Videographers en mas. What do you shoot?

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Last week I spent the day politely avoiding the video crew (3 bodies/cameras), and an extra photographer (turns out no one invited her, so I suspect is was just someone getting a bit of experience/portfolio stuff).</p>

<p>I try hard to accommodate others who are also being paid to get their stuff, but I am always surprised at how much time they spend, and how close the live to the couple for the day. I wonder if the couples ever come away from their celebrations and feel it was too much.</p>

<p>So here's the question: When do you just include them in your shot? Do you use a fast lens for the OOF background, and long FL to crop the environment away as your workaround? Just ignore them and let what cannot be moved be included? How do you shoot when you cannot get your shot for much of the day?</p>

<p>BTW, this is not a slam of videographers. More a question of what the best approaches are.</p>

<p>Cannot imagine wanting this for my first dance...</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>If the b/g hired three video cameras then they've become part of the wedding....I'd shoot a number of shots that included them. I've worked a number of weddings that included two pro video cameras and we've always managed to keep out of each other's shots and respected each other's work flow. Three video cameras seems a little over-the-top but if that's what the B/G wanted..... BTW, was there any video cameras at the house doing the getting ready shots and if so, how many?</p>

<p>As for an uninvited photographer, I would have "nipped that in the bud" and clarified who/what she was doing. If not, the B/G might have assumed that she was with me.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>That looks like a film set. I have not encountered that level of videography – if I did then yes, I would shoot (the wide shots) with the Video Crews / Cameras in shot as DS stated, they are “part of the Event”. I would have little hesitation in going closer and being briefly in (one of) their shots, to get an half shot of the first Dance - which is kind of one of my signature shots. <br>

I look at it this way, the B&G hired both of us to each do our job – they have three angles / shots to edit from: I would only have one. I would therefore give professional courtesy but when necessary intrude; to get my shot – on the other hand – it is unreasonable to assume I could avoid THREE Cameras / Operators / Dollies /Lights for every shot I pulled.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>This is where my 400ws Lumedyne open bare bulb bounce light on a stand comes out and follows me around for a while at an arms length to my left. I have also had excellent results using this for the Uncle Bob/Cousin Mary syndrome. Once everyone's in check, then you can resume more normal operations 8-))</p>

[savagesax]

From your pics thats simply overkill. Too bad the bride and groom allowed this to happen.

 

Sometimes you have to tell the couple that the video guys are getting in the way of your shots. Let them figure out what to do. If they do nothing and then say your photos weren't up to par, take photos just like you did. This will save you if the couple wants discounts or something.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>If these guys are pros, then they've already discussed the ground rules and game plan, shouldn't be any need to bring this to the B/G. I doubt that this suddenly became an issue by the time the 1st dance happened.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>If these guys are pros, then they've already discussed the ground rules and game plan, shouldn't be any need to bring this to the B/G. I doubt that this suddenly became an issue by the time the 1st dance happened.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You would be surprised. I worked with a video guy yesterday and he drove me as well as the DJ and the Bride and Groom nuts. I just don't think he understood that it wasn't all about him and the video. I am sure he got some great footage, but at what expense? One example: bride and groom feed each other a pice of cake and in jumps the video guy so he can get his shot.... only that is right in front of my shot. I tap his shoulder and letting him know he can't jump in my frame and he gets upset because by tapping his shoulder I ruined his shot. And I have two shots with a video guy covering the groom gives his new bride a piece of cake. The venue management had to ask him to move his cameras. The DJ told him in advance not to put a camera "here" and sure enough, he does. The B&G come in from the Grand March and are to go right into the first dance.... only now we have to wait for the video guy to move his camera so the singers can get to the microphone. Again, it was just someone whose only concern was video. That might sound good when you are hiring someone.... </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>John, really after shooting over 500 weddings I'm rarely surprised. Course there has been the occasional unprofessional video-guy, the occasional unprofessional DJ, the occasional unprofessional officiant, the occasional unprofessional photographer, etc..... I often find myself in venues with multiple receptions or at a local park that is popular with other photographers, but for the most part, the pros are pros and the jerks are newbies, wannabes, or just the occasional bad apple. Judging from the equipment in David's photo above, my guess is that these guys have done this a time or two. The point is to establish a common game plan early in the day and to exercise professional courtesy. As for your guy yesterday, unfortunately there is no cure for stupid.</p>

[markonestudios]

I recently shot a wedding which 'featured' 3 videographers. The wedding is to be featured on a local TV wedding show, so one of the video crews was shooting for the TV show. It was challenging to say the least. I try to keep them out of my shots but sometimes it really is inevitable. Occasionally, I will include them for some context. I have worked with a few arrogant videographers but by and large they are usually very personable and will respect my space as I respect theirs. Once in a while I will email the video guy/gal a couple of pics featuring him/her and it has often ended in wedding referrals ;-)

[fotografz]

<p>For the most part I find videographers to be a light source. They get in the way from time to time, but so do I. I may have to edit out, crop out, or clone out a video guy's mic occasionally ... but they have to edit out a lot of me and some of the flash frames.</p>

<p>I'd prefer it if they weren't there, but that is the client's call not mine. Most of the time, still shots are the priority for my clients and they inform the video crew of that fact. Video crews have been at fewer and fewer weddings in the past few years. </p>

<p> </p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>I have no real issues with videographers, just wish it were less intrusive. One guy can likely do a great job at a wedding of less than 200 guests IMO.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Marc W: Video crews have been at fewer and fewer weddings in the past few years.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I must say, that has been my observation too. Perhaps it's getting a bad rep.?</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Marc W: Video crews have been at fewer and fewer weddings in the past few years.<br>

I must say, that has been my observation too. Perhaps it's getting a bad rep.?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fiscal Pressure on the household income – B&G choosing either one or the other: and Still Photography wins?</p>

<p>WW</p>

[michael_krouskop]

<p>There was a company in Nashville last year that usually had three or four videographers at weddings. They always started out nice, asking how we could work together but after things got started they attempted to take over. I consider myself to be the primary person to record the event and they are secondary. They also can edit me out of their shots and I cannot do the same. I got my shots no matter what when I realized they were not going to work with me. At one wedding they had three cameras on tripods at the corners of the dance floor and also a steadicam guy. I "accidentally" knocked over a camera when their steadicam guy purposely got in my shots. I used to be a news videographer and am very comfortable sparring with videographers for a shot. This company is no longer in business because they could not edit all the footage in time. Apparently most people waited a year and still had not seen the final reel. I had to deal with these guys at three weddings and I always got my shots. This may sound a little childish, but when your profession is on the line, the profession that feeds your family, no one gets in my way. They apparently thought the same way, but I am the one still in business.</p>

[piper_gavin]

<p>Personally, for wedding photos I would go for tight shots of the couple and blur the background and foreground. This after all is the couple's special day so they should be the main subject. The extras can come later once you're done taking pictures of the couple from different angles, with different smiles and all. A <a href="http://www.shivamphotography.com">wedding videographer in Chicago</a> would also advise this.</p>

<p> </p>