My only advice to those who want to spend money on a video of their wedding is: Don't.

Instead, spend the money on a BETTER STILL PHOTOGRAPHER. It is the still photos that will be out and seen everyday. The video is seen ONCE or TWICE and that's it. So why should anyone waste money like that?

But if you insist on shooting video of a wedding, choose to produce and OUTSTANDING product instead of what the normal overpaid hacks hand over. Remember, you're telling a story. That requires that you use multiple cameras and have EXCELLENT SOUND!

How to do that? First off, you NEED to put RF mics on the groom and the Priest/Minister/Rabbi/Officiator. Feed that sound into a separate recorder and/or a primary "A" camera. Quality sound is absolutely necessary if you plan on asking anyone for money.

Next you need multiple angles which means having multiple cameras. They can be manned or just lock offs depending on your budget and/or cooperation from friends. You need the wide "master" of the entire ceremony. Also you MUST have a dedicated shot (and sound) of the musician(s) which will form the foundation of your edit. Also you need closeups of the bride and groom as well as cut-aways of the audience, including the family members as they get all weepy, et al.

Most wedding videos that I've seen are simply embarrassing and downright criminal in that these hacks actually charge exorbitant fees for the final terrible product. If you wish to stand above the losers who do this for a living, then you MUST decide that you will be a true documentarian and go above the norm to shoot and edit a quality STORY. Keep in mind that most people look at this video ONCE. It is usually pretty boring it is up to YOU to make in interesting enough for them to want to see over and over again. More importantly, if you want to do this for a living, you have to impress people so much that they'll recommend YOU to others.

In my opinion, wedding videos are a waste of money for those getting married and I never recommend that they pay for one. Instead, they are better off getting "uncle Bob's" shaky cam video from the second row and watching that. But if they must pay for a video, they damn well better make sure that it isn't some hack who has just a single camera and a camera mic. That kind of thing is a sorry excuse for something they are likely paying hundreds of dollars for.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

I completely disagree with you and it's hard to understand why a filmmaker would say such things. I want my wedding captured on video. Photos are nice, but they capture a different sort of emotion. Video puts you right there. I would want to remember vividly such a special day in my life, and no better way to do that then by watching a film of it. There are PLENTY of wedding photographers, not so many videographers. I think videographers have every right to charge as much as they do. By the way, I only made $75 from filming this wedding. Although this isn't the best video, the labor I put into filming this day should have earned me a few hundred.

As far as the filming tips go, I agree.

Jamie,

I don't think you understood Brian correctly. The reason he is arguing that wedding videos are waste of money is because the really are. I have worked hundreds of weddings (mostly as a musician in a wedding band), and each one of them had a "professional" videographer. I have known many couples who have paid for a professional wedding video. The going rates were usually at least $1,500 (over $2,500 for two cameras). None of them EVER watch that video, other than when they first received it. The disc goes into a drawer and stays there forever. Wedding photo albums, on the other hand, get plenty of hand traffic.

This is simply a reality. Despite that reality, most couples today still spend several thousands for a wedding video team. This is such a massive industry that they even have their own professional trade group (Wedding & Event Videographers' Association International). Actually, the business no longer likes being called 'wedding videography'. They prefer to be called "wedding documentarist"!

As for charging as much as they do, much like everywhere else, here, the price is always directly related to what the market will bear, and often has very little to do with the quality of the final product. Vast majority of those "wedding documentarists" have no clue about even the most basic skills of cinematography, never mind directing a documentary feature (which is what wedding video should essentially be). This comes as no surprise, keeping in mind how these wedding videographers get into the trade (by buying a $2500 semi-pro camcorder, a few lights, a wireless microphone and a copy of Sony Vegas).

There is no doubt that a wedding documentary can be a moving cinematic piece. After all, weddings tend to provide plenty of emotional expressions. In fact, since the whole event follows a fairly standard script, all those videographers have no excuse for producing such poor work. Working as a musician, I have seen so many of them run around the reception hall, completely clueless about what to look for. In the end, it doesn't really matter much, since the video is destined for a drawer anyway.

Wedding videography is (ironically) a big industry. It is even possible to earn a decent living doing just that -- shooting weddings on weekends. An aspiring filmmaker might benefit from such work by developing his eye for composition and learning how to frame his subjects for more powerful emotional message.

Your video looks professional enough. Audio, a bit less so. $75 is really way too low for any kind of work; counting hours invested into the final product, it is likely well below minimum wage. I'm assuming they were friends, and you gave them a break since it was your first time.

I understand your point. There are plenty of "wedding documentarist" that have no idea what they are doing, but there are still plenty that are VERY professional. I follow a lot of the big name wedding videographers and they do some amazing work. But I do get where you're coming from.

About the audio, I had the necessary microphones, but they were not recording during vital moments like the ceremony. (not sure why because i turned the lav mic/external recorder on)

Thanks for the response.

Doesn't it depend entirely on the couple?

My uncle shot 16mm footage of my parents wedding. My folks would watch
it once every five or so years. For their 50th I had the film transfered to a .mov
format and then to DVD. They watched it several times a year after that. After
mom died my dad would pop in the DVD every so often and relive that moment.
Even their grandkids love watching it.

The very first wedding video I ever shot was for my cousin. It's rough, sound is
poor and the deck to deck editing looks pretty bad by todays standards. But
they love watching it. They were thrilled when I transfered it to a DVD for their
25th.

Watching my parents watch their wedding day 50 years later was a great moment
for our family. You are going to have a difficult time convincing my dad that wedding
videos are waste of money. He wishes it was longer and had audio.

Simply a reality?

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

CI,

Your experience sounds very heartwarming. I genuinely hope it is not unique, even though my own experience (knowing many couples who went with videographers) tells me the opposite. I can see, though how as time goes by, these types of memories become more and more precious, and as such get a greater chance of being pulled out of that drawer and actually watched.

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

Doesn't it depend entirely on the couple?

My uncle shot 16mm footage of my parents wedding. My folks would watch
it once every five or so years. For their 50th I had the film transfered to a .mov
format and then to DVD. They watched it several times a year after that. After
mom died my dad would pop in the DVD every so often and relive that moment.
Even their grandkids love watching it.

The very first wedding video I ever shot was for my cousin. It's rough, sound is
poor and the deck to deck editing looks pretty bad by todays standards. But
they love watching it. They were thrilled when I transfered it to a DVD for their
25th.

Watching my parents watch their wedding day 50 years later was a great moment
for our family. You are going to have a difficult time convincing my dad that wedding
videos are waste of money. He wishes it was longer and had audio.

Simply a reality?

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

---

I think that the "reality" is that A) most wedding VIDEOS will only be watched one time by the newlyweds and their immediate family and B)MAYBE they will be watched by future generations a couple of times and C)most wedding "documentarians" do a substandard job relative to the fee they ask.

All I am suggesting TO THE WEDDING PARTY is that IF they insist on paying for a VIDEO to be made, that it be of some quality with MULTIPLE cameras and quality SOUND. Even then, that VIDEO will likely only be seen a few times MAX, which leads me to the recommendation that instead of paying a "professional" for that product, that the newlyweds instead opt to just gather the amateur footage from friends/family and instead spend their money on a FANTASTIC still photographer.

It's kind of like deciding to spend $1,000 on a killer wine refrigerator, the only problem being that you only drink one bottle of wine a year when you could have spent that $1,000 on something else that you use every day. While a cool wedding VIDEO (not FILM these days) is neat and all at the time, for the money spent (which can be quite a lot), it isn't worth it for most people. But the PHOTOS are out EVERY DAY and shared by just about everyone. Videos, if seen at all, are fast-forwarded through and then put into a box, rarely to be seen again.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

I understood exactly what you're saying.

I just know too many people who have very much enjoyed their wedding
videos to agree with you (and vasic) that they are a waste of money. "Cool"
or not, "professional" or not, shot with multiple cameras or with just one
wind up 16mm Bolex, or just shot by their amateur cousin while still in
high school, everyone I know who has a video of their wedding day is glad
to have it and feel it was well worth the money. I gotta tell you that
considering where I am now, my cousins (and I) truly enjoy watching the
footage I shot for them many years ago.

What I don't understand is the wine refrigerator comparison. A piece of
machinery does not, in my opinion, hold a similar sentimental value as
a wedding video. Even if viewed once a year on fast forward or seen only
once every 25 years, I am not as convinced as you two that having this
little piece of family and personal history is a waste of money.

I love the old 16mm footage my dad shot while he was in the army and
the 8mm footage of our family growing up. Even though I haven't watched
any of it in many, many years I'm glad it's there.

I'm sure that when either of you reach that 25th or 40th or (God willing)
that 50th anniversary with the person you deeply love, you will be happy
not to have to sit through some old video footage.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

Even though I haven't watched
any of it in many, many years I'm glad it's there.

---

I think this is the reason why they want a videographer along with a (or couple of) photographer in their weddings..?:)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mahdyhasan

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

Even though I haven't watched
any of it in many, many years I'm glad it's there.

---

I think this is the reason why they want a videographer along with a (or couple of) photographer in their weddings..?:)?

---

Which is why I suggest saving the relative's videotapes and putting the money toward better still photography. You'd still have the "memories," but at a far cheaper cost (zero!) but better stills, which will be seen all the time as opposed to once or twice. 🙂

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

?Brian... i think they just love to spend in their "weddings"...let'em spend ?:D?..

?off-topic: everytime they get married; and every-single-time they think this is the first time or will be the last time?

I'm taking certified investigator's side on this one. The couple I shot this wedding for was blown away when they saw the video, not because it's a spectacular work of art, but because they were expecting a lot less from an 18 year old first timer. I can almost guarantee that they had a greater reaction when watching this video than they did with looking over the photos from that day.

Last summer I took my camera with me on our family vacation and made a video montage out of our week ( http://vimeo.com/14187107). My entire life it's been a tradition to rent out a beach house for a week. We make our vacations a pretty big deal. Grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins...everyone's invited. Slowly my family is breaking a part. Marriages are failing and people are losing contact with one another. That last vacation we all took as a family might be the last one ever. I get asked all the time by my family members "Where's that video you made at the beach house?" so i link them to the video. Almost every member of my family views it frequently. And one day when we no longer vacation together, we will always have those memories of what our family once was. So to anyone who says videos does have the same value as photographs, you're wrong. There's no better way to re-live a moment than through video.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jamie.

So to anyone who says videos does have the same value as photographs, you're wrong. There's no better way to re-live a moment than through video.

---

i don't think anyone said so :-S

rather the are talking about whether one should spend less or more in wedding video..someone is saying 'spend less, son. you will watch this video-memory only once whether your still wedding photos will get lots of hand traffics..
some is arguing 'why not more when lots of us watch those video memories quite often..and they are live and enjoyable to watch..'

am i right?? or already made u more confused? ?:p?

no one's confused. by saying that wedding videos are not worth the money, you are implying that they don't have the same value. it's just as easy to pop in a DVD as it is to open up a scrapbook, so why wouldn't you want to re-live your wedding through video?

couples getting married are thrilled to have their special day on video. if they pay a hefty amount, then most often they will receive a quality product and in the end they don't regret the decision at all.