Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

Hi Guys

Producing wedding films now days seems to involve multiple cameras and often multiple camera operators, piles of fancy gear like stedicams, sliders, drones and gimbals and once you have knocked out a 12 hour session with all your expensive gear and equally expensive assistants, you are still faced with a week of editing. The fact that the bride sees you for a small portion of hours compared to your consultation, prep, and editing makes most videography companies sound expensive! Have we taken the humble wedding video simply too far so what we used to do in the old days for $500 now costs $5000?

In the old days on glorious VHS, I used to film a title, shoot the wedding, in camera, and eject the tape when I left the venue and hand it to the bride ...if I spent 6 hours at her wedding she paid for 6 hours ..it was so easy then and affordable too!!

My mate Alan did a live broadcast this evening of a 50th birthday ..the video was a livestream and the CDN does an automatic online video (downloadable too) that can be instantly viewed ...People not attending can watch the reception/party as it happens and the bride can actually see her wedding video before she goes off on honeymoon ..not "I'll have your wedding film ready in around 3 months"

Seriously are we getting so involved with a wedding film where it has become a severe budget consideration that brides have to wait months for? I would love to be able to say at the end of the night "Well that's done and dusted..on to the next job"

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

I think it's like Mc Donalds vs a 3 star restaurant like El Bulli, some people like a Mc Donalds drive true and there is nothing wrong with that and some prefer to have to wait for weeks for the opportunity to book at El Bulli for some fine dining. A meal at Mc Donalds is forgotten tomorrow and the experience of a meal at El Bulli will be talked about for years.

A livestream wedding is as boring as it gets, nice if you want to have a CCTV recording but certainly not a engaging memory you want to watch over and over again, some thing are worth waiting for...

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

Hi Chris,

I often have similar thoughts about wedding video now compared with how it used to be. However in the 'Old Days', we were following on from cine, which for the most part was totally silent and very short. VHS gave us freedom to shoot the whole ceremony and speeches with glorious sound, so the wedding video became a bit like the start of talking movies, but applied to people's own lives.

Now, with HD tv, blockbuster movies and the huge advances in technology available to wedding videographers, client expectations are much higher meaning that they expect to see something akin to a tv programme or movie, but with no appreciation of what goes into creating it. Because we are able to produce to a higher level, we choose to do so but at a cost of time in production. We could go back to a single camera continuous shoot, but that would be like making a car as in the 'Old Days', no heater, no washers, no electric windows, simple engine etc etc. It would be cheap but would it meet customer expectations?

The answer perhaps is to add a basic simple and cheap package to your offerings and see if people want to take it up. Film it all on your phone and upload it immediately for them, after all it's a mobile phone instant image era :-)

Roger

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

Thanks Guys

Believe me I DO know the difference between a single camera shoot and a multi camera and multi operator shoot with all the gadgets and trimmings much the same as the difference in food choice but you must admit it's getting VERY complicated now days virtually forcing us to buy new gear as it comes out and spending even more time per wedding than we used to. I wonder what will happen in the future? Pick up your 4K iPhone or tablet and go shoot a wedding? Yes we use live stream for funerals and real estate at the moment but not weddings ... the quality and bandwidth hasn't become viable yet so one can do a 4K stream at a reasonable cost. My packages remain as they are but is still is a little disconcerting when a bride prefers another supplier over you because he has 2 assistant cameramen plus a drone operator. I don't think brides appreciate how much time we put into post production. Maybe the answer lies in alive edit? Have a pimple faced teenager that sits at a desk near the ceremony doing the 4 camera mix live and creating an SDE for the bride and uploading a copy for the overseas people at the same time. THAT I would love to do ... How great would it be to pack up at the end of the evening and say "We are Done"

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

If the packages of your competitor are more expensive then what you offer then it's not the extra cameramen and the drone that makes the difference, it only means their work is better then yours, brides don't care about equipment, it's about what feeling they get when they watch your films.

As I see it you have 2 type of clients, those that don't have a budget and look for the cheapest around and they just want to have a recording of their wedding and you have those that want to invest in a film that gives them the same feeling they had at their weddingday so they can go through that experience again when they want to. Carefully crafted trailers and highlights give them just that and they are willing to pay for it. I have experienced the past 2 years by almost doubling my prices that I get much more respect for what I do, I have had clients that ask me if I know a good photographer meaning they book me first, that never happened when I was cheaper. That respect you get by putting more time into post production, the client might not know how much extra time you spend on a wedding but they can experience the difference and for that they will wait 3 months if necessary.

I"m currently able to get a trailer online one day after the wedding, if I would have a person that would do such a live stream edit of the ceremony and speeches on the spot and have that finished at the end of the weddingday it should be able to wrap everything up a full day after the wedding with the online delivery of the trailer. In that way the couple at least will get a compelling short film they can share on facebook and go trough the boring livestream edit that pimple faced teenager put together when it's a cold winterevening. :)

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

All good points Noa It depends on the bride. I was actually talking about SDE's live not streaming on the last comment ... live feed to the laptop from the cameras and record straight to HDD. It would be nice to edit on site as I really cannot fathom out how guys do an SDE in between the ceremony and reception.

Kudos to you for being able to do a short edit the very next day!!!

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

Obviously live streaming and a well produced Wedding Video are two very different products fulfilling different needs. I offer a basic SDE on my own as an optional extra, which is really me collating a selection of clips from the Bridal Preps to the Reception entrance into a short 15 minute video. No sound as it is played on a loop during the evening party, where the DJ or band music would swamp the audio anyway. I also, like Noa, do a Trailer. However it's very basic; I give myself only an hour, maybe two to work on it. I apply some grading using film convert and correct some of the more extreme exposure issues, but that's as far as it goes. Audio is just the music, whilst the natural audio mixing I save for the separate Highlights video. It's just a teaser really, to wet the appetite so soon after the Wedding.

As for the changes in standards of Wedding Videos; this is to be expected as technology progresses and allows more to be achieved. The Video in DSLR sparked a new revolution in what was possible for Videographers and there are many who will push it even further, helped by new innovation's such as gimbals and drones.

We all have selected the level of service we feel happy and capable of offering and hopefully have enough clients to match that level. There will be those working to a higher level and those below. That's the nature of business. If you are in the Wedding Video industry purely for money, then these new standards of service would be seen as profit limiting. If you're in this for the chance to be creative and delivering a better product, then the new technology can only be seen as liberating.

There are better ways to make money and if this extra time doesn't suit, then there are other jobs out there. I would have stayed working for a University if money was the only concern. Better hours, paid leave and sick days and less stress. However very little job satisfaction .

Whilst the 'good old days' of knocking out a basic VHS may have an appeal when you're working late on an edit, many clients these days have nothing but praise for the developments in Wedding Video; turning what was once considered a cheesy Wedding Video into something that is now often described as Cinematic.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

Great post. The good thing is there is plenty of work up and down the chain and targeting your own section and selling that section is I think more important now than ever. Do you think the terminology between videographer And cinematographer makes any difference today in making that 1st connection with a bride? Meaning she looks at your home page for example and sees videographer never looking at your work. I hate putting labels on things and have always used videographer for marketing because that is what I have always called myself. I just wonder if brides have preconceived notions between the 2 since it seems like I am one of the few "videographers" left! Haha.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

People will have widely differing opinions on this, but personally I think cinematographer is a term that is often misused in wedding videography to suggest that someone is offering more than just a video. It has become fashionable to use cinematography to describe what is frequently a highlights or shortform video using a number of shot variations. They can range from slider shots, to cranes, focus pulling, drone shots etc. It's still a wedding video whatever you call it, although some like to call their work a wedding film or cinematic production. If you research what a real cinematographer or DP does, you will find it entails much more than making a nice wedding video, but borrowing the term cinematography suggests that your product is film like.

Some modernn videographers possibly feel that the term 'wedding video' sounds a little dated and is linked to the old VHS days. Whether brides are the slightest bit interested in what you call it is open to debate, although wedding video is immediately understood by everyone. Looking through photographer's websites shows a similar desire to sound more upmarket with terms such as Boutique Photography, Wedding Stories, Artistic Wedding Imaging, and the list goes on.

A wedding video can be as film like as you are able or choose to make it, whatever the length and it is entirely up to you what you call it. The important thing is to engage with clients to make sure that they know exactly what you offer and you know what their requirements are.

Roger

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

I would say very few of us can actually be a cinematographer as we don't have camera crews to direct like in the big movies.


A cinematographer or director of photography (sometimes shortened to DP or DOP) is the chief over the camera crews working on a film, television production or other live action piece and is responsible for making artistic and technical decisions related to the image.
Cinematographer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinematographer

However from a marketing viewpoint it sounds WAY posher than "video guy" as does wedding film (as opposed to wedding video) so why not use the phrase if it gets you better clients or helps sales. Sadly half our business is marketing and half is technical and it's hard to be good at both!!

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

A week of editing? I can usually turn around a solid 15 min feature film and snappy 3-4 min highlights in a day :)

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

Hi Luke

I actually allocate 10 hours for edits on a basic ceremony and reception but I have seen people talk about 40 to 60 hours ..How they make a profit is anybody's guess but it cannot be much. The old issue still remains that brides will look at your costing for a simple 6 hour shoot and then do the maths to work out your "hourly rate" and then wonder why you charge so much!! If I stick to 6 hours at the wedding, 10 hours to edit and 4 hours for travel and seeing the bride/attending rehearsals I'm lucky to make $75 an hour. Of course I COULD double my prices but then I wouldn't get much work as every Tom, Dick and Harry with a DSLR is now a wedding cinematographer who would easily undercut me.


I wonder if anyone here would be brave enough to actually cost out a wedding and see how much they are really making ??? You have to include onsite time, travel time, bride consultancy time and edit and media creation time in hours and THEN factor in your insurance costs, vehicle fuel and road costs too. If anyone dares to do it and be honest I think they might get a shock as to how low their actual hourly rate drops to!!

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

To the original post:

I've often heard couples remark about how dull older style videos were. Most aren't interested in watching the entire ceremony. The new era/style of highlight video offers a chance to relive the FEELINGS of the wedding day much better than sitting down and watching the 90 minute ceremony (I'm editing a Catholic wedding right now). Heck, the actual ceremony that day didn't feel all that exciting, other than the entrance and vows.

Of course, the rest of it, drones, sliders, etc. is all tools and whether we each choose to use them is a whole other thing. Personally, as a solo shooter, I use 3-4 cameras so I don't miss anything, and can still offer the most interesting and effective view of any given moment (I hope).

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

When I first picked up a camera many years ago the first thing I was taught was how to move from shot to shot and edit "in camera" to make editing easier which I do to this day. If I were a bride I think that all I would want would be a highlight clip ..even a so called 15 minute feature film (I don't see how a feature film can be 15 minutes but never mind) A 6 -10 minute for me gives a great overview of the day and doesn't bore you to tears BUT brides still seem to want highlights, short films and then the works as well.

Considering that a large proportion of our time goes into post production (and we have to cost it out too) it would be great if we could just film the important bits ..bridal entry ..go sit down until the vows..get the signing and you are done ...probably 5 -10 minutes of raw footage is how it should be but you know that some bride is going to come back to you and will want to know "where is my Aunt Mary doing a reading"

Yes Rob I would say they MIGHT watch the complete ceremony once then it's never watched again but we STILL have to edit it even if she only watches it that one time

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

The majority of people on here seem to feel that 10-15 minutes is the length of wedding video that clients want to watch and I have to agree that weddings are incredibly boring when taken as a whole. I have for most of the years filming weddings, offered full length documentary with full ceremony and speeches etc. Only over the last 2 or 3 years have I added the option of a short form or highlights version.

I find the opposite to most of you guys in that my clients prefer to have the full length version with a short 5 minutes highlights as well. You can argue that clients come to me because they know I offer doc style, but with the option of both, they almost always choose full length. When I ask why, they say that they want all the details and sounds of their day recorded including readings in the ceremony, shots of family members etc etc. They also like the option of skipping parts like hymns etc, but want them left in as they like the close ups of guests and family members during those long boring bits.

I have found increasingly that the norm has become short form video, and many clients that enquire with us don't know that anything else is on offer. So I find long form as boring as the rest of you, but when it is a special day in your own life and possibly the only chance to see all your family and friends together, I do understand why we are always being taken up on it. If all my clients chose short form though, it would certainly make my life a lot easier. I also wonder why it is that so many wedding video producers only offer highlights because they find weddings boring, but so many photographers are taking more and more photos of the bits that we want to leave out, guests during the ceremony, individual family groups, reaction shots during speeches, dance shots etc.

Roger

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

Hi Roger

My clients are the same as yours ..they expect you to cover everything especially speeches and ceremony but they do love the 6-8 minute high light that they get as well and I would suspect that that's what friends and family watch whilst the bride will watch the whole thing maybe once or twice probably even the groom wouldn't sit thru it. If of course I leave something else I know I will get a comment like "Why didn't you include the full mass footage"

Brides will respond to what the market says they should be looking for and if everyone shows a package with a 29 minute wedding "film" that's what they expect to get. However I will be doing a couple of "no-edit" Live broadcasts this season (ours starts in September) so it will be interesting to see if they like it as much as a long form DVD that has been carefully edited. We essentially use two cameras with broadcast encoders that connect wirelessly to a laptop that runs the live switcher and also sends out the signal worldwide but also records it too.(so I can still make a edited copy) plus we get an automatic cloud copy of the stream. It might too be a solution to rid ourselves of the pesky weekend warriors who buy a discount store camera and then attempt weddings at cut throat prices as the setup is a bit more complex than the basic stuff the beer money clan work with. Only time will tell and we might change the operation but we have tons of work for the broadcasting setup whether we do weddings or no

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

I do both the feature length and short highlight (3-4 minutes) for everyone.

If anything, I find the 10-20 minute highlight length kind of awkward. Too short, so you only get scattered chunks. Too long to be easily digested and watched over and over.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

There's clearly demand for both. I've got a Marryoke and Highlights video Wedding this Saturday. A booking I almost lost as the couple mistakingly thought they had to book my full length video package to get the Marryoke. However I also meet many who do want the full length, so it's not going to be dropped from my services anytime soon. Like others I'm adding shorter videos as I do think in the long run, they are what the couple will watch on anniversaries. Though I've heard that a few of my full lengths were enjoyed years after, even my 2 hour epic edits.

A Highlights video does make for easier viewing especially for family and friends, but there's so much that is lost; some of the detail that I'm sure the couple would value, even if no one else would.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

I think you make a good point here. The highlights video is what people will most likely show friends and those not interested in the small details, but if that is their only version, there is so much detail that is lost for ever from that one special day, quite often things that they hadn't even noticed. I also often meet up with couples that I filmed years ago, at current weddings or with friends at wedding shows. I always ask them if they still watch it and the answer is always yes. What they often comment on is how they are able to see and hear older members of the family who may have passed on, but they are captured forever just talking, laughing etc. I really think that the value of long form increases as the years progress and memories fade, whereas highlights are for quick and convenient viewing.

Roger

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

I think TV drives what we do, especially with weddings. I'm convinced that the David Tuteras of this world are the one's cracking the whip on what we do. Ok, that's a little mellow dramatic, but it's like the lighting we typically see at weddings which is a nice color but is about as useful as toilet paper in a hurricane. Bride's go to dyilighting.com and think that 300.00 is going to get them 5k lighting that ol'e D. Tutera's lighting engineers use.

So while I think most of us see the complexity of what we do and think, 'wow, how can I simplify', the brides want what they see on TV and expect wine from water.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

On a personal level I've been wondering why I get more stressed at weddings than I used to - my first few years seem stress free compared to recent ones. My conclusion of course is that I have a lot more equipment and am always trying to squeeze more quality from what I do.

When I started I had 2 camcorders, 2 tripods and 2 audio recorders - nothing else. Now I have 5 cameras, multiple lenses, 2 tripods and 3 light stands, 8 audio recorders and associated microphones, a slider, a steadicam, a ninja recorder, a smallHD monitor, lights, clamps.....and the list goes on. More gear = more to think about, more to set up, more to turn on, more to turn off more to tackle down, more to move from one location to the next etc etc etc

Now I will only take on church bookings if the wife is free to help, and In future I can see myself turning these down in favour of hotel weddings simply because they are easier, especially since I am starting to develop a bad back which I'm putting down to this

Now don't get me wrong, all this extra kit and thought and planning etc has improved the quality of my work no end and I am never short of bookings (more and more through referrals) but the cost has been more stress. I'm doing an inner city church wedding solo tomorrow and am already anxious about it :/

I have tried going down the second shooter route only to be burned badly as the two I tried turned out to be unreliable - resulting in yet more stress!

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

My sympathies Pete ..I know the feeling! I added 2 x Action Cams to my already 3 cameras last year and trying to control everything was a nightmare! I dropped down to just one cam on a tripod for the couple and priest and a 2nd to shoot cutaways and the register and it made life a lot easier! At receptions, apart from speeches I use just one camera now ..easier and less stressful! I dumped the stedicam too ..got tired of lugging the rig up and down stairs! Now I just do a handheld shoot at 50P of the couple ..slow it down 50% in post and get the same result.

I seriously wonder if we would actually get less work or would brides abandon us if we went to a single or maximum 2 camera shoot ....Do they even look at the technical side of the shoot ? I personally feel we are tech junkies striving to get more and more gear so our films are better and better in our eyes BUT what do brides think?? Maybe you need cameras all on tripods with remotes going back to a desk and you sit on your bum and control everything from there ?? I don't think I will go upwards again as I'm getting to old to lug all this gear around ! You will get to the stage when you will HAVE to simplify and have your entire kit in a back pack!

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

I'm leaning towards mixing in more DSLR video. I currently run two tripods at the ceremony, and mostly my steadicam and a tripod a the reception. But I'm considering mixing in flying a DSLR rather than my XF300, then maybe just go to tripods with DSLRs and maybe get my Figrig out of mothballs. I dunno, I agree Chris, in then end, I'm not sure if the bride cares about how many cameras, but more of the special moments we capture and how it looks on the pixels.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

That's how they do the Royal Weddings that the brides aspire to.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

The last few weddings that I did before hanging up my gear I used a couple of MFT cameras. One was a Panasonic G6 for the wide unattended shot while the other was an Olympus OM-D E-M5 with the brilliant stabilisation used handheld. It was amazingly liberating to carry all my kit in one small shoulder bag. If I were to shoot wedding today I think that I would probably go for a couple of Sony RX10M3s with that amazing 24-600mm equivalent zoom & shoot 4K but deliver 1080p so I had plenty of scope for cropping & re-framing in post.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

I'm with you on this Chris (sounds familiar),For the ceremony I use one FZ1000 on the main tripod, with usually a small Panny HD cam on a clamp on the same tripod for a continuous wide angle that I can vary. If space allows I have a second locked off HD cam on the other side for a different angle or a GoPro on a clamp if there is no 2nd tripod space. For speeches it's one tripod with the FZ1000 to cover the speakers and one of the HD cams on a clamp on the same tripod for reaction shots from B&G. I can change the clamped camera to any angle or zoom level for variations. The rest of the day is one FZ1000 only which is ideal for me with the great zoom and good low light.

I love using clamps on the tripod for a second camera or on a screen etc as it is so easy to unclamp and chuck in the bag in seconds. Speed for me is essential, especially if I am also doing the photography.

I don't think it matters how many cameras you use, providing you get the shots that you want, good camerawork and an eye for detail are king, but there are times, particularly in periods of continuous action, where extra camera/s are always useful.

Roger

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

I don't think Brides care at all about tech. However fancy gear isn't about individual shots being noticed. Think of it as ingredients, much like baking a cake. The chef won't expect those eating the cake to identify each ingredient, but each plays a part in the enjoyment of the whole. I wouldn't say that gimbals, sliders and lots of cameras are essential to great Wedding Videos, but they're useful additions for getting certain shots. Having edited Weddings shot without such gear, I do find it harder to create more cinematic style videos when you don't have the shots to match.

However how far you wish to take Wedding filming is really down to you. I know we all can get caught up in others work and feel the need to match. I for one don't use Drones or use RAW for my footage. Do my Wedding Videos suffer from this absence, no, but neither do they benefit from it either.

Ultimately it is for me to set the standard of my work, not the Bride. That's why they come to a Professional in the first place. Just as I wouldn't want my car mechanic to provide a service that just meets my knowledge and understanding of cars, which is nil, but to give a service that matches that of other Professionals. I see it therefore as my job to give my Professional best, regardless of whether the couple are knowledgeable about video or not. Sure I could downscale, but would I be happy with my work, probably not.

So I use the equipment I use because that is how I want my videos to be and as part of my style, it is what I hope my customers will come to me for, rather than say the next Videographer they meet.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

My guys and I talk about this all the time.

When we started, we each had 1 camera and 1 tripod. So, on the wedding day, there would be 3 of us each with our camera and tripod. Then we added 2 wireless mics. That was our set up for years and years.

I took a short break and got back into it around 2008-2009. Using the same method. Then in 2013 I took Ray Roman's course, and ended up buying a bunch of stuff.

Now just my arsenal consists of 2 Peilcan Cases and a monster Tenba backpack, plus all the tripods, slider, glidecam, monopod. I literally have my Toyota Camry trunk full as well as most of my backseat on a wedding day.

Not to mention, now my two main shooters also show up with about as much gear as me.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

We occasionally do photos only at a wedding and it's so easy compared to video... Just sling two DSLR's over your shoulder and you are ready so trying to trim down my video gear has always been in my mind ...I used to lug around a stedicam, dual arm and vest to the photoshoot venue just to be able to get 10 minutes of couple footage before the photog whisks them away ! With advances in OIS technology I found that just doing the same thing handheld with a simple fig rig (mine is just a plate under the camera with two foam handles each side) does just as good a job and there is no lugging huge amounts of gear any more. Now what I really need is a simple lighting system that I can pick up with one finger and use for the speeches and things will get lighter and handier!! As you get older, the gear feels heavier and doing trips from the car to the venue becomes harder so super compact outfits are worth looking at!!!

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

You are so right on the photography part. We started shooting wedding photos for the first time this year, and it is such a blessing to be able to get everything I need in 1 backpack

2 DSLRs
3-4 lenses
2 flashes
batteries

We began outsourcing our photo editing, so literally all the time we have into it is on the day of the shoot.

And people aren't haggling over prices either so that's nice. lol

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

I am still going strong this year with over 50 weddings done ( edited and delivered) and another 15 or so left before Santa shows up. Reading over these threads and many other similar ones and seeing many new videographers/cinematographers getting into this business lately, I see the many different ways of going about it in terms of what the final product delivered kind of looks like. My approach, and I am sure is not like many others, was to offer an affordable one-camera shoot that would be edited and ready for pick up within 7-10 days after the event. I understand there are many that do a 2-3 or 4 camera job with fantastic editing and cinema look ( with a price to match). I understand that there were/are many that scoffed at my utter simplicity of my technique ( mostly in cam editing like being very selective), delivery, editing etc. But I believe that on the long run ( in my case) I have managed year after year to : have no backlog of editing, minimal new equipment costs as well as repair maintenance, no new editing software purchases, no assistant or extra salaries to pay, no re-editing ( it's in the contract directly on top of where they sign). As a comparison to a few of my competitors ( I have none actually as they do the big ticket jobs), They charge 3-4 X my rates, have backlogs of editing left ( goes even back to last year or two) have fewer events per year that I do, pay salaries ( those 2nd and 3rd shooters aren't cheap), have clients always calling and not to mention all that huge inventory of sliders, cranes, lenses, dollys, robocop steady cams, equipment rentals etc. The bottom line is the year's end PROFIT. Guess who makes more profit year after year ? Granted there are many that do extremely well and I envy their work and dedication in those cinematic results but the few that I know are either struggling or are contemplating lowering their prices and going back to basics, like me. I am not saying my way is best but was good for me allowing plenty of leisure time not being chained to the editing desk.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

It might depend how you look at it, someone charging 4 times your rate would only have to do 16 weddings a year vs your 65 to make the same kind of money and if they spend twice as long per wedding to edit compared to you they still will be ready 2 times faster then you. :)

I personally find weddingvideography not a good choice if you have to make a living out of it, that very likely would be very different between countries but if I had to choose between weddingvideo or photo tomorrow and if that would be my main source of income I'd choose photography without much thought, the good ones where I live can charge more then a videographer and they can finish the image processing in 2 days, a lot of times couples don't choose a weddingalbum anymore and they just take the digital photos. Wedding photographers also get a lot more requests for photography compared to videographers + they have it much easier the day of the wedding carrying only 2 camera bodies and a few lenses.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

There's more "demand" for photography, but there's also more photographers & competition. Oddly I've found alot are also friends/acquantances. Alot of people 'know someone' who does wedding photography. Or at least just photography, and their willing to attempt a wedding for some cash.

As for not wanting 'albums' and just the digital files, a photographer told me she won't offer that, because they end up going to Walmart or Target for 'Instant prints'' and says their printers are terribly calibrated, and the pictures and color just look terrible. Sortof like giving away raw footage (300 clips) of video. She'd rather print them using her home printer.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

Here it's just the other way round, they don't offer the wedding album as standard but as expensive add on, all photogs I have worked with the past 2 years are already expensive and from what they told me almost no couple takes the album, only the digital photos on a usb stick and they also get a online password protected viewing gallery. Most photogs tell me they like to deliver digital files only as they can finish a job in 2 days and move on to the next, some also do corporate, advertising or other kind of shoots during the weekdays. Based on the cars they drive when they show up at a wedding I can say they make good money :)

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

Hi Arthur

I think I would also prefer the variety of doing multiple weddings like yours rather than a highly complex multi-camera work of art as they are harder to sell and a lot more post production work too. However 65 weddings is a bit much as far as I'm concerned as our typical season is September to May down here and it means you are doing 2 weddings each and every weekend ..that's a huge amount of effort as you technically only have 5 days after each weekend to edit maybe 2 weddings from the weekend just past so you don't get a backlog. Our main basic weddings we now do as a live broadcast and edit/mix the footage with a second wide angle cam and titles etc etc on site as it happens. That way our week is essentially free and we at least have a break. I see Noa was doing some calculations based on 16 higher end weddings versus your annual 65 single cam ones ..what base price do you charge for one of your weddings??

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

From a business point of view, from a better balance of work and leisure time and from general ease of minimum equipment to transport on the day, Arthur's approach has merit.

That said, whilst there are customers who are just looking for a plain Wedding video at a cheap price, there are other customers who expect a lot more. Time and again I have had brides noting how the modern Wedding video is a far cry from the cheesy and poor quality Wedding video their parents had. Single camera is just old fashion these days and all my clients appreciate the value of multi camera. So many venues can be very restrictive to film in from old churches to small rooms for civil ceremonies. Multi camera has worked wonders where I've been forced by the vicar into a small corner with minimum view.

Now for a 20 min highlights videos a single camera can work, but when you deliver a 90 min to 2 hour video, multi camera really plays it's part in keeping the video visually interesting. It's part of delivering a quality product. Couples have this video for the rest of their lives, assuming the marriage last that long. Why rush to deliver something so quickly, when with a bit more time, the quality can be so much better.

Perhaps Arthur is in an area where there are an abundance of high priced Wedding Videographers but few working at budget prices. Where I am, I have competition that is more fiercely priced but still offering multi camera, and graded footage. If I was to downgrade to 1 camera, I would fare much worst I'd expect. Plus there is satisfaction knowing I'm delivering the best product I can.

Maybe Arthur takes no pleasure working with gear like sliders, jibs, gimbals and the like, but it's part of why I love doing the job I do. Even if it can put a strain on the arms carrying this gear to and fro. Seeing the footage at the end of the day is reward enough.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

Hi Steve

You have to remember that us "old buggers" grew up with single cameras and VHS tapes that lost a good 20% of the original quality if you copied them ... With the best resolution being "400 line broadcast" you had to learn to shoot so a minimum edited was required so we probably feel more comfortable the way we shoot which doesn't lend itself to stedicams, sliders and jibs. As stunning as today's wedding films are, there still are a lot of brides who want just a record of their day without (what they call all the fancy stuff)

I think there is room for the budget shooters still, along with the creative film makers ..it all comes down to what the bride wants and how much she is prepared to pay for it. Sadly video is still a LONG way down the list of what she wants compared to photography so budgets for those sort of brides are tiny to say the least People like Arthur are filling that gap in the market very nicely!!

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

Having never done wedding video by myself, I'm fairly new to the game and don't have a frame of reference to know how far wedding videos have come. I mostly do photography at weddings, but the videographers that I've worked with and the videographer I've worked for all seem to be following this trend of bringing an increasing amount of equipment to the wedding.

My opinion is this - if something is worth doing, then do it well. Even if the results of your extra efforts have diminishing returns. That may mean shooting with two cameras instead of one if you're a solo shooter. Or it may mean spending extra time before and after the ceremony to set up and break down. I don't think that great video necessarily requires jibs, sliders and steadicams. However, some weddings that I've shot don't have much action, so having some shots with camera movements adds value to the final product.

Having said that, I try to minimize the equipment that I bring along. Thus far for wedding video jobs, I've packed two cameras, two lenses, two mics, two LED lights, a tripod, a monopod, an audio recorder and headphones. I would bring even more if I were shooting solo (to ensure that I have backups of everything), but even then it would be manageable. Especially if I hired an assistant for the day. Perhaps I'd sing a different tune if I shot with bigger camcorders instead of the diminutive DSLRs that I use.

The trick, of course, is to know how to sell this higher value product to your clients.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

The problem is Chris is that there is no consistency over low budget and low expectation. Some of my hardest customers have booked my lowest priced packages and my easiest customers have booked my more expensive packages; the reverse is also true but I'd say less so than the former. Those who pay less don't always have the expectations of service to match. They want it all, but just don't want to pay for it. In fact, I've gotten away with reduced number of cameras for top packages that I've never been able to enjoy with my low package option. I've since taken to brand my low price package as basic filming and editing and this has helped to see some upgrades being made to the next package.

The simple truth is, adding an extra camera or two to the Ceremony and Speeches can pay enormous dividends without compromising a simpler edit. It can help when the Vicar confines you to the back and you can arrange for an unmanned camera at front, helps where views are restrictive and also take care of those moments the Photographer or Priest stands right in front of you at a crucial moment. It also removes the need to grab flower arrangements, windows and statues footage just to cover moments when you have to move your camera. It allows for a timeline that is more true to the running order of the event, without including time shifted moments to compensate for a 1 camera shoot.

Multi camera is a skill and some old timers just can't adjust. Then again not just old timers; one of the first Videographers I employed was younger than I, but could not get his head around multi camera setup and found it stressful. It was his loss as I let him go as my clients demanded multi camera and he couldn't deliver.

I would say that Arthur is lucky in that his low prices helps his single camera service to flourish, but he'd enjoy less luck where I live. Competition and prices are more fierce and couples expect a lot more for the minimum amount they expect to pay. When I get undercut by a Videographer charging £400 for full days coverage, editing and a Marryoke as well, my service and what I offer for my price counts for a whole lot more.

Re: Have we taken Wedding Fims a step too far?
 

Hey Steve

I certainly can't argue with that point of view ...I too have had over demanding clients who also expected the lowest of low prices and the reverse too, so if they are going to hassle me I would rather they pay me handsomely to do so rather than miserably! We still shoot 3 cam at the ceremony and 2 cam during speeches but apart from those everything else is single cam. I really cannot see where there is very much extra work involved by adding a 2nd camera for ceremony and speeches (apart from post being trickier)

I still take my hat off to Arthur though! 65 shoots in a season would kill me, regardless of how easy they were. My target has always been around half that figure which for me working solo is quite manageable but to keep ahead with 65 weddings one would have to have a very slick operation indeed. WE often forget that we are running a business so the bottom line still has to be "Am I making a decent profit" ..not "I'm scraping by and usually end up giving the client more than they paid for ..but look at my stunning work" I seriously doubt if the "fancy" wedding videographers actually cost a wedding correctly from a business POV .. A little while back I issued a challenge to those here to actually do an honest costing and not one replied. With Arthur's straight forward style he has a way better chance of making a healthy profit than the fancy guy who spends 3 weeks on editing to achieve the perfect wedding film. Sure his product is outstanding BUT did he make any money?? I doubt it!!