DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Wedding / Event Videography Techniques (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/)
-   -   I said i would not put him in the video but? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/524714-i-said-i-would-not-put-him-video-but.html)

Chris Harding August 30th, 2014 07:02 PM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
Hi Steven

Only a walk in front twice?? I had a guy that during a civil ceremony that lasted a mere 15 minutes he walked (more like ran) across my camera 17 times!! It was crazy he would take one shot on the right and rush across and take one shot from the left then back to the right.

I normally contend with crossing my camera people by using cutaways of the guests but in this case I just didn't have enough!!

Chris

Steven Davis August 30th, 2014 09:19 PM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding (Post 1859643)
Hi Steven

Only a walk in front twice?? I had a guy that during a civil ceremony that lasted a mere 15 minutes he walked (more like ran) across my camera 17 times!! It was crazy he would take one shot on the right and rush across and take one shot from the left then back to the right.

I normally contend with crossing my camera people by using cutaways of the guests but in this case I just didn't have enough!!

Chris

Naa, this went on the whole ceremony. I actually have a shot of the bride giving the photog the evil eye.. I understand your pain. I'm like, buy a freaken zoom lens and learn to use it. Good times.

Kenny Shem August 31st, 2014 07:44 PM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding (Post 1859570)
Hi Steve

...and this is what should have happened to your photog a few seconds later. Revenge is sweet

Camera Man Felled Into Water Fountain while Taking Wedding Pictures - YouTube

Chris

Haha. He has a 70-200. why don't he use that and stand behind the fountain in the first place.

John Nantz August 31st, 2014 09:52 PM

Re: The ironic part is...
 
Hey Steve!

(I'm using Vince's quote)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince Pachiano (Post 1859560)
Crouching like that is not gonna yield a flattering photo of the happy couple.

The "that's why squirt guns were invented" is okay, but remember, two-thirds of good video is good audio. On this note, remember you're in control of the audio, right?

Okay, so when you got the photographer doing his low "squat" for the bride and groom photo, just add in a short audio track. You know, something that sounds like he's "passing air". (hint: the first letter starts with an "F").

I couldn't resist. This would, of course, be for the trailer that gets posted on-line.

Brendan McElwaine September 2nd, 2014 03:00 AM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
I'm generally not overly fussed about when the couple comes back up the aisle. It's more when the bride is walking down the aisle at the start that it would bother me. It's one of the more emotionally charged moments of the day so even if there wasn't a videographer to think of I think it completely ruins the moment when the photographer decides to gets in the way then. And it's completely unnecessary.

Barry Hunter September 2nd, 2014 02:09 PM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
One we did recently, I was at the front left on the couple, my wife at the back of the church centre aisle & her shot was the classic 3, just as the bride is placing the ring on the grooms finger the tog walks down the aisle spoiling a beautiful shot! When the couple exit down the aisle I always make it my place to stand left hand side of the tog beside him, that way I have more control of what happens.

On another subject of weddings, I wonder what the norm is for speeches is? I would say 3 mostly, occasionally 4 but on this same wedding we had 15!!! All dotted around the room, total chaos.

Noa Put September 2nd, 2014 02:47 PM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
Speeches are usually only 2 to 3 around these parts but often also no speeches, I did have one occasion though several years back when I had to shoot a English-Danish wedding in Brussels, almost the entire Danish family who flew over had something to say so they just passed the wireless mike around. I believe I had over an hour of speeches then, absolute horror.

Steven Davis September 2nd, 2014 02:49 PM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Noa Put (Post 1859930)
Speeches are usually only 2 to 3 around these parts but often also no speeches, I did have one occasion though several years back when I had to shoot a English-Danish wedding in Brussels, almost the entire Danish family who flew over had something to say so they just passed the wireless mike around. I believe I had over an hour of speeches then, absolute horror.

I've had almost an hour once. And since I Steadicam the speeches (camera one of two), man was I sweating at the end of it.

Chris Harding September 2nd, 2014 06:25 PM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
The norm here seems to be 5 at traditional Western weddings. Both fathers have a say, the best man, chief bridesmaid and then the bride and groom. Normally, thank goodness, they stick to around 5-6 minutes each.

My record is a father of the bride who went on for 37 minutes!

Chris

Arthur Gannis September 2nd, 2014 06:40 PM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
That water soaked photog could have easily been inside the pew getting 2 shots frontal and 2 shots from the rear. That's it. He would be well out of the way and would have saved his gear as well. Notice he shot well over 15 shots in succession. That's called insecurity.

Peter Riding September 3rd, 2014 03:02 PM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
That photographer does produce world class images and he had his reasons for shooting as he did. Basically 1) he wanted to get the perspective of a wide angle lens close to the target, and that is why photographers like myself who asked at the time why didn't you just shoot from the back with your 70-200 got short shrift 2) he shot what seems like an excessive number of images because not only did he need to capture flattering expressions of both the bride and groom as they raced down the aisle but he also needed to ensure that guests captured in the shots also had flattering expressions. When you go wide angle its a lot more than just nailing the couple, its about whats behind them, whats in front of them, and whats around them. And if you look closely at your own footage of recessionals you'll soon realise how much of the time one or both of the newly-weds are looking at the floor - not a good look in photos.

He of course says that couples book him for his style. However as with videographers with their silly steadycams couples have no idea just how intrusive it will be.

What he did was a silly mistake easily made, and made all the more memorable because of him landing in the water. But who here hasn't had a similar scrape? I have stood with my back too near to lighted candles before and got melted wax on my clothes; not as spectacular as another clip doing the rounds where the photographers hair caught alight but the same principle. And a few days ago I went backwards over a raised flower bed in a lawn whilst I was shooting the formals; not a pond - I should be grateful!

Pete

Steven Davis September 3rd, 2014 05:13 PM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Riding (Post 1860095)

He of course says that couples book him for his style. However as with videographers with their silly steadycams couples have no idea just how intrusive it will be.

What he did was a silly mistake easily made, and made all the more memorable because of him landing in the water. But who here hasn't had a similar scrape? I have stood with my back too near to lighted candles before and got melted wax on my clothes; not as spectacular as another clip doing the rounds where the photographers hair caught alight but the same principle. And a few days ago I went backwards over a raised flower bed in a lawn whilst I was shooting the formals; not a pond - I should be grateful!

Pete



For us who focus on the couple, we know how to work well with others. And 80% of the time it works out fine. We are client focused, that should be the priority for everyone, period.

We've been called invisible as well, even with our "silly steadycam" The name of it is, client focused, sure I can get all kinds of great shots, but if I become the focus, then I've robbed the couple of there special time.

Even with my 'silly steadycam.'

Noa Put September 4th, 2014 01:24 AM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Riding (Post 1860095)
That photographer does produce world class images and he had his reasons for shooting as he did.

I also agree with Arthur the concerning photog was insecure, most good photogs I have worked with shoot images up close walking backwards as soon as the couples starts walking down the aisle but move quickly out of the way once they have their first series of shots and then come and join me at the end of the aisle, they don't continuously fire away all through the aisle ruining the view for all guests and the videographer. What the photog did here was very intrusive, to say the least. Imagine having the videographer with his silly steadycam walking backwards as well right next to the photog (I mean he has to or otherwise he doesn't have a way to capture flattering expressions thx to the photog) what a circus that would have been, a very elegant exit for the couple paparazzi style.

My clients sometimes worry that I could be somewhat intrusive during the ceremony with all my camera's but I always tell them it's the photog they need to worry about, it's not the first time I have had a priest stop talking during the homily to ask if the photog pls could stop moving around so much as it's too distracting, I never had this comment in my 10 years of video shooting and I get compliments after every wedding because they didn't even realize I was there, and yes, I do use a steadicam as well :)

Andrew Maclaurin September 4th, 2014 06:52 AM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
My 2 business partners are photographers. They both have their own ways of getting in the film. One is very laid back and the other a bit hyper and they try to remember not to step in front of the camera! The hyper photog is always changing lenses. More than once the ceremony has been interrupted by a loud 'clunk' as he drops his massive zoom lens on the floor. I'm amazed it has never broken!

Peter Riding September 4th, 2014 01:55 PM

Re: I said i would not put him in the video but?
 
All this talk about machine gunning. Pleeeaaaase. Read a couple of threads with posts by experienced old hands:

Overshooting vs decisive moment /// Is the end product all that matters? - FM Forums

how many shots? - FM Forums

Do you seriously think that they "overshoot" because they are rank amateurs or because they suffer personal issues! If it wasn't for the fact that its part of achieving the look they offer ..... well all would have changed their techniques long ago; after all when you get back to base you have to cull through that lot for starters. Yet you'll see there are photographers shooting 10,000 - 12,000 per wedding.

That their style conflicts with the desired ambience of most weddings is simply not on their radar. Not any more than big equipment is on the radar of many videographers. But they do it for a reason same as some videographers do what they do for a reason.

I don't shoot anything like that many. The most I've ever shot is one I'm processing right now which over two days was 2750 images. I've culled it to 1135. More often for a single all day wedding it would be around 1700 culled to 550.

There are many good reasons to shoot more than you appear to need. For example photos often benefit from a bit of fill flash (for the uninitiated thats where the ambient light source is your main light and the flash it just to lift it a bit, put a twinkle in the eyes, rather than the flash being the main source). But it can be very challenging to access quickly exactly how much fill flash. You get around that by firing faster than the flash can recycle - instead of stopping to dial in different values on the camera or flashgun. In effect you are getting flash exposure bracketing. Its particularly valuable during the recessional when it totally impractical to stop and dial in alternative values whilst trying to balance ambient. I do it all the time when shooting formals of small groups. In that scenario it also helps as some subjects cannot help involuntary blinking of their eyes caused by the pre-flash as ETTL fires to measure the exposure.

A useful exercise in helping to understand the challenges of shooting stills might be to watch back some of your own footage, looking for moments when no subjects in the frame are blinking, none have unflattering facial expressions, all are looking in the right direction, no distractions in the backgrounds or to the sides etc. Video is very forgiving of that, stills is not.

Noa, in the UK you might find that many celebrants treat photographers with barely concealed contempt.. Probably the result of too many bad experiences with the legions of wannabees. That is not the case with video. The most recent gallery I've uploaded, for a wedding at which I did stills and video, photography was completely banned in the church from the end of the processional to the start of the recessional, with a brief window for posed stuff with the register signing. And yet I was able to run no fewer than 5 video cameras throughout, including a biggie on a tripod at the front.

monkey island wedding photographers videographers photography video anna and jonathan ashton lamont photo galleries

Pete


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:45 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network