(Long post) Educating clients about photographers and videographers: your input?

[steve_c.5]

I've bumped into, stumbled into, and tactfully dealt with enough videographers in my time, so I decided to create a

document to help educate my clients about the realities of having both videographers and photographers at their

wedding. I think many brides simply have no idea how hard it is for the two to co-exist, the pitfalls, the limitations of

video, and how good photography can surpass it. The following text is a rough draft for a document I'm producing,

which I hope will be informative, and will maybe alleviate problems for me down the road. I'd like your input on what I

should add, take away, etc. It's lengthy, so bear with me...

 

Working with Wedding Videographers.

 

Many clients ask me, "Do you know a good wedding videographer"? Sometimes they hire one and I don't know it

until I'm stumbling into them at the wedding. I wanted to give you my perspective on this subject, and I hope my

ideas will help you decide whether having a videographer working alongside your photographer is the right choice for

you on your wedding day. I want you to understand the issues this creates, and whether the money spent on

videography is worth the expense.

 

First, let me state my credentials in the field of videography (you already know my credentials as a photographer).

I'm a professionally-trained videographer, and have worked with broadcast video cameras and editing equipment for

many years. I've attended the Sony institute for professional videography in Atlanta. I'm a trained Steadicam operator

as well. In short, I'm well-versed in the world of videography.

 

I also have many friends who are professional videographers and editors, and the last thing I want to do is alienate

them. But video for weddings is a very complex and specialized field. To shoot wedding video worth watching (that

doesn't make you dizzy) takes skilled and very smooth operators, and the right equipment. All this translates into

dollars, so a good wedding video won't be cheap. A so-so wedding video will be cheap, but you may wish you had

spent those dollars on a better DJ, a horse-drawn carriage, or maybe even a good wedding album.

 

Brides should understand the differences between photography and videography, and the strengths and weaknesses

of each. Most folks understand the strengths of good photography, and for most, photography takes precedence over

video. Photographers can't capture sounds and fluid live motion as with video, but great photography surpasses video

in many ways.

 

Here is the comparison:

 

VIDEO PROS:

1) Can capture spoken words and motion.

2) Cameras can zoom a long way very quickly.

3) Video footage can be transferred to DVD, tape, or internet.

4) Best for capturing movement, dancing, or fast motion.

 

VIDEO CONS:

1) Sound recording is often poor quality if using the in-camera microphone.

2) Wind noise can drown out the sound.

3) May require wireless mics worn on you or external mics placed around you (a visual detraction from your dress).

4) Handholding and walking with a camcorder creates shaky, nauseating video, especially when zooming.

5) A tripod makes for smoother shots, but makes it hard to move the camcorder around when the action changes. It

can also make for boring shots.

6) People tend to walk in front of camcorders or sometimes stand up and block the shot, not realizing it.

7) Truly skilled videographers are VERY hard to come by. Many are amatuerish in their handling of the camera, and

intrusive in the way they interact with your guests, get in the way of your photographer, try to interview guests who'd

rather not be bothered, etc.

8) Wedding video can ONLY be enjoyed by watching it on a TV or a computer. You can't do ANYTHING else with it.

You cannot pull good quality still shots from it (not even with high-definition equipment).

9) Capturing video even with broadcast quality ($5000 to $50,000) cameras can sometimes have problems with

videotape playback (digital noise, dropouts, tape jams, and lots of other scary stuff). Some videographers capture to

a digital hard drive, which is better, but not perfect.

10) Video lighting is usually harsh and unflattering.

11) I, as your photographer, WILL invariably get in front of your videographer to get the photos that you're paying me

to get, and there is often very little I can do to avoid that.

 

Now, let's look at photography:

 

PHOTOGRAPHY CONS:

1) Cannot capture spoken words or motion.

 

PHOTOGRAPHY PROS:

1) Can zoom a long way quickly

2) Can view images on DVD, computer, in print, etc.

3) No sound or microphone issues.

4) Can use natural lighting or proper light from flash to create beautiful images.

5) Can be very unobtrusive and quiet, can move around anywhere, can capture sequences of images to convey

movement, etc.

6) Memory cards are very reliable, and I've never lost a shot yet (fingers crossed).

7) If someone gets in my way, I simply move a bit and recompose my shot.

8) I rarely ever use a tripod.

9) We can do almost ANYTHING with photos. We can print them on beautiful framed canvas as wall artworks, we

can print them on almost any media, we can make any size print, we can display them on the internet or computer,

we can put the images on greeting cards, coffee mugs, t-shirts, and about anything else you can think of. We can

retouch them digitally and create original artwork, we can blow them up to almost any size, we can create gorgeous

albums from them, and the list goes on.

10) A photographer will never "interview" a guest or put them on the spot for comments.

 

As you can see, good photography has a lot of advantages over video. Now, we've all seen the wedding and bridezilla

TV shows, and many expect that our wedding videographer will give us the same kind of results we see on TV. In

reality, unless you're spending thousands of dollars on a production crew, have at least 3 very skilled camera

operators to cover all the angles, very expensive cameras, hidden cameras, sound and lighting crew, producers to

orchestrate it all, and LOTS of planning ahead, you will typically not have those kind of results. Making a wedding

video with the quality you see on a TV show or in a movie takes a whole host of skilled people behind the scenes.

 

It only takes ONE good photographer to capture gorgeous wedding images.

 

I've worked with many videographers (pros and non-pros) over the years at weddings; they've always been nice, and

have never had a BAD experience, but rarely have they made my work easier.

 

I often shoot with wide-angle lenses, and they unknowingly walk into the sides of my shots, trying to capture the

people I'm shooting. I always have to wait for them to move, or ask them to move, and it takes up everyone's time.

 

I see them trying to interview shy guests to elicit a reaction or funny statement, and it's usually just uncomfortable for

many folks.

 

Many times I've backed up trying to get a great shot and stepped on their feet, bumped into them, etc. For some

reason, they feel a need to shoot what I'm shooting (in most cases, it's people standing still or posing), and it's just

unneeded and inadequate duplication. They're basically using low resolution video to capture what I'm capturing with

high resolution images! It makes little sense, really.

 

I've had them set up a big tall tripod behind the guests, and when I go to shoot a wide shot of the whole ceremony

from the back, there's a BIG CAMERA in my shot! It's just not a good situation.

 

Now, does all of this say that I refuse to work with videographers at your wedding? Certainly NOT! I'm a professional,

and I respect all other professionals, and will do everything in my power to work well with your vendors (or even your

Uncle Bob) and help them do their jobs. I simply do not encourage folks to hire a videographer, because I feel that in

many cases, it's not money well spent. If Uncle Bob comes free, then he's a bargain, and usually is no problem at

all.

 

My whole purpose here is not to slam my hardworking videographer colleagues (I am one), but merely to help

educate my clients about wedding videography, its pitfalls, and how it affects my work, so you can make a good

judgement for yourself about whether to use it or not. For some brides, they will still want videography, and that's

okay. Others may rethink the need for it, and decide to divert those dollars elsewhere. In the end, the choice is yours.

[picturesque]

Steve--good info but I find people just won't read long articles, even if it means they may benefit. You will have to talk about this face to face for it to have any kind of desired effect. Besides, I find fewer and fewer professional videographers at weddings and more and more amateur friend-videographers, who are worse to work with than a professional, not because they are deliberately being mean, but because they have no clue how to work with a photographer.

[eric merrill]

Steve:

 

I wouldn't show that to clients or potential clients. Comes across as sour grapes.

 

The list of pros/cons is obviously staggered to be pro-still photography. Right away, you look biased.

 

You come across not as trying to "educate" anybody but trying to justify your own view. You're building up a paper tiger based on what *some* videographers have done and then painting with a broad brush using the term "they" to refer to all videographers.

 

Usually, I'm one of the first vendors hired. I usually ask if the couple is planning on hiring a videographer, and tell them the reason I inquire is because if they have both still and video, they need to determine which is the priority. Who has first rights? If getting a good video is the most important one, then I will adjust how I work and that they will end up with pictures that include the video crew and equipment.

 

I have yet to have a couple tell me that I should play second fiddle. Most hire only me and not a videographer.

 

 

Eric

[david_schilling___chicago_]

I'm sorry Steve....I skipped reading the info. While I think your intentions are good, I think you're creating a situation and potential conflict out of something that is rarely a problem. Pro photographers and videographers have been shooting alongside eachother for quite awhile and in my experience of over 500 weddings over the past 15 years, it's rare that there's ever any real issue. I think rather than an article that you might just want to have a short discussion with the b/g during the initial planning meetings.

 

I will offer this amusing piece as what the other side of the fence looks like at times: http://videobycarol.blogspot.com/2006/12/fun-with-photographers.html Be sure to click on the "Busy Bee Photographers" link as well.

[steve_c.5]

(Eric) Your post made me smile with the idea of giving the client photos of the crew and equipment. I can just imagine them scratching their heads wondering why! Funny!

 

I don't feel "sour grapes" applies here, perhaps that's not the right term. Sour grapes might only come into play if video were chosen OVER photos, which never happens to me. Biased? Oh, heck yeah. But everything I stated was factual, and because I work both sides of the fence, I'm qualified to say it.

 

David, sorry it was so long. There's complexity to the issue, so there was a lot in my head about it. Aside from poor video work for the client, videographers don't usually cause BIG issues, just annoying ones. I'm struggling with how to get these points across to my clients without a lengthy verbal discussion or a lengthy document. Or whether I should say anything at all. If I say nothing, then I go on stepping on videographer's toes and wishing they weren't hired. I have yet to run into any really good ones.

[jeffrey_blake_adams]

Video is here to stay, a few generations (camera generations) from now video cameras will offer the resolution of our still cameras, and stills will be easy to pull out and print large. I don't do video, but I would never suggest to a bride she not have one, y not add it w one of yoru assistants, since you have been to school for it, train them to work WITH you and how to stay out of yoru way, capture things that are NOT redundent etc. Sounds like a new profit/sales opporturnity not a problem... and later you can both shoot vids, and have your post processor pull stills out for the albums, and canvases etc... J

[dave_shilling__sacramento_]

Steve,

 

I think you totally have good intentions regarding looking out for your brides' best interests, but I think your bride would realize that you're also looking out for your own best interests, and loaded advice may fall upon deaf ears. I like Jeffrey's idea to make it work FOR you if you're trained. Then you can talk about the pros of each!! Otherwise, I wouldnt bring it up unless she asks, and the trick is to make your bride actually ask for your opinion. Then you can be as biased as you want.

[William Michael]

> The following text is a rough draft for a document I'm producing, which I hope will be informative, and will maybe

alleviate problems for me down the road. I'd like your input on what I should add, take away, etc. <

 

Steve, I believe your intentions are good.

 

I think this style / type of document good will cause you torment, if you release it to your prospective clients. IMO it

will cause you more problems and alleviate few.

 

I think this style / type document would be received by many as an opinionated discourse, and not an information

document: no matter how it is framed, worded or what writing style is chosen. Just look here at the threads on

Photonet, as examples of how the written word, no matter how carefully scaped, and sometimes by skilled

wordsmiths, oft end with tears and abuse. . . . I digress.

 

I think that the act of writing these types of documents, and in fact, refining them further and further is very useful.

This is one method to quantify and order one`s thoughts such that they have a natural

flow during conversation, and for answers or the subtext to answers, during interviews with prospective clients.

 

If I were you, I would not release this document as a product of my business to Prospective Clients.

 

In the draft: ``amateurish``, is spelt incorrectly:

 

(sp / `` Many are amatuerish in their handling of the camera, and intrusive in the way they interact with your guests``)

 

 

WW

[fotografz]

Recently, a client put it in perspective for me. She said the video was for her future kids. Her sister had a video done, and now her children watch it over and over like repeats of Sponge Bob Square Pants cartoons ... LOL.

 

Steve, you are right ... unless they spend thousand$ and thousand$ and thousand$, a video will most likely be cheesy and amateurish. People don't care. They see the videographer's samples just like they see the photographer's samples. They don't care.

 

Some photographers have less trouble with videography than others. It depends on the style of the still shooter. So, blanket statements of cordial coexistence (or not) are relative and biased. For me, video is a PITA no matter how nice the the people are.

 

The idea that stills will be pulled from a video in the near future is wishful thinking on the part of videographers. The cost of shooting and editing would be astronomical ... the video gear would be overkill for a wedding video and pale in comparison to the average still

camera digital capture. (I make TV commercials for a living, so spare me the "sky is falling" rhetoric.) If a videographer can afford a RED 5K Epic rig, and the computing power to edit the results, they most likely aren't shooting wedding videos.

 

Plus, there is a skill and tradition surrounding still shooting that has nothing to do with how a video is produced. The idea that you will capture those magic moments by hosing off 24 frames a second is just as big a fallacy as saying you'll get it by hosing off 10 fps

with a modern digital still camera. The mobility, ISO sensitivity, and speed of a 12 meg Nikon D700 will run circles around any video camera.

[daverhaas]

Interesting -

 

I've only had one client ask me (just Monday) if I did video or had video people I work with. The vast majority of the weddings I do are taped by a friend or relative - My guess is that Video costs way more than photography and the results often aren't as good. Plus as pointed out - You are limited in viewing choices.

 

I wouldn't share this doc with a client or perspective client for all of the reasons pointed out above. I do ask clients if they have a video person, if they do, I find out who it is and introduce myself to them at the church or whenever they show up.

Typically there's that 15-20 minute 'dead' time before the ceremony.

 

I make it a point to try and stay out of their shots, and to keep them out of mine. The toughest time is during the processional when I'm at the front of the church and the couples are walking in... Hard for me to get the shot and stay out of theirs.

 

What I've seen seems to indicate that video is cyclical - there was a period in the 80's when you had to have video for the wedding. Then it died off for a while...and then came back. Right now, I'd say it's dying off again, but that's just my experience.

 

Dave

[matt_needham]

I ask my clients if they are hiring a videographer. Then I ask them which is the priority, still photography or video, pointing out that we may be competing for the same angle of view and will probably have completely different lighting needs. If they want me to do my best I must have priority over camera placement and lighting, and I can't be worrying about if I'm stepping in front of another photographer/videographer. If they want me to accommodate the videographer I can do that too, but compromises will be made.

 

Here's a true story that I use as an example: The couple is going to cut the cake. The videographer wants to shoot from one side because the available light on the subject is better from that side. I can shoot from either side because I've got my own light, but I point out that the background from the side the videographer chose is the back of the band's sound gear and a trashcan. While the background I'd choose (with bad light for the videographer) would be the party and guests. They go with my idea, and the videographer is ticked off. Even though that was the only time we had a conflict all night, later the videographer blames me for the poor quality of the entire video. The couple loves my photos, and I help them make a slide show to replace the video they were going to play at a later get together for family that couldn't attend the wedding.

[steve_c.5]

Thanks to all for the great comments, and for being a good barometer on this. My first draft is obviously on the wrong track. Perhaps a better approach would be to offer some suggestions to brides on directing their videographers a bit, to ensure that they follow some ground rules. No parking tripods and stringing up extension cords in bad locations, eliminating tripping hazards, not being in the way while we're shooting formal shots, turning off "beep" sounds on their cameras, giving the photographer the upper hand in placement, not being too annoying to guests with interviews, stealthy camera placement during the ceremony, etc.

 

I'd say very few brides understand all that is really entailed with shooting a wedding video, and how these simple technical details will not only improve the video, but give everyone a better experience. On their wedding day, they really won't be thinking about this stuff, but if they set some ground rules beforehand, it could really help.

 

What would you think of that approach?

 

Marc, you make some great points, and I've had the same thoughts myself. I don't think anyone will seriously shoot RED with the idea of pulling RAW stills out of it for wedding shots (maybe for ENG applications, though).

[russ_konrad]

IMHO - be the professional photographer - not a teacher.

 

Have a short list of professional videographers that you can recommend if a client asks you - but don't try to "teach" them anything. They are hiring you to be the photographer - not the wedding planner.

[john_h.1]

"7) If someone gets in my way, I simply move a bit and recompose my shot."

 

If a client reads this, they will wonder why you are making them read anything on this topic since you have your

own 'simple' cure for videographer issues.You will also be expected to "simply move a bit" and get the shot even

when there is interfernce or blocked views from any source. It sounds like you are considering a more streamlined

conversational approach which is a good idea.

[picturesque]

No matter how you reword or rewrite this, you are still going to have trouble getting people to read it. I still think you are going to have to discuss this topic with each couple and customize your info accordingly. People just don't read.

 

Videographers and their methods are different enough that I don't think you can lump everyone into the same range of 'bad behavior'. There are videographers with whom I work that are extremely easy to work with, because they understand what I am doing, and I make it a point to understand what they are doing because I ask them. I don't believe that with good communication, a videographer can be doing 'bad' things all the time. I don't make my clients choose me over a videographer. It is presumptuous, IMHO.

 

As for videography taking over the world, maybe it will and maybe it won't. Who knows? We can say now that pulling stills is a dream, but maybe it won't be someday, leaving aside the fact that intelligent shutter button pressing will never replace a barrage of frames (IMHO).

[kiva]

Dear Bride and Groom,

 

If you enjoy the photography you see on my website and you subsequently hire me because of the photography you see on my website then we are in agreement that photography is your choice of visual media for your wedding.

 

If you hire a videographer then I will still enjoy shooting your wedding but your photography will be Altered by the presence of another competing visual media.

 

Please Initial here: ______________ __________________.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...but your photography will be Altered by the presence of another competing visual media...."</b>

<p>

So - you suggest making excuses before you even shoot the event?

<p>

IMHO - this entire thread seems to be such a non-issue and will ultimately just plant doubts about your professional competence in a prospective customer's mind more than anything else.

<P>

Be the professional photographer and work with the situation. We run into videographers all the time at weddings and our photography has never "suffered" in anyway. We do talk to them before hand and work out a "gameplan" of who will be standing where during the ceremony and other important shots - garter toss, bouquet toss, etc.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

"No parking tripods and stringing up extension cords in bad locations, eliminating tripping hazards, not being in the way while we're shooting formal shots, turning off "beep" sounds on their cameras, giving the photographer the upper hand in placement, not being too annoying to guests with interviews, stealthy camera placement during the ceremony, etc"

 

Doesn't look like you have much respect for the videographers that you've worked with in the past. Fortunately, it's rare that I've ever experienced a problem with videographers. I wish I could say the same about some of the photographers that I've run into in the larger venues with multiple weddings happening at the same time. I think that the "upper hand" is determined by your experience and decorum, rather than contractual agreements.

[steve_c.5]

It's actually the reverse, David, videographers I've worked around in the past haven't had much respect for the guests or the client, and have done all of these annoying things, and the guests (and I) have had to deal with it. And we shouldn't. I respect videographers who don't violate these basic things, create tripping hazards, and annoy people. My clients deserve to know the pitfalls, that's my purpose in this. They get married once (usually). I go to weddings all the time and I see these things happen. I only wish to help them by giving them the benefit of my experience, having worked in both roles.

 

In the end, perhaps I will have to verbalize some of these things instead of publishing an article.

[William Michael]

> Perhaps a better approach would be to offer some suggestions to brides on directing their videographers a bit, to ensure that they follow some ground rules. < (SC)

 

IMO, nope.

 

***

 

> I still think you are going to have to discuss this topic with each couple and customize your info accordingly. < (NO)

 

Very close to what I do: which is ``conversation with`` the Client:

 

``suggestions`` I make are (usually) only ever in response to ``questions`` they ask.

 

IMO, there is a difference between answering a question and giving unsolicited advice: the latter often makes the sales procedure more rocky, especially at the initial stages.

 

WW

[pclancy]

"I've worked with many videographers (pros and non-pros) over the years at weddings; they've always been nice, and have never had a BAD experience, but rarely have they made my work easier."

 

Photozilla? They aren't there to make your work easier. You sound increadibly arrogant, self centered and dificult. Why would a couple hire a photographer who obviously HAS had very bad experiences with videographers and who can't play nice with other vendors. If you pull this nugget out after you've been retained, you'll be creating much anxiety for a couple and you better hope the videographer doesn't get wind.

 

A campaing against videography isn't going to help your situation, it's only going to create stress and conflict.

[steve_c.5]

Patrick, you misunderstand me. I'm anything BUT a photozilla, and anything BUT arrogant, self-centered, and difficult. I'm the nicest, most helpful and polite photog you'd ever see at a wedding. The bad behavior I mention in my posts above are things I've seen less-than-professional videographers do at weddings, and I felt my clients should know what to look out for. Forgive me for trying to pass on my experiences to help my clients. I guess I should just let them find out for themselves when someone trips over an extension cord and hurts themselves.

 

This is not a campaign against videographers. It's an effort to ward off the mistakes they often make.

 

Among all the clients I've ever encountered, and in my own opinion (having worked in both fields) videography should give deference to photography at weddings, by virtue of the differences of the two media. Most brides tell me straight up that my work takes precedence to them.

[pclancy]

"Patrick, you misunderstand me." - That's the whole point Steve. And I'm not the one you'll need to convince.

 

The videographer/photographer relationship is worth addressing pre-wedding but you need to find a much more PC way of doing it.

[steve_c.5]

"PC": I guess that means "photographically correct"? :) In that case, I always try to be "PC"!

[cheryl_jacobs]

Yeah, Steve, it really does come across in an arrogant way. The bottom line is, we photographers get into the

videographers' way, too. Cooperation is absolutely key, and this definitely makes you sound difficult to work with,

whether that's true or not.

 

I can only imagine how difficult your life would become if this document of yours made its way through the videography

community in your market. ;)

 

Perhaps you can suggest to your clients that they sit down with you and the videographer in advance and coordinate

efforts and priorities.

 

- CJ