Video Crew and Lighting

<p>Hello all, <br>

I've been experiencing a new "problem" that is not really a problem but becomes one during the weddings I'm having lately.<br>

Don't know if this was already addressed here but would like to share mine and ask for your input.<br>

Lately I sharing the wedding with 5 sometimes 7 videographers, all of them with Canon 7D or some Nikon equivalent with multiple light sources and the movement around, especially the reception room is way too much. <br>

They cover all the corners and have usually 2 or 3 with some camera stabilizer walking around and there is a sever intension of be on the center of every image, some asked me not to be on the isle during procession and recession because they need the full view :).<br>

I take everything not personal and keep doing my job, but I'm having to more and more now to talk to the Bride about the situation and its also not very good but I have no other options since the " TV Crew" are usually very young people with ear radios and having more fun than really working on my opinion. <br>

My question is about their lighting that sometimes I try to use on my advantage but the on and off of multiple light stands get me confused some times and even trying to compensate my exposure I, sometimes, end up losing some images. <br>

Are there a safe spot with a simple quick set I should be thinking? I generally am on ISO640 for receptions trying to capture the ambiance and 200W of bright light don't help at all, I also tried my "amber" filter on my flash to be on the same white balance they are with their lights but takes too long to recover and I only shoot with 3 cameras. <br>

Are we all experience the same issue? <br>

How would you overcome or take advantage of this nowadays?<br>

Best,<br>

Claudio</p>

<p>Outside of ramping back the videographers themselves, your only other option is to be flash dominant enough so that the video lights have less impact on your exposures and white balance. This means off camera lights. Maybe you can drive them crazy for a bit, with 3 off camera flashes set up, or a high power monolight bouncing off the ceiling.</p>

<p>The disadvantage to this is that you will lose the 'ambiance' of low lighting in the reception hall, if that is how the couple wanted it. Of course, the videographers and their lights are also killing the ambiance.</p>

<p>It is getting so bad (with videographer crews attempting to make a movie out of the wedding) that some still photographers refuse to shoot a wedding if such crews are also hired, or insist upon being dominant (the couple must choose a primary--stills or video) so you can protect your shooting time and lighting. Otherwise, your photos are compromised in every way.</p>

<p>It used to be that one could work well alongside a videographer--even one with one assistant, but these crews that are all over the place are pushing the limits. There is a reason a movie has one director, not two, or three, or four...</p>

<p>This is why any time I cover a big job, I still bring my old 400ws Lumedynes with me. I walk around with the light stand right next to me with the head at about 6.5 feet. On full power after I shoot a few shots in their direction, the "TV crew" can no longer see from the spots in their eyes. Then you have the leverage to suggest where they should stand. If it's really severe I'll mount one on camera too using a bracket I bring. Then they're history. That's how I operate.</p>

Claudio, I ask my clients in advance if they have a videographer. If they don't have one already, I suggest one that I know

I enjoy working alongside with. If they already have a videographer I ask them to be honest with me as to what is more

important to them, photo or video. I tell them it won't hurt my feelings if it is video. If it is video, I will mention situations to

them like the aisle shot, the video lights, or the confusion guests may have with videographers using dslrs rather than

standard video cameras. I will show them examples of the types of compromised shots and speak about important

timeline elements, like the videographer wanting to pull the couple and bridal party away for time in excess of the normal

bridal shoot time. If the couple is comfy with the compromises, I will write down those specifics in the special requests

section of my contact. The day of, I will give the videographers leeway, and do the best I can.

 

If they say photos are their number one priority, I will mention that I may end up in their video shots, and that the

videographer may have a compromised position, is that ok with the couple, etc.

 

After this I will try to set up a call with the videographer before the wedding to go over strategy for the day. If that isn't

possible, then the day of, before the event starts, I make every effort possible to speak to them. I remember they have a

job they were hired to do too. If the couple told me photos were their #1 priority, I will do what I need to do to get my

shots, but I will try to be very considerate of the videographer.

 

I haven't had the problem with video lights wrecking shots, but if I did and I couldn't fix it by changing my own settings, I

would first mention it to the videographer. If I didnt get a positive response And it was SERIOUSLY compromising my

shots, then I would mention it to the bride and groom who then would likely say something to the videographer, but only

use this tactic as an absolute last resort. If it is just messing with you capturing guest dance shots I wouldn't worry. If it is

ruining shots of the ceremony, speeches, cake cutting, or first dances that is a bigger problem that will need to be

addressed promptly.

<p><em>"7 videographers, all of them with Canon 7D or some Nikon equivalent" </em>- with this camera ? - I would not call them videographers. Canon makes great camcorders (video cameras) of PRO and advanced grade for videographers, that are much better suitabe for this purpose.</p>

<p>Any person getiing into your shot can disturb and ruin it. They should operate from sides and from the back, not staying on your way for longer than few seconds. Only few seconds are needed to take picture from position that could possibly disturb other photographers, and move out of that position as quickly as possible. For shooting video, they tend to stay put in place for too long where they should not be. Perhaps they needed a "tap on a shoulder" ?</p>

<p>Continuous lighting for video never bothered me while taking pictures, if people/equipment stayed out of the picture. </p>

Frank, more and more videographers are switching to dslrs. They can get beautiful cinematic looks for comparably less

money using slr lenses. Some movies and tv shows are now regularly being shot on the 5dmkii. I am not sure what

attracts wedding videographers to the 7d over the 5dmkii, but that does seem to be the norm I am experiencing on the job

more and more.

<p>Whew! That trend will take a while to get across the pond to where I shoot! LOL! But seriously, I think I like Mr Wilson's approach :) I have never been a fan of wedding videography and now even less so, if people are resorting to using 7 video cameras...</p>

<p>While it may be fun and amusing to screw with them on site by blowing them away w/ excessive full power lights, it's neither professional, nor in the best interests of the client. And since the videographer's got it all on video, you'd better at least <em>look</em> like you're trying to get a shot. else you might be staring on youtube. I can imagine the title now "Photog ignores client to screw w/ video crew"...</p>

<p>I've only had a couple of instances where the video crew interfered tangibly w/ my shooting (when I hadn't known ahead of time it was going to be an issue), and all it took (after, of course, asking the video guys politely to but out and being ignored) was chimping to the bride a couple of blown shots. Suddenly I was God descended from heaven above. </p>

<p>In practical consideration, this is a growing issue, and one that needs to be addressed in your consultation phase. I usually bring it up when we start to discuss the reception, and their desired 'feel' (the 'ambiance' Nadine mentioned). If they want it to be like a movie set (and I've had a few who were gaga over the videography), it's not a problem, I'm not a prima donna --what comes will come, and I'll do my best to get what I can. But be assured that my bride <em>knows</em> what impact that will have ahead of time. If she hasn't hired a videographer yet when she books me, she takes the knowledge I give her in to that meeting, and can address it w/ them. In <em>all </em>cases, I've found that addressing it ahead of time is the way to go.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>On full power after I shoot a few shots in their direction, the "TV crew" can no longer see from the spots in their eyes. Then you have the leverage to suggest where they should stand. If it's really severe I'll mount one on camera too using a bracket I bring. Then they're history. That's how I operate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it were my wedding, I would fire you on the spot. I don't believe photographers, or any other vendor at an event, should deliberately make other vendors uncomfortable to try and control their activities. I would expect a photographer to be respectful and use the proper channels to change things.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> I think I like Mr Wilson's approach :) I have never been a fan of wedding videography and now even less so, if people are resorting to using 7 video cameras...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless it's your wedding, it doesn't matter what you like.</p>

<p>I think the ultimate answer to this is if you are shooting weddings regularyl or full time is to expand into the video business. If the video crew members are your employees, subcontractors or business partners, then they work for you and you call the shots. And it creates a new profit center. You make it part of the deal when you sell your services to the bride, perhaps giving her a better price on the still/video package than she would get buying them separately. If you want to refuse to do weddings with an outside video crew, that depends on how much business you have and if you can afford to turn jobs down. I know at least two photographers who do this and it makes their lives a lot simpler. I think the fact that some of these crews are using DSLRs to shoot video shows that they are most likely not experienced videographers -- yes you can shoot video with a DSLR and yes there are some specialized uses for it. But anybody who has made their living working with real video cameras and shooting anything news/documentary style (which includes weddings) will tell you it's not the way to go.</p>

<p>For whatever its worth, I'm a professional cinematographer, I shoot commercials, music videos, documentaries and feature films. I know that a lot of videographers probably seem rude or imposing, which I imagine some of them are, just remember, what ever you do to get professional results its probably 10 times harder for a video crew. You buy a $500 flash and a set of pocketwizards and you almost shoot all day on 4 AAs from anywhere, to get the same light I've got to have a 35LB light that requires a 20lb stand, its own generator because it pulls to much electricity to plug into a normal circuit, its hard to move around, it requires lots of sand bags for safety, it gets really hot really fast, diffusion requires another stand with a dedicated holder in front of it and not to mention it would horribly disturb the wedding ceremony. Shooting video ISOs become unacceptable much more quickly than stills, I can't just go into LR and "touch up" the video, color correction becomes much, much more difficult, if the light gets dim I just can't slap on a fast prime and keep shooting because I've got to manual focus and when depth of field is small it can be almost impossible to get a focused shot. I'm not necessarily sticking up for the videographer here, I just want to keep in perspective that your job is a breeze compared to what the videographer faces. I think the idea of working with them prior is crucial, and to take into account just how much more difficult his job is than yours when you ask for something. :)</p>

<p>Craig,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the fact that some of these crews are using DSLRs to shoot video shows that they are most likely not experienced videographers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some of the videographers I've worked with who are using DSLRs have been videographers for over 10 years prior to recently switching. So just because someone is using a DSLR for video I wouldn't necessarily assume they are a total newb. Making a DSLR function well in a wedding situation though really requires a great deal more gear than just the body and the lens (unless you have mad focusing skills and great luck). There is gear that makes it possible to make the DSLR a great tool at weddings.</p>

<p>Also, like photojournalism, documentary style videography with a splash of cinematography magic has really transformed what people are expecting from videographers these days at weddings. They want those same cool angles that we get in photographs, and beautiful bokeh. Here's an example from a wedding I worked in Florida this September. Ian and his assistant both shot on 7Ds. They had some great rigs they manufactured themselves to get some nice panning shots.

They were also wonderful people to work with. =)</p>

<p>Just remember though, just because you have a camera that can shoot HD video, that doesn't make you a professional videographer any more than it makes videographers using a DSLR a professional photographer. There is soooooo much to videography, and even more to editing than you can even believe, so if you are going to bring videography into your business, hire someone who REALLY knows what they are doing with it, or take many classes in it before you ever take a paying gig where you are the videographer.</p>

<p>Do be aware of the negative effect of our strobe flashes on their videos too. It's much more pronounced with DSLRs than old school camcorders. After I saw the video I linked to, during speeches, etc, if I realize I have the shot, I will back off on using my flash as much because it really just wrecks their video.</p>

<p>Vail, I agree absolutely that having a camera that shoots video doesn't make someone a videographer, which was part of my point. I think your remark that some are using "rigs they manufactured themselves" is also a key point. Trying to get a DSLR to work the way a professional video camera works appears to me to be an exercise in frustration. Professional video cameras have the correct ergonomics -- they go over the shoulder, they have the handgrip and start button, zoom buttons, manual focus and manual zoom rings and everything else in exactly the right position for ease of use and balance when handholding. They have physical knobs and buttons dedicated to a specific use so you're not playing with menus. They have all the right connections for external batteries and external microphones, plenty of room for a camera mounted light and for wireless microphone receivers, etc. <br />The list goes on and on. The things that a DSLR can do with a bigger chip and selective focus etc. can still be mostly done with a professional video camera (not a consumer camcorder) and the tradeoffs for minor things that most customers will never notice isn't worth it to me.</p>

 

<p>Well, that's clearly your opinion Jeff, but I've been screwed around by uncooperative video crews, and at least that tactic gets their attention. Again sorry you don't care for it. By the way, I do use all the "practical channels" first, but they don't always get a result that I care to deal with for the next four hours. And furthermore to have six or seven video cameras running around in your face is just ridiculous, who wants to put up with that garbage... not me. Let me just add that any wedding I contracted myself would not contain this type parameter in the first place, that would all be covered in pre-planning.</p>

<p>Craig,<br>

I don't work events very much, but I do concur that indeed, a professional video camera is an excellent tool for events, but I should also note that there are definite benefits of a DSLR, weight is a key one, lens choice, and yes, chip size. I understand your point, but you are limited with what you can do with a sensor that is 6 times smaller than a 7D, much less a 5DmkIIs full frame sensor. Besides detail gleaned from the larger sensor, your ISO has much more room to breath than the smaller sensors. Another key point is compression, sure a 24mm lens on a video camera is equivalent to 150mmish on a DSLR, but even though you equal the field of view you would have with a 150mm, you are still at 24mm, which means you have the distortion and unflattering look of a 24mm lens, a key very key point when shooting a bride on her wedding day IMHO.</p>

<p>I would not be so hasty to recommend that photographers step into video. True, photography and videography share the same basic concepts, and now a days all of Canon's pro line-up (with the exception of the 1Ds mkIII which will be succeeded by the very video capable 1D-X in March), and most of Nikon's pro lineup are all capable of video, so it would make sense that photographers already have all the tools they need. Being a photographer jumping up to video is kind of like being a normal driver that tries to race in Nascar, just because you drive to work going 110MPH on the freeway. True, the principles are the same, but the difference between driving on the freeway and going 200MPH on a track are two very different things. Of course with wedding videography its a bit different because people don't necessarily expect high quality (I'm referring to traditional cinematography quality levels), so you can get away with a lot, but none the less, editing alone is a unique art all its own, very different from anything the photographer does, just ask Vail. Its also a huge learning curve if you are not familiar with editing softwares, and things like painting something out or "fixing" skim blemishes that was previously a breeze in still photos will suddenly require expensive software and the a long learning curve to master said software. Or just think of the additional space. I'm editing a 73 minute feature right now, and it takes up 1.6TBs, that is 1600GBs, just think about all those cameras running video and then uncompromising said video, makes shooting RAWs look the new space saver.</p>

<p>I'm not suggesting that photographers don't take a serious look into also doing videos, but those who do need to go in with both eyes open and recognize that it will require a huge financial\time investment.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do be aware of the negative effect of our strobe flashes on their videos too. It's much more pronounced with DSLRs than old school camcorders. After I saw the video I linked to, during speeches, etc, if I realize I have the shot, I will back off on using my flash as much because it really just wrecks their video.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Vail, in case you or the other photographers out there were wondering, this is because video has a "rolling shutter" which means the frames for the video are captured pixel line by pixel line on the sensor, and the shutter speed is slow enough (standard should be between 1/50th for 24FPS), and the flash is fast enough, video is actually capable of capturing half a flash, where half the image has flash on the other half doesn't. This is a very disorienting effect. It is especially true with DSLRs because they have slower rolling shutters than most video cameras. Some video cameras have CCD sensors, which are "global shutters", meaning that all pixels on the sensor fire at the exact same moment, which will either capture or miss the entire flash, and although still annoying it isn't really disorienting as the rolling shutter effect.</p>

<p>Hopefully that wasn't too nerdy :).</p>

<p>Most videographers are a pleasure to work with and are cooperative - but still make the photography more challenging through no fault of their own. A significant minority (two that I've met so far to be precise) are rude and unpleasant and sneaky, and make life much more difficult.</p>

<p>One option is just not taking on weddings with videographers, in the interests of keeping blood pressure at a reasonable level. Another is charging more for weddings with videographers. We decided to deal with it in a FAQ's guide for brides, which I'm writing at the moment, explaining up front what the downsides of videographers can be, and that it might adversely affect the photography. Also, you can lay down any basic rules about what you're prepared and not prepared to do in the contract. In our case, we like to have a quiet portrait session during the day without the videographers getting in the way. Nowadays when they want to butt in on that, we can honestly tell them it's written in the contract that they can't come with us. And brides are forewarned that videographers can have their downsides.</p>

<p>Which is perhaps a shame that the few grumpy ones cause problems for the others.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...what ever you do to get professional results its probably 10 times harder for a video crew.<br>

I think the idea of working with them prior is crucial, and to take into account just how much more difficult his job is than yours when you ask for something. :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My response would be--why is it necessary to make a cinematic movie out of a wedding? Personally, I think we've all kind of gone way too far with capturing wedding memories. I'm not a twenty-something, so perhaps my view is totally jaded, but the narcissism is getting to me, both on the part of clients and on the parts of photographers and videographers.</p>

<p>I see no reason to have a team of 7 videographers. I see no reason to even have 2nd and 3rd photographers. If it were me getting married, I'd feel slightly ashamed to invite people to my wedding so that they can watch 9-10 people with cameras of varying kinds swarming around me, instead of having them view the actual wedding and enjoy the reception. I sure don't need a movie of my wedding. And yes, I don't need a 40 page hugely expensive album either. Much more modest videos and albums would do just fine in helping me remember the event.</p>

<p>I've also noticed the youngish teams of both videographers and photographers who seem to enjoy being in the spotlight--the rockstar mentality. On the clients' part, it is entertaining to have rockstar media people swarming around. I guess if people are willing to pay for this treatment, its fine, but having been on the receiving end in the creation of wedding cinema, I guess I admit to being frustrated.</p>

<p>Last wedding I shot, my planned time for photo sessions was cut in half, because the videographer had to then do his shots. He even hijacked the couple for a while, and I had no clue were they'd gone. It is also impossible to keep 3 people (with video lights) out of your frame at any given time, and to have to change your framing or position many times, or be stuck in one spot with nowhere to go, just to get anything decent for yourself.</p>

<p>I sure don't want to take up videography, but I agree that perhaps pairing with a sensible videographer to offer joint video/photography packages might be beneficial. I sometimes use my Zoom digital recorder to record vows, toasts and first dance, so that in slideshows I do, I can do voice overs to my stills. I think the smart thing would be to use the media that best suits the moment, and then combine them, so that, for instance, during toasts, instead of me shooting a ton of shots of the person toasting, with their mouths open, the videographer (or using your DSLR video) shoots the toasts. For moments where both media make sense, take turns, instead of fighting while trying for complete coverage as a standalone.</p>

<p>Perhaps I'm a Pollyana in this regard. However, I cannot see the situation getting better.</p>

Nadine, for my own wedding, at first we weren't going to get a videographer at all. But then we spent weeks working on

our first dance and I wanted more than a flip video to remember it. In the end he captured so much of what was going on

that I had no idea was going on until after the wedding. Because of that I suggest to my clients that they have some form

of video coverage, even if it is an aunt or uncle with a flip video cam. I took the clips I liked best and put them on you tube

so I can regularly watch them. My mom and mother in law watch our first dance all the time online. So I do see the value

of video, and don't find it too narcissistic.

 

Part of why I think you are seeing more and more of this is that social media like facebook, youtube, and vimeo makes it

more likely that we are trying to keep up with the Jonses. But for others it is just because it looks pretty darn cool. We see

what is possible so much more often now that everyone shares everything online. The bride in the clip I shared only

decided to get that type of coverage after she saw her friend's video which was so amazing it made her cry. But had she not

seen that clip on Facebook, I seriously doubt she would have gotten a videographer at all.

 

Now as to why do we need cinematic coverage. I don't think anyone "needs" it. No more than they need us to be there

getting shots of them getting ready, etc. But it is nice to have. So when a couple asks me for advice on budget stuff and

pricing, I suggest to them that they do what I did at my wedding. Make a realistic budget and stick to it and make a list of things that were important to you down to

things that aren't. For me, photography was most important (shocking right?). Things like personalized napkins or a

high fashion wedding dress or Christian loubatin shoes were not. I wanted video coverage, but it wasn't high priority.

Every bride is different. For my sister who works in fashion I am sure getting a pair of her dream shoes will be high up on

her list, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But I try to remind couples to put it into perspective when

worrying about money. Like when was the last time you heard a guest say wow I didn't get a high end favor what a

terrible wedding. The most important thing is that you and your family are happy that day. Going into tremendous debt

isn't worth it to me for things I just want, rather than need. Saving some of that money for a down payment on a house in

the near future is likely more important.

 

So 7 videographers seems insane to me. 2 seems appropriate if you want a more cinematic feel so you have two angles

to cut back and forth from. But if the bride or groom is someone who lives and breathes film, then perhaps having a third

or fourth videographer is warranted. Seven... I would think they would all just be in each other's shots.

 

I do love your idea of using the dslr for video during speeches though for slide show dialogue! I'd have to see if the sound on board was good enough, or if I'd need my external mic. I would be reticent to do anything to my set up that makes me take off hte flash in case a key moment happens in the middle of the speech.

<p>Vail, it's interesting that in your other post you Qd us on why we like PNet and the like. I didn't really come up with a specific answer because for me it's very complex. But what just happened here is why I like it very much. After some back and forth posts and a tad of pontificating, Nadine composes a great pov from her perspective and you just in turn composed a great pov from your perspective. I find that conversation very intreaguing to me and that's what I enjoy. So despite the idea that I got fired by Jeff, I still enjoyed the place this thread has gotten to. Also, Simon's pov is very interesting as well as the pov from Skyler. So without getting accused of hijacking, I have just answered your other question.</p>

<p>Nadine,</p>

<p>I know you feel, because I get very frustrated with people in my industry as well. My thoughts below are coming from a technical brain with a job to do. My heart however sympathizes with your thoughts, as I think I would prefer to left alone on my wedding day, sharing it only with our immediate family and a handful of friends, less than 20 people (unless she has 10 siblings ;).</p>

<p> I think having 7 cameras at a wedding is being totally realistic & professional. It may seem like a lot but when you get into the editing room, there have been plenty of times I've manned a 7 camera shoot and for whatever reason only one of those angles work, you are so thankful you had 7 cameras. Of course if its a small personal wedding 7 cameras may not be necessary, but if its a big wedding I wouldn't rule out having more than that. Now that being said, it sounds like those that you speak of have 7 cameras to make the wedding look like a Michael Bay action flick. And it sounds like they are all running around the bride and groom like a bunch of action directors filming a war scene. That's not what I'm talking about when I say 7 cameras is being realistic. One of those kinds of cameras can be ridiculous. What I'm talking about is 5 cameras on super long lenses, discreetly knocking off beautiful moments that can be used in editing, while several cameras, also discreetly placed get wider shots. Under the right circumstances it shouldn't be a 3 ring circus, and you have 7 angles so when the photographer has to get a shot that blocks of few video angles, that there are two more great angles to cut to that doesn't have the photographer in them, or when Uncle Billy gets up and blocks 3 cameras, there are still 4 cameras that have great views. Staged right, the cameras rarely catch each other and should barely be noticeable by the attendants. Of course this depends on the location as well.</p>

<p>Think about other live events likes sports. There maybe a dozen cameras covering a football game, or half a dozen covering a concert, or several dozen covering the Macy's day parade. Think about the Oscars or other awards shows, there are usually at least a dozen cameras at those kind of events. In the professional world, 7 cameras for a live event is normal, if not on the low side. Admittedly those aforementioned events are much more complicated than a wedding, but the point still stands, events require lots of angles.</p>

<p>Now I understand that you may still consider this unnecessary. But I ask, where do we stop? Do photographers really need flashes at weddings? Do we really need fast lenses? Do we even really need DSLRs? Or for that matter, why are professional wedding photographers\videographers needed at all? The modest videos and albums you speak of almost sound like they could be taken by a members of the wedding party (and now a days who doesn't have a camera in their phone or a point and shoot or even a low end DSLR?).</p>

<p>I suppose if wedding pictures\videos were made only for ourselves then indeed, a simple wide angle would suffice, jogging our own memories just fine with all the details of the day but what about our children, our grand children etc? They weren't there, but having a "cinematic" wedding with many different angles may give them the opportunity to see close ups of grand or great grand parents in the crowd, to see their mother & father's expressions as they give their vows, to see the ring they've known to always be there go on for the first time & the pastor as as he speaks, and to top it off an ultra wide shot encompassing the whole event. Now that's only 5 shots, but unlike still photos, we can't shoot a quick shot here and then pan over there and get that shot for the most part. Ideally those shots should be locked off, so that the editor can cut to the most beautiful moments as they unfold. Those are basic story telling shots that are necessary for those who weren't there to see what happened and how it happened IMHO.</p>

<p>I never had more than 3 video people working along at the wedding. I routinely take advantage of videographer's lights at at the reception when shooting available light. The only video people I have problem with are "scanners" - they have wide angle lens on all the time, handheld camera, spend entire day 3 feet (and closer, much closer) from B&G and their camera movement technique consists of "scanning" poor bride from 2 inches away from top to the bottom and back.</p>

<p>To clarify my comment on photographers adding video to their business, I did not mean to suggest that a still photographer simply start shooting video. Skyler makes the same point I have made in prevoius posts about this here and elsewhere on P-net -- that video is a very different job with its own learning curve. What I meant to suggest was that a photographer add an experienced video shooter to his team and bring the still and video operations under one roof.</p>

<p>Craig--I don't think I suggested that still photographers start shooting video. Just like still photography, videography involves skill and experience to do well. What I was suggesting is what you are suggesting--get together with a competent videographer with whom you can work closely and in a coordinated way, instead of being at odds with the videographer all day long.</p>

<p>Thinking about the reasons for being at odds--end result vision comes to mind. So the videographer you team with must share a similar vision. A highly PJ photographer will have trouble with a highly directed type videographer, if just for the fact that the photographer will get highly annoyed at the constant interruptions for directed segments, cutting out any chance for PJ moments to happen.</p>

<p>As described above, each has to know when to be secondary and when to be primary, and each has to agree to how a scene is treated, which involves planning.</p>

<p>What I did suggest, though, is a melding of the two types of media, as far as a product for the couple, so that both the videographer and photographer aren't trying to produce complete, standalone products that duplicate each other in many ways. For instance, I would just as soon leave the processional to the videographer, save for the several photos of the bride and dad walking down the aisle. Motion and sound add so much to that activity. Then I wouldn't have to be flashing each and every person in the processional, the groom, etc. I could take fewer photos during the ceremony too, not having to worry about covering every angle, or sharing angle coverage with the videographer--the videographer can use stills in his video, and I can pull stills from the video (most of these images never appear very large in albums). I'm not talking about the overall views, but things like close ups of facees, etc.</p>

<p>Vail--I wasn't saying that just the fact of hiring a videographer means one is being narcissistic. I was saying that having a crew of high profile media people of any kind, running around all day is narcissistic. If I were a guest at a wedding in which the couple was constantly 'acting' for cameras and gone for 'filming' a great deal of the time, I might feel ignored and wonder if the reason they invited me was to be an extra on the set.</p>

<p>To be clear, when I record voices, I am using a Zoom H2 recorder, not a DSLR. Being a total sound recording nube, I had a few fits trying to do decent recordings, but I learn fast, so I think I'm doing OK now.</p>

<p>Skyler--I understand your POV, however, I am still having trouble with 7 videographers at a wedding. Of course, those events you mentioned would be just fine for multiple videographers. But a wedding isn't a sporting event or a Macy's parade, etc. Even if the videographers are not running around and are calm, just having extraneous people in shots is distracting.</p>

<p>I've photographed quinceaneras for two sisters, some years apart. Both are in professional dance groups and both performed at their respective events. For the first event, there was a videographer but just one. We got along fine. For the second one, there was a team of 3 videographers--3 rolling along at all times, from different angles. Now, I am pretty easy going, and willing to work with anyone. The videographers were nice. However, everywhere I turned, one or two of them are in the scene--or their tripods. Or I couldn't move to another angle, because one of them was there already.</p>

<p>For the professional dancing, a huge crane-like video camera was brought in with remote controlled head, and so I had to contend with that while photographing the dancing, as well as the two other videographers. While I was able to move to various spots during the first event, I couldn't with the second event. I'm sure I was in their way too--it couldn't be helped.</p>

<p>As far as your question regarding where to stop re wedding coverage--of course it depends on what the client wants. I am not against heavy cinematic treatments. Obviously, there is a market for that. However, the social media networks encourage keeping up with the Joneses, causing wedding vendors to respond with more and more ramped up products, causing more keeping up with the Jonses, etc. It is a vicious cycle, and on top of that, the economy puts downward pressure on prices. The result--a lot of frustrated media people working really, really hard for less money, and getting on each other's nerves because they are trying to meet overworked client expectations.</p>

<p>And yes, I need flashes. The modest videos and photos I mentioned are not specifically cell phone products, but they could be. Professionally produced videos and photos can be modest, and need not cause a lot of 'set production'. They can still tell a beautiful story, IMHO.</p>

<p>Hmmm ... last wedding I 'videotaped' had 5 photographers ... the one before that had 6 Videographers lol ... its a two way street. </p>