Hi John,

Not so high, I'm not really too concerned with a videographer trying to undercut me on my own work. Life is way too short to worry about that.

Funny thing is as a still photographer I take along a Video camera to accent my slide shows, so everything comes full circle. These two fields are going to blend in the future.

Bill

Thanks, Bill, for mentioning that. I personally don't mind anyone having a video camera, especially a photographer, because I understand they have a quality product to sell. If they find a use for something in their product, then more power to them. If they ask me for video copies then that's another story, but otherwise I think Bill is right; these two business can work together if not as one. Just don't tell me I have to undercut my own work and style so you (any photographer) can feel better about yourself. I'm very easy to get along with as long as people understand I'm trying to give my customers the most bang for their buck.

-Michael

I would seriously consider using your video footage in showing a photographer in a bad light. Considering they could do the same to you, even if you were never in the way. I went to war with a photographer and lost even though I was in the right.

I would just show brides a wedding with them as the photographer and let the B&G draw their own conclusions. I already have a list of WILL NOT WORK WITH PHOTOGRAPHERS!, no exceptions! Even if the b&g see their work first, I refuse to work with them, it's really that bad. I would rather sit at home with 10 2 years olds than shoot a wedding with them.

Jon

No matter what still you give from video, even with HDV you will not even come close to matching that of a DSLR. I give up to 50 stills to my brides for free.

Here is an example, is this good enough to print?
http://www.trulux.com/dvinfo/Bride1.jpg
http://www.trulux.com/dvinfo/Bride2.jpg

This is full res HDV.

Jon

Understood, but there's a difference between taking a few photos to use for DVD cover art and trying to actually cut into the photographers' business. Photographers should understand the difference by now and not get worked up about it, but it sounds like some of them haven't caught on.

That sounds like the wrong analogy to me: a better question would be what happens when photographers start shooting video clips on their digital cameras? Technically we might have a right to tell them not to do that, but I don't think I'd be too concerned about it.

I think these could be softened up a bit in photoshop and they'd print fine.

You're second pic only illustrates what I've been saying about HD all along. Every detail is too enhanced. The bride looks like an old hag. I'm not saying this to discredit the image... pronounced wrinkles, blemhishes and the like are just an undesireable side effect of HD (IMO).

It both puzzles and amuses me to hear people saying this, because just a few posts back we had someone saying HD video will never come close to the quality of a decent still image. Everyone's in a tizzy about having anything approaching realistic detail in video content, yet we wouldn't expect anything less from a photograph. But wait, you say, I can modify the detail in a photograph to make it look more pleasing - yep, and to some extent we can do the same thing with video. The thing about starting with HD resolution is that you can moderate the amount of detail if necessary to make it look softer, but you can't *add* detail to SD video when you wish you had it. Plus for now most HD content is delivered at SD resolution anyway, so no worries compared to what we've been doing all along.