T think it will ever catch up with photography.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Hi Don

I can just see all the young guns here scratching their heads and mumbling "What are these old coots talking about" There was no auto in those days ..on anything and before you took the next shot, yes you had to wind the film forward too!! Actually my very first was a Yashicamat 124G twin lens reflex that did 21/4" square negs and yes we also used black and white film AND we use to process the film (B&W, colour and transparencies) ourselves and print ourselves too!! In those days you worked for your money!!

A lot later I went the easier route and used 2 x 35mm bodies and used to buy bulk film and cram 40 exposures into a 35mm cassette!! That was a long time before digital anything!!!

I think the main issue with video was that it never made a serious dent in the wedding industry sadly and until cameras went full digital you never had a decent looking wedding video that would compare to broadcast TV that brides looked at.

Maybe Peter Riding has the right idea and offer video for free BUT advertise yourself as a photographer so you get in the bride's priority list early and then can do a combo package with both?

Chris

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Because they can look at a photograph anytime they want, anywhere they want, and they can use their imagination to remember that day, that instant, any way they want to. They can take as long with it as they want. And it doesn't take any external equipment, like a TV. IOW, they can romanticize it as much as they want to.

A video requires that they sit down in front of the TV and watch. The video shows them, more or less, the actual events of the day, in the order they actually occurred, with the pacing that actually occurred. IOW, they see what was, not what they remember. And of course, they see it from your perspective, not their perspective.

I've had this discussion with a few brides, and this is the basics of what they told me.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Chris,
I swear, I also had a Yashica twin lens, then got a Rolli twin lens cause the glass was superb. I also had my Nikon F's that I bought from the PX when I got to Vietnam and had them shipped home. It wasn't until about 76 or 77 that I started using the Nikons for weddings although I was using them for sports, news etc. I used the Graflex XL (6x7 format) for weddings, the Mamiya RB67 for studio work which I did a lot of, so I thought I had the gear I needed for the work I was doing. I found out I wasn't but I was able to get by.

TriX was my goto black and white film, Koda Color 100 was my goto color negative film and I used both Kodachrome and Ektachrome for transparency work. I would process a lot of the film myself except of course Kodachrome. That had to be sent to Kodak. Man we had some fun back then didn't we.

I too used bulk film loads. I had a auto winder bulk film back for the Nikons. Up to 250 frames. Wow! Almost like shooting video. lol! I used it for sports almost exclusively. I loved those cameras.
I found my old portfolio, not weddings but some other stuff I did.
Maybe one day I'll put some of it up on a site. Maybe! ;-)

Ah, The good old days right?!

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Funny, I was actually just thinking this. They can pull out their wedding album, and view it for a minute, or 20 minutes. Skip from the Formal, to the bridal party easily. Video requires an hour to watch, FFWD, RWD etc, and its storytelling, not just it.Plus I think couples want the one or two perfect photographs they love that they place in their picture frame and place in the house once or twice. My parents still have theirs.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Hi David

With portable media now it IS getting better! You still have to go and find the album, blow off the dust and page thru the sections but yes it is quicker. However in the old days all you had was a VHS tape so that means turning on the TV and VCR and putting in the tape and watching a whole hour, Nowdays with tablets and even photo frames and menu driven wedding videos you can almost access, lets say, the ceremony , on a tablet ... however it's still quicker to look thru 10 album pages with ceremony photos than physically watch a 20 minute ceremony.

Hmm maybe we should start supplying a tablet with a multi menu wedding video already loaded (break down the ceremony into entrance, intro,vows, register, exit) and we almost have an instant wedding view (speed up the video 2X if you really want to)

Seriously guys if people are shying away from video due to the inconvenience of accessing it, an android 10" tablet now days costs less than dinner for two at MacDonalds and would certainly make watching your wedding as easy as looking at your album.

Chris

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

I think ease of access and sharing is definitely one reason brides value photos over video; functionality of displaying on mantelpiece, bedside table, work desk, computer screensaver etc is another.

But I think it's more than just functional, practical considerations. I mean, I personally never look at old photos. Life goes on; who has the time? I like having them; I like the idea that I could look at them if I wanted; but there's always something more interesting in the present to occupy my attention.

So I can't help feeling that it's not just functionality -- that it's intangible stuff, like brides valuing the skill of the photographer more, and having more pride in possessing a good wedding photo (regardless of whether they ever actually look at it).

To the extent that that's true, I think maybe video could close the gap a little. After all, there are already cultures and countries (like the Philippines) where video, particularly the showy kind, is more valued, obsessed over, wanted.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Over the years one of my mantras and something I asked brides and grooms was this;
"If you could look at your grandparents wedding album or could watch a video of their wedding and could only choose 1...which would YOU choose?"

almost 100% of the time, they would say the video. I would ask why? They would answer, "Because I could hear their vows"

Now that did not translate into signing 100% of the couples I met with but it seems that a lot of people really do want video but come up with all kinds of silly rationals to NOT get it. It's never made sense to me and now that I'm on the outside (retired) it really makes even less sense to me but you will always have those that for reasons only known to them, opt out.

All you can do as a professional in this industry is to continue to try to make the best video you can regardless of whether you do cinematic style or documentary style, short form or long form or any combination, DVDs, Blueray or on their website or tablets. Do you level best each and everytime you shoot a wedding. That's all you can do and for those you pitch to and they don't go along with the program, forget them. Remember some will, some won't so what...who's next!

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Agreed Oh wise one... that is quite true.

My thinking IF the bride was using the accessibility issue was : With photos, an album is rarely used now, it's more than often a coffee table book, easy to pick up and access and look at without scratching around in the attic for one's wedding album. If the bride was given a tablet (which could also sit on the coffee table) and that held both the wedding video AND if required, the photos then access is just as easy with no turning on the TV and looking for a DVD. One would still obviously give them disks to watch on TV!

I have a mate actually who we are visiting tomorrow, and in his dining room he has a photo frame that he runs almost all the time when he has guests (his has just photos on it) and guests always seem to love it.

I'm sure brides still think in the terms of "if I have to watch my wedding then that means inconvenience and disruption of what the visitors/friends while you set up the TV, dim the lights and all keep quiet"

Surely a self running photoframe or similar would kill all these myths about it being a pain to watch your wedding? Is there anything else I have missed that makes photos in hard copy an easier option?

Chris

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

If I had to guess: Resolution & Permanence
I'll take my beautiful bride in our photo album, or hanging over our fireplace in glorious sharpness and detail over our SD video any day. I can touch it, feel it, hold it, unlike an image on TV.

And when I do want to watch our wedding again, I only need close my eyes and re-play the tape in my head.
(Of course this does no good for anyone else that wants to watch the video) ;-)

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Photo's can be ever present hanging on the wall what you cannot achieve with video, that's a fact but video will add another dimension photo's can never touch, which is sound. A few years back I transfered 18 year old footage from a cassette to my pc when my second daughter was born, that footage had been collecting dust for all that time. My first daughter was 2 at that time and spoke to me off screen while I was shooting her new sister and hearing her speak in my headphone while I was monitoring the audio made the tears run freely, something the pictures from that time could never do. I totally forgot how she sounded at that age, something you can't just recall by closing your eyes and replay a memory in your head.
Real emotion can only be captured on tape, a photo will only be a snapshot where you have to use your own imagination to fill in the blanks, video does that for you, it depends what you find more important.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Originally Posted by Don Bloom
Is there anything else I have missed that makes photos in hard copy an easier option?

Vince,

I didn't ask that question. As a former still guy I think I know the answer to that one. At least I think I do.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

I post over at a Micro Four Thirds forum, where the photogs (of which there are some pros / retired pros) consider video to be the new photo.

They bemoan Grandma and their cousin, who have DSLR cameras, who are now considered as worthy replacements for professional photographers.

This will never be the case with video - nobody can fake a video. There are too many elements, whereas a talented photographer (who is an amateur) can still reproduce some decent looking images with some knowledge of lighting and a decent prime.

After watching videos at Creative Live and hearing people scream, "OMG Ray Roman is going to video MY wedding!" I can only suggest that people's minds are changing.

There was a recent wedding placed on Facebook. In fact, it was one year ago. The bride had her photos, which people liked; but the two minute video that was shot to, "To Build A Home" by Cinematic Orchestra blew people's minds. The video was shot in black and white, with highlights (lights) flashing across the bride and bridesmaids subtly. It was a moving piece and definitely worthy of their day.

It captured the hearts of her family and friends, scored close to 100 likes and had everyone screaming that the creator was going to somehow make thousands (he may do, but I think he was an amateur using iMovie to cut as he used a few of the effects from that software programme and made 'wow' moments through extended shots with X30 speed, which was cleverly used).

After watching the video, my friends asked if I could do similar... I accepted but pushed them to get a pro, but they declined, saying they'd already blown their budget and hadn't considered a video until they saw the one on Facebook (but had spent £2k on a photographer).

After watching the video that I created, their reaction was similar to that of the other person's wedding.

The more videos that are shared like this on Facebook, the more video is going to be requested by the people who are viewing, but are not yet married. I believe the tide IS going to change.

I'm fairly sure that both films were created by amateurs. I'm certain a professional could do a better job. Value here was lost (as both films were created for free). But the guests responses? I think they value video more now and I think they'll be wanting their wedding filmed in the future - and I think they'd be willing to pay out more than they would have considered before.

The truth is, people don't know what you guys can do! People are still used to the old, boring 60 minute documentary style weddings, where few shots are changed and it's mostly like replaying the entire day.

DSLR video, handheld rigs, monopods etc. the production value is raised, the duration is lowered, the vows over the top creates dynamism that can't be met by pictures alone.

I honestly think the tides will turn. Videographers will become valued enough to make as much as the photogs!

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Tides will definitely turn. But there is still a long way to go ...

More and more people are discovering the whole cinematic video or documentary edits with cinematic elements!

Gear is just getting better and better enabling videographers to produce amazing footage for clients that they will cherish more than photographs in the future.

If I was a young kid, I would love to see my grandfathers wedding video with crisp audio and amazing picture clarity! it would be much better than pictures.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Interestingly I saw a comment by an Australian top end society wedding photographer (sorry name escapes me) who said that when he started in the 1960s that about 50% of these high end weddings were filmed on 16mm. I imagine that this was by no means a full documentary style and don't even know if it had audio but probably was just highlights but the novelty of moving images would be sufficient to make it interesting

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Yes, but how many brides say that?

Remember, it's just the latest generation that's had the opportunity to access the current stock of video cameras. Their moms didn't -- their moms would have had to hire a 16mm (or 35mm) crew which wasn't at all reasonable. Middle America just didn't do it. And it's those same moms and dads that are paying for today's weddings. Like it or not, those moms still have influence.

When the current generation of brides becomes the next generation of moms, then I think it might be possible for video to become the norm at weddings. Time will tell.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Tell your brides that on the day they will be pretty busy just making it through the process of getting married.

It's only later after the event ... when they are watching the video ... that they can actually sit down and enjoy their wedding.

(based on the feedback I have had)

Andrew

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

The title of the thread is Why do brides value photos more than video? I don't believe that they do!

I do agree that only 10% of brides book a video, but in my 30 years and 2000+ weddings, I find that once the wedding video is delivered, it has much more value to the Bride than the photographs do. I find that past clients tell me that they watch the video far more than they look at the photographs and that their children also love watching the video, seeing family members that they may not have ever seen or heard and others such as grandparents that may no longer be around.

The problem we face as videographers, is to get those planning to get married, to see the value of the video before the wedding. As an example, I visited potential clients 3 days ago, who had met Claire and I at a wedding show and were intrigued enough to invite me to discuss it with them. On arrival the groom made it quite clear that he wasn't really interested and would never watch it, and it was only his future wife that had persuaded him to at least have a chat. We all got on very well and talked very informally about life in general for quite a while before I suggested they looked at a typical wedding of ours. I suggested that they fast forwarded through it whenever they wanted and just watched the bits that interested them.

After about 10 minutes, I noticed that they were both laughing at humerous moments, and commenting on aspects of the venue, flowers etc. The bride to be, even got a bit choked up watching the vows. When they had seen enough, they both said that it was nothing at all what they had expected. They expected to see a home video style with lots of zooming in and out on self conscious guests. They didn't expect a 3 camera discrete professional production, which they described as like watching a tv programme. they were also impressed with the sound quality and visual clarity. After they looked at some still photos as well, I left them a booking form incase they wanted to book and made my departure. Yesterday, the bride rang me saying that they both loved the video and stills, the groom had changed his opinion and they had put the booking form in the post for the joint video and photo package.

So for me, it justifies talking to people if you exhibit at wedding shows, taking the time to explain just why you feel that wedding video is so important. I also never show video on my website, and always make a visit to show new enquirers, making it quite clear that I do not take a booking on a visit so that they don't feel pressured. My 2 year record of 100% bookings from visits was spoilt last month by one couple who decided to go with another company, but I felt on the visit that they had already booked before I visited them. Of course, you can never be all things to all people.

Roger

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Hey Roger

Definitely +1 on that from me.

I think it was Don you said he saw a survey done with brides and 98% said they should have had a wedding video at their wedding.

So does this tells us that we are NOT doing our job and not promoting video enough to the bridal market?
We need brides to be wise before the event not after it. I have found that offering combo packages does help me as brides are still initially looking for a photographer and not a videographer but when they visit my site they are often convinced that a dual package is a good idea.

It's not perfect but at least it's a start!! I now wondering if I should completely turn the tables and advertise myself as wedding photo/video packages rather than video/photo packages ... sadly I think brides still tend to look for photographers first so do I really have to offer myself as a photographer that also offers video even though I prefer the latter. My main site at present is very much video oriented with photos being the option.

Do people see you as a photographer or a videographer based on your website?

Chris

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

I think that even though 98% want video there are maybe 3 reasons they don't regardless of what they say. 1) They haven't seen found someone they click with. Imo you need to get along and feel comfortable with the B&G. If they aren't comfy with you or they don't like you they won't hire you.
2) They haven't met anyone whose work is what they're looking for style wise.
3) They don't have the money to hire the person who does do the style of work they do like.
Please be aware these reason's are all bull. I am only relating things I've been told over the years by B&Gs.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Hey Don

and number 4 : they got conned into paying double what they thought a photog would cost so now they cannot afford video!

Like Roger I'm doing dual packages now and it definitely pays off cos there is no photog to kill their budget and more often than not our dual package (like Roger just my wife and myself) comes out less than some of the over-priced photogs... I mean, seriously, I worked with two young guys who charged the bride $3200 for 6 hours and all she got was a disk with image files ...

Whatever people say brides still tend to book the venue and photog first and all the rest later, mostly based on budget.

Chris

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Interesting debate
I think you can see a still image (especially a hanging photograph) for as little or as long as you like, its immediate and always available, you don't need an electronic device to see it.
Whereas you have to make a conscious decision to view a video.
I have a series of studio photographs that I shot of one of my sons and my grandchildren that I see every day and is a source of constant joy for me. Obviously I have lots of video of them too that I treasure, but it's much easier to see the stills.

@Chris you might be on to something there with an afordable10" tablet or similar device that could contain a menu driven high res video.
Top end wedding albums can cost as much as €1000 so the provision of a comparable device to show video could be the way to go, anyone open to some product development?

There are many valid points to why stills are perceived to be more valuable than video, I think it's partly down to lack of education on our behalf and the fact that for a lot of clients a wedding is a one off event, theres not enough of them saying "the next time I'm having video as well"

:-)

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Some more random thoughts I wanted to add:

-- Ironically, the fact that photo is a more democratic art form -- everyone's got a camera, everyone takes photos all the time, everyone circulates photos by email and social media -- increases the use-value of photos and leads people to appreciate the skill in a good photo more.

The stakes are higher also -- everyone is a photo critic more than they're a video critic; everyone has opinions about what makes good/bad photos.

-- I think the work and expense that goes into video is a lot more invisible than photo, and that's part of why photos are valued more and cost more. For instance: people know that pro photography gear is, minimum, thousands of dollars of investment, but often have no idea what video gear costs (even photographers often don't realise). Or: where editing in general is concerned, people tend to underestimate the post work that goes into video, and overestimate what goes into photos.

But even if people realised the effort/expense that goes into video, would this necessarily heighten the value? It would justify increasing the dollar value, but would it increase "number of units sold"? If the client doesn't really value the end result in the first place, why should they care how much effort/expense goes into it?

-- One more thought... For photos, there is very often a "creative tax". In the mid- and high-end markets, photographers can to some extent charge what they charge because they're an artist, they put their soul into their work, so there is that intangible factor raising the value.

For mid- and high-end video, this is not true in the same way. There are some videographers who are able to impose a "creative tax", certainly; but, for many people, including those charging with apparently high prices, the figure reflects reflects actual expense, and time invested at a low hourly rate.

Clients don't understand the creativity/skill involved, so don't value video as much, and certainly aren't prepared to pay as much. One of the indicators of this is: clients often almost always (in my experience) ask videographers what gear they're using, but do they ever ask the same question of photographers? One of the underlying ideas might be that, with video, gear is what makes the difference between good/bad quality and that this isn't the case with photography.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Interestingly, I don't recall any client ever asking what gear I used for video, but a couple did ask what gear I was using for photo (they were either Canon or Nikon biased).

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

This will be the first generation to primarily view "photos" that are digital, on a screen, it will also be the first generation to be used to watching YouTube videos that are both professionally and amateur produced.

EVERYONE and their dog have phones/tablets/phablets capable of pretty "decent" photos and video, or will have such a device sooner or later! People don't pass around photo books they just happen to carry with them, they pass their PHONE!

Traditional Photo "albums" may well become rare enough that they have a perceived value for their rarity alone - print media of ALL sorts is being replaced completely or at least partially by digital images on a screen, yet some people still appreciate the tactile nature of flipping pages... there will likely always be books, but it's not a "growth industry".

My point being that while the delivery options for video and stills are changing, ultimately it is the content and the QUALITY and skill of capturing it that "move" the viewer.

Hopefully showing good examples of "moving" images (whether still or video!) will illustrate the value thereof. If not, it's not the fault of the media...

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

My website emphasises the video, with the photography as an add on and not separately bookable, but I do think the joint package attracts more interest.

We all worry about 'Uncle Bob' doing a video on the cheap so perhaps less interest in professional video, but as has been mentioned, everyone at a wedding has a compact still camera or smart phone, yet over 90% of weddings still employ a photographer.

The perception from the public of a wedding photographer is different to a videographer because at a wedding, the photographer is highly visible and guests defer to him traditionally. He takes control, tells people when he needs them with authority, and carefully and efficiently organises the poses. He is high profile and this gives the look and feel of someone using a skill to capture the pics. The videographer on the other hand is usually unobtrusive and in the background and people take little notice except if they feel he is intruding. They of course expect the photographer to intrude as he is paid to set up shots and the guests expect to stop and pose.

When I do the joint video/photography package, I cover both roles, so am in control and higher profile during the posed photo parts. That probably gives a much higher kudos value in the eyes of the guests and more respect from them during both video and photography.

Roger

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Hi Roger

My video website obviously emphasises video with photography as an add on and my photo website does the reverse.

I must admit that brides do like an all in one package .. Yesterday I did a booking and the bride chose the dual package, today's appointment resulted in the same and the bride I'm seeing on Friday again wants a dual package so there is a common factor there. Most of my season bookings (ours ends this month) have been video only with just a couple of dual packages but then again I only started offering both in late 2013 so most of the brides already had booked a photog.

Just for interest I call the packages video/photo in some parts of my site and then photo/video in others (my fault which I will change this evening) but the bride I am booking on Friday was concerned that I might be giving more importance to video rather than treating them with the same importance. I assured her both were equally important and she was then happy. Do you maybe get brides asking/wondering if you are doing video with just some photos as an "extra" ..If they looked at a dual package that way they might be inclined to rather play safe and get a photog as well ?

However bottom line seems to be if you offer both then video does become a much higher priority than it used to be.

Chris

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

I would be very careful about marketing a photo-video rather than a video-photo approach unless you are already an established photographer. SEO - search engine optimisation - is highly developed, pretty much mature - among professional social photographers whereas its almost non-existent among videographers. This means that its easy to get high rankings for video searches (at present) but it is a whole other ballgame for stills. There is a lot more to it than simply optimising your home page for your home town then sitting back to wait for the bookings to roll in. You could kill your whole business if you are not very careful simply because of people not finding you. Recommendations are all well and good but you do need fresh blood coming in regularly as well.

Maybe have a separate new site, even a different trading name to give it a whirl?

I think too many posters are paying too much attention to the photographer-visible part of the day. Important though that is, it is a very small part of the whole. You have to be able to do it but too much and you will put people off not impress them.

This whole approach that many videographers are taking - the equipment to impress, the obviously scripted shorts etc, are a million miles away from the approach which got wedding photography out of the gutter. A decade ago photographers were something clients barely tolerated, a necessary evil at weddings. Even now many clients perceptions are that the formals will take hours and hours of boring standing around interspersed with brief moments of saying cheese to the camera. Photographers largely turned this perception around by good storytelling of the whole day whilst maintaining almost complete invisibility. Think about that next time you are chasing guests around with your steadycam your shoulder rig and your LED light, and when you are getting couples or guests to do something they wouldn't otherwise do or repeat something that has already happened.

Photography fees peaked around 2008 and have fallen a long way since then. Keep that in mind. Are you taking the word or a photographer who talks the talk or who ..... well you know the rest. One of my local competition did just 4 weddings last year and only 10 the year before that. Another who I recently shot with, it was their first wedding for 5 months.

Pete

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

I think it is a "fashionista" thing, like women, much more then men, like to be "posed" in front of a photo camera in that they do not have to act or say something. Unlike a video camera that when you point it at someone it kind of forces a reaction/dialogue/movement of sorts. Video tends to make the subject more camera shy as it takes them by surprise and they have no clue how to react to that shiny lens pointing at them.It is mostly that microphone that is the scary part. Tell any young women that you worked for Vogue or Harper's Bazaar as a primo photog and you will instantly be asked for your business card. Say that you are a primo class video guy and they seem to think you're a schmuck. "What, you wanna tape me, for what ??"
You see, my opinion is that a photog is considered in an elite class to be looked up and respected as a pro, he/she can pose, direct position, facial expression, move the subject around etc. The bride believes she is the center of attention on a red carpet on the opening emmy's with all that glitz and glamour that is prevalent in them high society's extravaganza's. At least only for a day.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Arthur, any wedding videographer who points a video camera at someone expecting to get a reaction to record, is going to have a very short career. Discrete video is the only way to get genuine results unless something set up is specially requested. Photography on the other hand is expected to be much more up front for many shots and is expected by couples and guests, even though many stills mey also be discrete and casual.

Roger

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Hi Chris, in answer to your question, I do quite often get asked by couples whether the add on photography package will mean that they have very limited still photos. As I always meet up with clients prior to booking, I am able to show them examples of my photography work in addition to video and allay their fears about missing out on anything.

Roger

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Thanks Roger

Yesterday was the first time anyone has asked me, hence the question. Like yours she was happy to book once she was assured that she would have my wife on still cameras thruout the day doing just photos.

Concerning your response to Arthur, since I always do a "video guestbook" during pre-dinner drinks that does require interaction with guests there is no way you can be discrete and it's much like stills ..I also interact during my stedicam shoot as that also requires some instruction ...however apart from those two events, yes I stay discrete. As one priest says to photo/video guys "You are here to record the wedding not be part of it"

Peter? I see your point and I'm trying to make sure that clients realise that on packages they do get a exclusive photog (same as Roger) and an equal emphasis is put on supplying both media. It's probably a delicate balancing act but the bias is still towards video as you suggest .. I simply don't want brides to get a mental picture of a video guy walking around waving a discount digital still camera whilst trying to do a professional video job, or even worse, giving the client still frames from video.

Chris

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

A bride wants attention and lots of it. But in her mind the classic photographer is a must just like the cake and the rings. Photos are a classic ingredient of recording a moment in time. Almost all art form is a still. Sure a ballet an art form and so is music but a picture is something you keep, a tangible. Take a painting by Vermeer, a sculpture by Bellini, a picture by Ansel Adams, they cannot be conveyed to the eye as motion and cannot be displayed as movement. Even if it were possible, it would destroy the art. Can you see Vermeer's " the milk maid" doing something other than pouring milk and still consider the motion as art ? How about Adam's Yosemite scenes with moving clouds ? Video or motion recording can definitely be considered as an art form as was photography as of recent. Also because photography was always associated with fashion and glamour in it's heyday, Garbo, Dietrich, Monroe, it was at the same time being used to PRESERVE the moment, to freeze and CAPTURE it for posterity and history, to "write it in stone" so to speak. It has that permanence to it that makes it the unquestionable choice for a wedding.
Video was a secondary consideration as an add-on once it came to being, and so stayed that way. Sadly but true.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Fellas you really need to stop obsessing about what photographers do during the formals. Its an important part of the day but just one part.

Look at any mainstream photographers site who is actually busy rather than pretending to be busy and you'll soon get a handle on what brides are actually looking for. Photographers have been shooting well-lit well-posed formals for decades but that is NOT what propelled the industry into much higher fees. Rather it was a natural, reportage, photo-journalism, candid, documentary - call it what you will - approach which involved the shooter blending into the day almost unnoticed.

You do need to be able to nail the posed stuff but that does not of necessity mean multiple off-camera lights and a fashionista style - that is just one genre.

And you do need to nail the posed stuff quickly. At that point you need to break cover and be assertive. No-one will thank you if they feel they are standing around like a spare *&^ck at a wedding :- ) Then disappear again. Brides do NOT want photographers or anyone else directing their wedding.

Pete

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

I think we are missing another important point here, which is that photography has been around for over 150 years, basically as long as the traditional wedding. It has also become part of the tradition along with the wedding dress, the flowers, the car etc.

Decent quality video with sound on the other hand is still the new kid in town and home produced video is only now becoming common place with the advent of smart phones and youtube etc. In time, video images will probably be as traditional as photographic images, as people understand them better and come to realise that it is not the camera but the operator that counts.

Roger

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

If brides do not want any directing, she better be posing herself and the bridal party as well as with her family and her guests as well as her husband. Most of them are not highly paid fashion models that instinctively pose themselves. The photographer's job and responsibility besides capturing the key moments is to pose and make the subject(s) look their best while at the same time provide that artistic romantic touch where needed. It is very easy for the bride to assume the poses herself but the photog should be aware that he/she is responsible for the results for allowing that. The brides have no clue to what appears in the viewfinder and vantage point from the photographer's perspective. Allow the bride extra rope and she may very well hang you with it at the end. And then there are the brides that cut out photos from wedding magazines and ask if the photog can do the same poses. Right, only that them photos were taken on ideal days with controlled lighting at a day when there was no real wedding going on but set aside just for the magazine's ad pages for some bridal gown designer. "I want my photos to look just like that" she says.

Re: Why do brides value photos more than video?
 

Arthur, you seem determined to miss my point. I said that brides do not want photographers directing their wedding and at the same time you must be able to nail the posed stuff, that the formals are important but are just one part of the day.

Posing and lighting can be learned relatively easily both online and at seminars from out of work former "high-end" wedding photographers :- ) Whether the couple are willing to devote the time to it on the day and whether the venue has suitable areas then come into play. Lack of time is a huge issue in the UK.

But being invisible does not come easy to videographers. They seldom have to do that and don't see the point especially as it conflicts with how they are used to working, plus they perceive it would compromise the style and depth they believe their clients expect.

But anyone who wants to properly break into the stills market needs to look at what busy photographers are actually delivering. Not the photographers who you currently work with because that is a self-selecting sample unrepresentative of the mainstream couples for whom stealth is hugely important.

Pete

p.s. anyone else getting a jumbled mess when trying to view this forum in Chrome? I've switched to Firefox for this.