Still vs. Video Imaging for Weddings

[Travis Cossel]

Dave,

I couldn't agree with you more that I'm "lucky". My wife started up last year and I was her 2nd shooter at both weddings. The photography work was so much easier, and booking videography gigs was so difficult, that we nearly dropped the videography business and just joined forces in photography.

However, I stuck with it, and this year my bookings have nearly tripled. I can only acredit the jump to the fact that so many brides come in to see my wife for photography, and then get "sold" on the video because they actually see it. In the past, getting couples to come in and watch a video before going over prices was impossible, and as we all know, it's a much harder sell when they haven't even seen your work.

I don't envy you shooting video and photos at the same time. That sounds pretty rough.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Hi Travis -

It's sort of a "pick and choose the moment" - having the extra camera hanging around my neck is not a big deal if the opportunity arises for some posed/formal shots. You just have to sort of "go with the flow" - sometimes video "feels" right, other times... you get the picture!

I don't have enough arms to do both at the same time <wink>!

Think you proved my point about offering both services in "one stop shopping" - they already are there to "buy" photography, adding in another cool format that they can show off is an easy "upsell".

Call it tradition, but "wedding photos" are the expectation. Wedding "video" needs to be seen to be grasped, but ultimately most people I've spoken with that had both watched the video MORE than they looked at the pix. Ya just gotta show 'em the goods!

DB>)

[Travis Cossel]

That's why I'm so luck. My wife isn't just a professional photographer, she's a phenomenal photographer, and I'm getting the benefit of that now. It's win-win.

Building a partnership with an outside photographer is harder, because they want every piece of the budget they can get (understandably).

[Dana Salsbury]

My wife and I shoot with three video cams. It is a huge blessing to have her across the isle, and our nonverbal communication has added to our marriage. It makes me wonder, though, if I shouldn't encourage her to shoot stills. I'm not sure which is the more powerful team. I LOVE the idea of a still slideshow accompanying the video DVD. I also love the idea of including stills with a SDE on the silver screen -- what a powerful service!

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

. . . and when you see a photographer offering video services on the side what is your first thought? Unprofessional? Amateur quality? Cheap? All of the above?

That's a fair point: I think they probably consider video a secondary endeavor which they do on a limited basis to make a few extra bucks, unless they've teamed up with someone who already knows how to do video well. The same concern could apply to videographers who decide to take on photography, but since photography is simpler it's an easier combo for those who have learned the video side already. Doing both isn't for the faint-hearted, but it can be done effectively if you have someone on your team who's a competent photographer.

The point I want to make is that I think it's important that we videographers focus in on making videography more important and valued in the minds of brides. I think offering photo services on the side (especially in the form of in-camera stills) hurts that cause.

Since most brides see photography as essential, offering both services is a way to get them to accept video on equal terms...and collect the money they would normally give to a photographer before trying to decide how much to spend on video. Again, it would be nice if we could all just focus on video, but there are advantages to combining with photography.

She brought up the fact that I make more per hour per package than she does, but I reminded her that I've been in business twice as long as well.

You're probably an exception: look at any recommended budget guide for brides and the amount listed for photography is typically up to twice as much as for video. You might also ask your wife how much she's earning per hour if she sells print copies for several dollars each. We don't have an income stream to compare to that...

[Paul Nguyen]

Originally Posted by Richard Wakefield

i never ever get down about this argument 'photography over video', coz at the end of the day it is us who seemingly make more profit! :)

Sorry Rich but I have to disagree with you (in the nicest possible way ofcourse). It took us 3 years to actually see a profit from the time when we re-launched our company, including new advertising, training material and upgraded all our old analogue equipment to DV.

What you are describing here is a hobby not a full-time business.

It's amazing how real it all gets when you get into budget forcasting.

[Michelle Lewis]

Great thread.

I enjoy doing both, but I must admit, since I started photography, quite simply, it's-

easier to book gigs
easier word of mouth
more client satisfaction
higher project turnover
and most importantly
more people have booked video with photo, as a result of contacting me for photo first

[Michelle Lewis]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

Hi Travis -

It's sort of a "pick and choose the moment" - having the extra camera hanging around my neck is not a big deal if the opportunity arises for some posed/formal shots. You just have to sort of "go with the flow" - sometimes video "feels" right, other times... you get the picture!

I don't have enough arms to do both at the same time <wink>!

Think you proved my point about offering both services in "one stop shopping" - they already are there to "buy" photography, adding in another cool format that they can show off is an easy "upsell".

Call it tradition, but "wedding photos" are the expectation. Wedding "video" needs to be seen to be grasped, but ultimately most people I've spoken with that had both watched the video MORE than they looked at the pix. Ya just gotta show 'em the goods!

DB>)

I do both too. I think because I'm used to guerilla filmmaking, I'm pretty good at anticipating where the action is going to be. My brain is very active when I do both at the same time. I absolutely love the challenge. But for bigger gigs, I bring an assistant. I don't have a "wife" to unpack with my tripods and lights like you guys, but I manage!


With my photo packages, I create DVD slideshows. You don't know how many times they take it to their friend's house or to their workplace, and show their DVD to others. Whereas with a DVD video, that may happen, but not as often. But when I meet clients for pictures, I have more of an opportunity to show video.

[Michelle Lewis]

Originally Posted by Paul Nguyen

Topic inspired by some comments I saw on the "Pet Peeves in Weddings" thread.

There is so much more competition in the still photography arena than video - if you look at on-line adverts there seem to be five times as many photogs to videogs.

This is not accidental; photography has a 200 year head start on videography.

Photographers are well aware that to produce a wedding video takes more time, effort & skill because there's so much more to video than framing & composition. They also know that video commands much lower prices (not everyone can be Robins, the Von Lankens or Stubbs) while it has higher startup costs and is subject to more frequent equipment upgrades.

Most of the still photogs we work with are great, however, call it paranoid preconception, I can't help but sense that they harbour some underlying contempt toward us.

Just my uneducated & ignorant observations.

I've never had a photog harbor contempt against me at all. I think the problem is, some photogs are so "in the moment" they don't realize someone else is there trying to get the same shot. Within minutes, I'll know what kind of photog I'm dealing with, and I'll tell them to please be aware of me, and usually they are pretty cool.

Equipment upgrades: It's very expensive to be outfitted with HD. I would like to, but my income from shooting wedding video would have to justify the expense. Right now I can't say it is. I would love to completely upgrade sometime in the future when prices come down a bit. Also, I'm not sure I'm totally in love with HD for the purposes of shooting a wedding. I always find the detail makes brides less youthful than SD.