Recommendations for Videographer

Agree with above. You get what you pay for and it will take up 2-3 days of someone’s time to give you a basic video!

I know it’s overwhelming seeing the budget spiral out of control but I think that and photos is worthwhile getting right. To get good value for money, I’d suggest going with a photographer/video package as it’ll cut little bit of time off if one talented person edits both rather than having 2 separate people edit.

Can pm you who I booked if you want but you’ll need to double your video budget still (and that’s still a bargain to me!) ��

gledge wrote: »

Hi Pink, could you PM me the details? I'm struggling to actually find someone full stop!

Sent, hope you got it.

Check out Bonded Frames. Lower end of the price range because he doesn’t have a huge amount of weddings under his belt yet but the results are lovely. I found him through a photographer and he has been great to deal with so far!

www.bondedframes.com

I know a guy that is charging around €1200. Old school guy as well, uses proper video cameras not digital SLR cameras.

Average-Ro wrote: »

Out of curiosity (I'm a videographer myself) does that make a big difference for you?

I would have thought that a couple wouldn't mind what type of camera or equipment in general was used as long as the end result was what they were looking for.

For me it does, but I am old school. Someone rocking up with a digital SLR and a zoom to record audio looks hap hazard and unprofessional. Sure then the photographer should use a phone and how about the band uses backing tracks.

California Dreamer wrote: »

For me it does, but I am old school. Someone rocking up with a digital SLR and a zoom to record audio looks hap hazard and unprofessional. Sure then the photographer should use a phone and how about the band uses backing tracks.

I started shooting weddings on a video camera (broadcast quality video camera as set out by the BBC guidelines. I've also used it to shoot stuff for TV. I still have it and use it for projects) I also used proper Sennheiser gear for capturing audio.

Over the last 18 months, I've migrated over to shooting weddings on a DSLR and using audio recorders (Zoom, Sony, Tascam etc.)

The DSLR actually has a better image quality; higher resolution, higher bitrate, bigger dynamic range etc. So the final video looks and is much better than from the video camera.

Because of it's size, it's more maneuverable and versatile (I shoot with it on a monopd for 90% of the day, so I'm taking up less space and I'm less conspicuous)

People are much less aware of me because I'm using a smaller camera, so they aren't nervous or acting camera shy; I get much more natural footage (I get a lot more guests coming up to me and having a chat now too. I must look less intimidating!)

I stopped using the Sennheiser Radio mic becuase I felt like it was quite bulky. No groom ever said anything to me, but I myself didn't like that you could see the outline of the Pack through their suit jacket. Recorders are much more discreet and can be hidden well. Groom's are also much less nervous when they see me use the small recorder than when they see the Sennheiser pack.

The final quality of my work has taken a good jump upwards after making the switch.

I don't say all this to be argumentative (in fact, I really like hearing thoughts and opinions different to my own; it helps me see things from another point of view) I say this because if any couple reading this thinks the same (ie. they prefer a video camera) I'd urge them to chat to their videographer about it beforehand.

The videographer should be able to explain why they use the equipment they use, and their thought process behind it. If you don't like the answer, there are plenty of alternative shooters out there using video cameras. Just don't dismiss someone because of their gear without chatting to them and looking at samples or their work.

Average-Ro wrote: »

Over the last 18 months, I've migrated over to shooting weddings on a DSLR and using audio recorders .

Each to their own and I am not trying to start an argument. I simply do not like them, just a personal preferance is all.

The Nal wrote: »

Don't bother. Just ask a couple of mates to take a few vids with their phones. It'll be HD anyway.

Huge waste of money imo and a pain in the arse for people there being filmed all the time.

It won't even be remotely the same, I can assure you. Our videographer was honestly the best money we spent for our wedding, everyone was chill and I'm so glad we got a professional video. Footage from phones from a few mates is 100% not the same thing - we have some videos that friends took and it's not even close.

baby and crumble wrote: »

It won't even be remotely the same, I can assure you. Our videographer was honestly the best money we spent for our wedding, everyone was chill and I'm so glad we got a professional video. Footage from phones from a few mates is 100% not the same thing - we have some videos that friends took and it's not even close.

Fair enough. We didn't bother. Watched a few clips here and there, saw a couple of photos and were happy with that. Probably never to be seen again.

But yeah, for 500 quid, give it a miss and buy some more wine.

Pink11 wrote: »

Agree with above. You get what you pay for and it will take up 2-3 days of someone’s time to give you a basic video!

I know it’s overwhelming seeing the budget spiral out of control but I think that and photos is worthwhile getting right. To get good value for money, I’d suggest going with a photographer/video package as it’ll cut little bit of time off if one talented person edits both rather than having 2 separate people edit.

Can pm you who I booked if you want but you’ll need to double your video budget still (and that’s still a bargain to me!) ��

Hey Pink, could you also PM me the details? I'm struggling to stay within my budget. Thanks.