Videographer vs Photographer

Average-Ro · 17-06-2011 1:03pm #1

I'm just hoping to start a discussion here and get other peoples views on this subject.

POINT 1
I posted in another thread here yesterday where someone had said that they would spend as much as possible on the photographer and then give a couple of hundred euro to the videographer (that's not aan attack on that poster or anything, just using that situation to illustrate a larger point)

POINT 2
I was talking to a wedding photographer friend and he told me this story; he was at the reception of one particular wedding that he was photographing and one of his employees was doing the video. The bridal party and guests had moved out to the bar so that the hotel staff could clear the ballroom for the band.

While at the bar, the bridal party and guests started a huge sing-along. The bride asked one of the guests to fetch the photographer as she wanted a picture of the event. When the guests told the photographer, he thought "I'll do one better" and he got a hold of the videographer and asked him to film it. The videographer came back 30 seconds later saying the bride had sent him away, and that she wanted a picture of the sing-along and not video

POINT 3 (a small point:))
There's a wedding photographers sticky but no wedding videographers sticky?:eek:

As you might have gathered, I'm a cameraman/editor and 70% of the work I do are weddings. However, I feel that wedding videography is not getting the respect or recognition it deserves.

I've come across a lot of couples who would spend 2000 - 3000 on a photographer, yet they wouldn't dream of spending half that amount on a videographer. Why is this? Even before I got into filmmaking, I always thought that a DVD would be more valuable than an album of photos.

There are quite a few people out there who grab a video camera and offer to do a wedding DVD for little money. These are usually the people with little or no training and only want to make a few extra quid. They get in peoples way during the day, miss important parts, have crap audio etc. I understand that these types can give the rest of us aa bad name, but is that where it all stems from?

I understand that Ireland as a nation isn't as up to date as the likes of America, Australia etc. in terms of wedding videography, but it's been around long enough for Irish people not to be a stranger to it.

Is it that wedding videos are still a relatively new thing in Ireland that gives of this lack of respect for videographers? Will the next generation of couples be more open to it as it will be more familiar? Or willing videographers always be playing catch-up to photographers?

Opinions please.

Toto Wolfcastle · 17-06-2011 1:20pm

Average-Ro wrote: »

POINT 2
I was talking to a wedding photographer friend and he told me this story; he was at the reception of one particular wedding that he was photographing and one of his employees was doing the video. The bridal party and guests had moved out to the bar so that the hotel staff could clear the ballroom for the band.

While at the bar, the bridal party and guests started a huge sing-along. The bride asked one of the guests to fetch the photographer as she wanted a picture of the event. When the guests told the photographer, he thought "I'll do one better" and he got a hold of the videographer and asked him to film it. The videographer came back 30 seconds later saying the bride had sent him away, and that she wanted a picture of the sing-along and not video

That's just weird.

I actually thought that videographers were more popular. Everyone always says that you'll regret not getting a DVD.

I think that a lot of people realise that the wedding DVD will most likely end up under a pile of DVDs whereas the photographs can be displayed around the house.

I love photographs. I have no interest in watching our wedding over and over but I think that photographs look fantastic. I think a lot of people think that way and therefore the videographer is an afterthought. I've heard of lots of people booking a videographer a week before the wedding because they decided they'd regret not getting it. I think that's why people aren't willing to pay as much. People don't have much money and it's seen as an optional extra.

Personally, I don't see the point in getting a cheap videographer if he/she isn't great. I'd rather no DVD than a bad one.

Average-Ro · 17-06-2011 1:40pm

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

That's just weird.

I actually thought that videographers were more popular. Everyone always says that you'll regret not getting a DVD.

I think that a lot of people realise that the wedding DVD will most likely end up under a pile of DVDs whereas the photographs can be displayed around the house.

I love photographs. I have no interest in watching our wedding over and over but I think that photographs look fantastic. I think a lot of people think that way and therefore the videographer is an afterthought. I've heard of lots of people booking a videographer a week before the wedding because they decided they'd regret not getting it. I think that's why people aren't willing to pay as much. People don't have much money and it's seen as an optional extra.

Personally, I don't see the point in getting a cheap videographer if he/she isn't great. I'd rather no DVD than a bad one.

I take personal tastes into account as well of course; I know there are people who just have more interest in photography than video; but not enough to justify the amount I see turning down video.

With the amount of cheap videographers out there, there's probably a lot of cheap looking DVDs floating around and that might be what turns some people off.

PS - After reading over my first post, I just want to clarify something; I'm not looking to convince people to hire videogrpahers more or anything like that. I'm hoping this thread will just help me gain an insight as to why people don't go for it as much as photography.

Borderfox · 17-06-2011 1:48pm

It is a pity that more people dont have a videographer to cover their wedding, I have worked with some guys and between the two of us (Photographer & Videographer) we have worked so well on the day and really made something special for the couple to look back on. I think the videographers as an industry have to let your clients know how important and creative the product you make will be.

Some clients I have met arent interested in a videographer but I think they dont fully comprehend what you can provide.

Yesterday I was working at a wedding in Castle Durrow and the videographer was Gavin from Dreamcatcher Productions and while he still uses a conventional camera for parts of the church/reception he also uses a Canon 5d mk2 to shoot a lot more creatively the other more fluid parts of the wedding. I had seen some of the footage off the back of the camera and it looked so good, definitely part of the future.

Like much else as bobblehead panda says if you pay cheap you get cheap (unless they are on the way up)

In terms of photographs, I think the appeal is in how they can capture a single moment in time and create a connection between the viewer and the subject. I have a lot of respect for videographers and I seem to work well with nearly all I meet.

Sorry of its a bit disjointed but points are coming to mind as I type

Borderfox · 17-06-2011 1:52pm

In point 2 as the photographer I would have made sure the videographer was there with me too

Average-Ro · 17-06-2011 2:16pm

Borderfox wrote: »

It is a pity that more people dont have a videographer to cover their wedding, I have worked with some guys and between the two of us (Photographer & Videographer) we have worked so well on the day and really made something special for the couple to look back on. I think the videographers as an industry have to let your clients know how important and creative the product you make will be.

Some clients I have met arent interested in a videographer but I think they dont fully comprehend what you can provide.

Yesterday I was working at a wedding in Castle Durrow and the videographer was Gavin from Dreamcatcher Productions and while he still uses a conventional camera for parts of the church/reception he also uses a Canon 5d mk2 to shoot a lot more creatively the other more fluid parts of the wedding. I had seen some of the footage off the back of the camera and it looked so good, definitely part of the future.

Like much else as bobblehead panda says if you pay cheap you get cheap (unless they are on the way up)

In terms of photographs, I think the appeal is in how they can capture a single moment in time and create a connection between the viewer and the subject. I have a lot of respect for videographers and I seem to work well with nearly all I meet.

Sorry of its a bit disjointed but points are coming to mind as I type

That's kinda what I meant about America, Australia etc. being ahead of us in the wedding video business. They've already embraced DSLR shooting for weddings and the results are absolutely stunning. I think it'll be another while yet before we see a product as sleek and polished as that on these shores. (I mean sleek and polished in regards to DSLR shooting, in case I insult anyone:))

Borderfox wrote: »

In point 2 as the photographer I would have made sure the videographer was there with me too

You know, I was still scratching my head trying to figure out why the bride wanted a photo of a sin-along rather than a video where you could actually see and hear what's going on, that I didn't think to ask how the photo came out!

The Rook · 17-06-2011 2:33pm

When I got married we didn’t have a videographer, but we did have a photographer. It was a decision that myself and Mrs.Rook had made together and I still definitely think it was the right decision.

Personally I think photos are just classier, much classier.

I think for a lot of people (not necessarily myself) it’s influenced in a big way by the quality of the wedding DVD. I know that most videographers are great and have been professionally trained etc etc, but when you think about what we usually look at when we’re watching TV / DVDs it’s not exactly Hollywood or TV station quality.

We’re used to seeing the fantastic looking man gazing into the eyes of the glowing beautiful woman while everyone around provides an appropriate soundtrack of squeals of delight and “awwwws” whereas in reality the bride and groom often look like startled bunnies in headlights and when they talk they’re so nervous it’s easily caught in their voice and when they look into each others eyes if you look at the background you can see Uncle Mike picking his nose and the 2 month old child (who wasn’t even invited!) screaming their heads off. Not to mention the cringey “say hello to the camera” bit when people are having their pre dinner drinks ……

With photos however it doesn’t matter, it’s a single moment captured in time that looks great because you get to pick the best images that you want. You don’t need to see the minutiae of your wedding day on DVD played over and over again, photos capture it perfectly, the rest can be captured (or forgotten if preferred!!) by your memory!

That’s just my opinion!

Having said all of the above my brother got married in Australia and our family travelled over (en masse) for the wedding. There was a videographer and my Dad did one of the speeches post dinner etc etc. It was the last time my brother saw my Dad as he died a few months later. So my brother has the video of his speech and of the day and to remember him by …. so that’s something that photos wouldn’t capture!

Borderfox · 17-06-2011 2:40pm

Gavin showed me a showreel of the 5dmk2 footage (quick edit) of a previous wedding and it looked fantastic.

Average-Ro, what would you see as the way for the industry to shake of its view and re-brand itself, or even how do you impart on clients the importance of your product (I might stop calling it a video

)

Average-Ro · 17-06-2011 3:04pm

The Rook wrote: »

When I got married we didn’t have a videographer, but we did have a photographer. It was a decision that myself and Mrs.Rook had made together and I still definitely think it was the right decision.

Personally I think photos are just classier, much classier.

I think for a lot of people (not necessarily myself) it’s influenced in a big way by the quality of the wedding DVD. I know that most videographers are great and have been professionally trained etc etc, but when you think about what we usually look at when we’re watching TV / DVDs it’s not exactly Hollywood or TV station quality.

We’re used to seeing the fantastic looking man gazing into the eyes of the glowing beautiful woman while everyone around provides an appropriate soundtrack of squeals of delight and “awwwws” whereas in reality the bride and groom often look like startled bunnies in headlights and when they talk they’re so nervous it’s easily caught in their voice and when they look into each others eyes if you look at the background you can see Uncle Mike picking his nose and the 2 month old child (who wasn’t even invited!) screaming their heads off. Not to mention the cringey “say hello to the camera” bit when people are having their pre dinner drinks ……

With photos however it doesn’t matter, it’s a single moment captured in time that looks great because you get to pick the best images that you want. You don’t need to see the minutiae of your wedding day on DVD played over and over again, photos capture it perfectly, the rest can be captured (or forgotten if preferred!!) by your memory!

That’s just my opinion!

Having said all of the above my brother got married in Australia and our family travelled over (en masse) for the wedding. There was a videographer and my Dad did one of the speeches post dinner etc etc. It was the last time my brother saw my Dad as he died a few months later. So my brother has the video of his speech and of the day and to remember him by …. so that’s something that photos wouldn’t capture!

Thank you for that answer Rook; this is what I was look for; feedback from someone who decided not to get video and why.

I pride myself on having a very discrete style. I never ask the bride and groom or the guests to do anything for the camera as it makes them uncomfertable (which is something I dont want to do on their wedding day) and that discomfert comes across on screen afterwards.

Even being discrete, I can still get very creative and cinematic shots during the day. Sure it's very hard work, but it's worth it at the end of the day as the final product always has that sense of grandeur about it.

I also work hard at getting great clean audio. In big films (ie. Hollywood etc.) sound is 60% of what makes a good movie (believe it or not) When catch the vows, ceremony, speeches etc. loud and clear using advanced wireless sound recording equipment, it gives me thousands of options in the edit.

Not trying to disagree with you or anything Rook, just trying to show what I do to try and eliminate that more amateur feel and make it more cinematic.

City boy turned country · 17-06-2011 3:07pm

Hi Average-Ro,

I'm just wondering what you charge to video a wedding. I am looking for a videographer for our wedding and we are wondering what the prices are?

Thanks

Toto Wolfcastle · 17-06-2011 3:10pm

Average-Ro wrote: »

I pride myself on having a very discrete style. I never ask the bride and groom or the guests to do anything for the camera as it makes them uncomfertable (which is something I dont want to do on their wedding day) and that discomfert comes across on screen afterwards.

Even being discrete, I can still get very creative and cinematic shots during the day. Sure it's very hard work, but it's worth it at the end of the day as the final product always has that sense of grandeur about it.

I also work hard at getting great clean audio. In big films (ie. Hollywood etc.) sound is 60% of what makes a good movie (believe it or not) When catch the vows, ceremony, speeches etc. loud and clear using advanced wireless sound recording equipment, it gives me thousands of options in the edit.

Not trying to disagree with you or anything Rook, just trying to show what I do to try and eliminate that more amateur feel and make it more cinematic.

You obviously are very professional and put an awful lot of work into making sure the DVD is worth every penny for the couple. The problem is that not all videographers are like this. You only have to look through videos on Vimeo to see some absolutely woeful work, and I'm sure there are worse who don't upload their videos to Vimeo.

Borderfox · 17-06-2011 3:12pm

Its the same with photographers too

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

You obviously are very professional and put an awful lot of work into making sure the DVD is worth every penny for the couple. The problem is that not all videographers are like this. You only have to look through videos on Vimeo to see some absolutely woeful work, and I'm sure there are worse who don't upload their videos to Vimeo.

Toto Wolfcastle · 17-06-2011 3:14pm

Borderfox wrote: »

Its the same with photographers too

Without a doubt, but people don't see a photographer as an optional extra. A lot of people see a videographer as an optional extra and if they see a rubbish video that their friends got or whatever it is not going to motivate them to spend their money on one.

Average-Ro · 17-06-2011 3:18pm

Borderfox wrote: »

Gavin showed me a showreel of the 5dmk2 footage (quick edit) of a previous wedding and it looked fantastic.

Average-Ro, what would you see as the way for the industry to shake of its view and re-brand itself, or even how do you impart on clients the importance of your product (I might stop calling it a video )

I've seen some of Dreamcatcher's stuff before, they're very impressive.

I think it's more of a generation thing. A lot of couples getting married now wouldn't be too pushed for video and would go all out on photography. I think in the next 5 years, we'll see more of a shift towards video happening naturally.

I think a lot of Irish wedding videos are still a bit old fashioned in their camera work, editing, song choice etc. This might stem from the fact that it used to be an older generation (50+) who used to shoot them; and that would be as a nixer on weekends more so than a full time job.

Now, with video and editing equipment becoming cheaper and easier to learn with online resources and professional training easily available, a lot of wedding videographers are getting younger and younger (feel kind of strange saying that as I'm only 23:)) The younger generation of videographers are pushing the boundries more in terms of creativity and progressivness and I think this will be noticed sooner rather than later.

That said, the easy access to equipment has it's downside now as every chancer thinks they can easily shoot a wedding video and will only charge 300 quid for it. The mess the bride and groom get on DVD afterwards would then put their family and friends off it.

PhoenixParker · 17-06-2011 3:21pm

In my experience what wedding videos are for is to watch people who've died since.
That's a little bit blunt, but my parents, my aunts and uncles, they all had wedding videos and I think the first time they were watched (except maybe the day they got them) was at least 20 years after they were married.

Everyone sits around and says oh look there's granny, and there's great aunt Maggie before she got sick, and there's you looking really young and skinny. You know what the best bits are, people looking awkward in front of the camera, people doing stupid things and capturing people being completely natural. (oh and the hair styles and clothes!) What people watch is people heading into and out of the church, they fast forward through the weddingy bit.

You as a videographer may want to spend alot of time and effort making excellent, high quality videos that are well shot. It's brilliant and I'm sure it's a great product. But the reality is that's not what people are looking for from their wedding videos and they don't want to spend the money for it. Uncle Bob with a wobbly video camera will get as much of the footage they actually want as you do and he costs a fraction of the price.

Rock summed it up pretty well:

Having said all of the above my brother got married in Australia and our family travelled over (en masse) for the wedding. There was a videographer and my Dad did one of the speeches post dinner etc etc. It was the last time my brother saw my Dad as he died a few months later. So my brother has the video of his speech and of the day and to remember him by …. so that’s something that photos wouldn’t capture!

All you want to see is your Dad standing, using those little mannerisms you've forgotten about, and to hear his voice. You don't need expensive video work for that.

Average-Ro · 17-06-2011 3:24pm

City boy turned country wrote: »

Hi Average-Ro,

I'm just wondering what you charge to video a wedding. I am looking for a videographer for our wedding and we are wondering what the prices are?

Thanks

PM'd you there;)

TommyTippee · 17-06-2011 3:26pm

nothing more naff than a wedding dvd. Just photographer was plenty for me....a picture says a thousand words

Average-Ro · 17-06-2011 3:33pm

TommyTippee wrote: »

nothing more naff than a wedding dvd. Just photographer was plenty for me....a picture says a thousand words

Thanks for joining in Tommy. Could you elaborate a bit on what you said? As in, what exactly do you find naff about it.

What I was hoping to gain from this thread was an insight as to why people avoind videography for the most part, so your opinion would be much appreciated.

clintondaly · 17-06-2011 3:43pm

Its almost 3 years since i got married and the debate at the time with my now wife was Photo versus Video for a finish we decide on both.

Looking back it was the best decision,the photographer was 2,000 Eur including printing selected photos(approx 40) in a bound leather album and a high resolution on disc which allowed us to print more,the Videographer was only 600 Eur but i must say that we have watched DVD several times as opposed to looking at the photos once or twice,this was down to the fact that we spent time with the Videographer prior to the day and discussed what we wanted,the advantage of Video over Photo is that the end product can be completely different each and every time as opposed to photos(no offence).

we had our Video done as a documentary of the day,it was split into chapters,it was both colour and black and white,there was frames frozen throughout the video,most of the guests were interviewed by the videographer and told little stories and left messages for us.

all in all i would go for the 2 options,and as a side note the videographers are generally underpaid.

Rgds

anthony4335 · 17-06-2011 4:10pm

I would much prefer a photo album to a video, any day. But a lot of that is down to a few reasons. Up until recently the guy shooting the video was not trained or would have had any real eye for the Job, but it did not take much to pick up a camera and press record. Where the photographer would have really had to know thier job and usually would have trained, would develop the film and print themselves. But nowadays you find professionals shooting the wedding videos, and editing the footage, and can offer so much more than before. With the advent of the DSLR's shooting HD video I see a time where you will have one man doing the entire job, photo and video. As for Dreamcatcher productions, check out their website and facebook pages, they are one of the best around. You do get what you pay for.

smelltheglove · 17-06-2011 5:52pm

Average-Ro wrote: »

As you might have gathered, I'm a cameraman/editor and 70% of the work I do are weddings. However, I feel that wedding videography is not getting the respect or recognition it deserves.

Opinions please.

I am a wedding photographer, this year I will be making at least 90% of my income from weddings. I completely agree with you!

About 40% of my clients have video and I am shocked by it. I think a good videographer would be worth his weight in gold! I always mention it to my clients if they have no interest fair enough but I often explain the thing that gave me the most satisfaction was my 2 yr old daughter watching the dvd on repeat so she could see mammy and daddy getting married. She is 4 now and still watches it often enough.

Borderfox wrote: »

It is a pity that more people dont have a videographer to cover their wedding, I have worked with some guys and between the two of us (Photographer & Videographer) we have worked so well on the day and really made something special for the couple to look back on. I think the videographers as an industry have to let your clients know how important and creative the product you make will be.
...
Yesterday I was working at a wedding in Castle Durrow and the videographer was Gavin from Dreamcatcher Productions and while he still uses a conventional camera for parts of the church/reception he also uses a Canon 5d mk2 to shoot a lot more creatively the other more fluid parts of the wedding. I had seen some of the footage off the back of the camera and it looked so good, definitely part of the future.

Agree, when you get someone you bounce off and work well with it can create a great working day for you and an amazing experience for the couple. I have one guy that I worked with once, both of us similar in our outlook to weddings and we really enjoyed working together. A week later I received a booking thanks to him, through both of us recommending each other we have 6 or 7 weddings to do together in the next year and I cant wait.

Best day productions use the 5d too, I was amazed at first when I saw it but he did an amazing job on that wedding.

All in, I feel often brides and grooms dont put much importance on it as there have been so many dodgy wedding videos. I think if you can put a personal touch on it and have proof of individual weddings to show rather than the typical romantic girl and boy looking at each other you could end up with much more work as a videographer.

As an example, I was getting one, no two ways about it but I hated the soppy songs etc so I found someone who was good, hubbie chose some rocky songs and the guys edited to suit the music, everyone who saw was amazed at how different it was, how much it stood out from others as it was about our personalities etc but yet the videographer hasnt shown it to anyone that I know of and told me afterwards that it was extremely difficult to edit because of the type of music we had, I mean we had bon jovi and journey in the church, we had a highway to hell section and even had Adam Sandler thrown in there but I could almost guarantee if that type of editing and work was on show on websites they would be inundated with calls as all people would welcome something new and fresh on offer.

TommyTippee · 17-06-2011 5:54pm

a wedding is all about memories....a dvd is too clinical and cold to be a good souvenir. Like everything in life, the memory of it s always better than the reality.

smelltheglove · 17-06-2011 6:16pm

TommyTippee wrote: »

a wedding is all about memories....a dvd is too clinical and cold to be a good souvenir. Like everything in life, the memory of it s always better than the reality.

I wouldnt agree completely, there are many parts of my dvd which I was not present for so there were no memories and the reality of it is just as good as the memories.

I love photography, obviously, and weddings are a bit of an addiction for me but I also enjoy video too, the contradiction is this, when I take a photograph I am pretty much bulding it, I am shooting from a specific angle, sometimes to avoid something in the background, using a particular amount of light to build the atmosphere and a particular depth of field to achieve the overall image I want, which is brilliant, the fact you can get such a beautiful perfect picture on your wedding day is great but what you see in the picture is not always completely real, i.e. the perception of an idyllic country estate when in actual fact you may be at the side of a busy road, something as simple as standing a groom on a step to appear even taller than his bride while taking a cropped shot so this is not seen by the viewer, these things are all shown in dvd, you get the whole wedding as it was, the reality of the venue and lighting, the way it actually was.

Maybe sometimes things are best left to memory but not a wedding day, your wedding day is something that should never be forgotten and with a dvd you have a constant reminder of exactly how things were.

Borderfox · 17-06-2011 6:30pm

smelltheglove wrote: »

I wouldnt agree completely, there are many parts of my dvd which I was not present for so there were no memories and the reality of it is just as good as the memories.

I love photography, obviously, and weddings are a bit of an addiction for me but I also enjoy video too, the contradiction is this, when I take a photograph I am pretty much bulding it, I am shooting from a specific angle, sometimes to avoid something in the background, using a particular amount of light to build the atmosphere and a particular depth of field to achieve the overall image I want, which is brilliant, the fact you can get such a beautiful perfect picture on your wedding day is great but what you see in the picture is not always completely real, i.e. the perception of an idyllic country estate when in actual fact you may be at the side of a busy road, something as simple as standing a groom on a step to appear even taller than his bride while taking a cropped shot so this is not seen by the viewer, these things are all shown in dvd, you get the whole wedding as it was, the reality of the venue and lighting, the way it actually was.

Maybe sometimes things are best left to memory but not a wedding day, your wedding day is something that should never be forgotten and with a dvd you have a constant reminder of exactly how things were.

I would put a caveat in there instead of "a dvd" I would put "a good videographer"

smelltheglove · 17-06-2011 6:32pm

Borderfox wrote: »

I would put a caveat in there instead of "a dvd" I would put "a good videographer"

Haha dvd is just so much easier to type;) Obviously though yes, a good videographer, the dvd doesnt make itself:p

Borderfox · 17-06-2011 6:45pm

Its the change of language that will help change peoples view of the industry, like a dvd or a video

MIRMIR82 · 17-06-2011 8:02pm

I'd just like to add to this - i think if people have to choose between photo/video because of budget - they would naturally go with photos. At the end of the day every family has wedding videos in their cupboards and how often are they watched?? A photo can be hung on the wall and seen everyday.
Not putting down videographers at all- i am concidering getting one myself (budget permitting) but i think this is the thinking of most people.

Average-Ro · 17-06-2011 9:20pm

smelltheglove wrote: »

I am a wedding photographer, this year I will be making at least 90% of my income from weddings. I completely agree with you!

About 40% of my clients have video and I am shocked by it. I think a good videographer would be worth his weight in gold! I always mention it to my clients if they have no interest fair enough but I often explain the thing that gave me the most satisfaction was my 2 yr old daughter watching the dvd on repeat so she could see mammy and daddy getting married. She is 4 now and still watches it often enough.

This is one of the big reasons I thought wedding DVDs would be popular. It's a great way of showing your children what happened on your wedding day.

smelltheglove wrote: »

Agree, when you get someone you bounce off and work well with it can create a great working day for you and an amazing experience for the couple. I have one guy that I worked with once, both of us similar in our outlook to weddings and we really enjoyed working together. A week later I received a booking thanks to him, through both of us recommending each other we have 6 or 7 weddings to do together in the next year and I cant wait.

Best day productions use the 5d too, I was amazed at first when I saw it but he did an amazing job on that wedding.

All in, I feel often brides and grooms dont put much importance on it as there have been so many dodgy wedding videos. I think if you can put a personal touch on it and have proof of individual weddings to show rather than the typical romantic girl and boy looking at each other you could end up with much more work as a videographer.

As an example, I was getting one, no two ways about it but I hated the soppy songs etc so I found someone who was good, hubbie chose some rocky songs and the guys edited to suit the music, everyone who saw was amazed at how different it was, how much it stood out from others as it was about our personalities etc but yet the videographer hasnt shown it to anyone that I know of and told me afterwards that it was extremely difficult to edit because of the type of music we had, I mean we had bon jovi and journey in the church, we had a highway to hell section and even had Adam Sandler thrown in there but I could almost guarantee if that type of editing and work was on show on websites they would be inundated with calls as all people would welcome something new and fresh on offer.

There are two photographers I often work with as well, and it's great now that we've built up a working relationship. We get on really well, don't get in each others way, and they even set up some walking shots for my benefit (I never ask anyone to do anything on a wedding day, so having the photographer do things like this gets me great shots, without breaking my rule of not interfering:))

And I completely agree about the music. It might be because I'm a bit younger, or maybe because I'm really trying to make wedding videos more creative and progressive, but I always use "different" music. In terms of choosing myself, I've used music from the TV show Lost and the recent movie How to Train your Dragon.

I've even had a couple ask if I'd use Metallica in the DVD. I'm a huge fan of theirs so I had no problem picking out a song and putting it in (still think it's some of my best work!)

I've been getting more and more work from all of this. I have 30 weddings to shoot and 70 to edit this year so far, and I don't even have a website set up yet! Once I do that and start my marketing, I'm hoping that people will see that weddings videos can be fresh and modern.

smelltheglove · 18-06-2011 12:12am

Average-Ro wrote: »

I've even had a couple ask if I'd use Metallica in the DVD. I'm a huge fan of theirs so I had no problem picking out a song and putting it in (still think it's some of my best work!)

I've been getting more and more work from all of this. I have 30 weddings to shoot and 70 to edit this year so far, and I don't even have a website set up yet! Once I do that and start my marketing, I'm hoping that people will see that weddings videos can be fresh and modern.

I wonder do we have a wedding coming up together soon..... I spoke to a couple recently who decided yeah they would get one if they could have metallica on it.

It is great to have an understanding with the other supplier, photo wise it is a nightmare if there someone else setting up shots as soon as the photos are taken, it takes away from the atmosphere so when the videographer is a natural and follows the photog using those set up shots it can work brilliantly, I would be inclined to set up a few action shots also which look great on dvd.

watna · 18-06-2011 4:19am

As I said in the other thread, we're not having a videographer. I don't think it's worth the money and I don't think we'd watch the video very often. It's far more important to me to have good photos. Like someone else here said, they'll be on the wall every day and other than that, my memories are enough for me. I understand that everyone is different but I'm having two weddings, I'm on a budget so we're having photographers for both. For the second wedding a friend of the family will have a camcorder and wants to use it to take a video but I wouldn't mind if we had nothing. He wants to do that for us.

Average-Ro · 18-06-2011 10:55am

smelltheglove wrote: »

I wouldnt agree completely, there are many parts of my dvd which I was not present for so there were no memories and the reality of it is just as good as the memories.

I love photography, obviously, and weddings are a bit of an addiction for me but I also enjoy video too, the contradiction is this, when I take a photograph I am pretty much bulding it, I am shooting from a specific angle, sometimes to avoid something in the background, using a particular amount of light to build the atmosphere and a particular depth of field to achieve the overall image I want, which is brilliant, the fact you can get such a beautiful perfect picture on your wedding day is great but what you see in the picture is not always completely real, i.e. the perception of an idyllic country estate when in actual fact you may be at the side of a busy road, something as simple as standing a groom on a step to appear even taller than his bride while taking a cropped shot so this is not seen by the viewer, these things are all shown in dvd, you get the whole wedding as it was, the reality of the venue and lighting, the way it actually was.

Maybe sometimes things are best left to memory but not a wedding day, your wedding day is something that should never be forgotten and with a dvd you have a constant reminder of exactly how things were.

Some great points here. Especially the point about a wedding video catching parts of the day that the bride and groom weren't around for. You can't rely on memory to show you something you didn't see!

Videographer vs Photographer

Comments