Based on the arguments from various angles here, I think I can conclude that:

1. Wedding videos tend to be watched significantly less frequently than wedding photos
2. Wedding videos tend to have a significantly higher perceived value (emotionally) than wedding photographs;
3. Even though it may be true that wedding photographs will be seen much more frequently, the whole wedding videography industry is so much alive and well precisely because of that high (perceived or real) emotional value that a video memory may have, compared to still photo.

So, in conclusion, we may have our own opinions regarding the value of wedding video compared to still photography, but it seems that the percentage of people who paid (good) money for the video and had subsequently regretted it is negligible (and is likely related to the substandard quality of the end result, more likely than the value of the concept itself).

In defense of CI, I must admit that I also cherish 8-mm film memories from the 60s, from my own childhood. The 120m reels have been sitting in a closet for decades, although I had pulled out a few of them recently and dusted off the old projector. My two little daughters were thoroughly fascinated by the contraption, as well as moving images projected on our living room wall. Between the pictures from the 60s and 8mm film from the same period, I have to admit that I tend to cherish the film more, even though I get to see the pictures much more often.

Perhaps that perceived value is NOT a function of the frequency at which we get to use it. Which explains why my brother loves his wine cooler (and believes it was a good investment), even though he doesn't drink wine all that often. Squeezing it into a Manhattan apartment wasn't an easy decision, mind you...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vasic

Based on the arguments from various angles here, I think I can conclude that:

1. Wedding videos tend to be watched significantly less frequently than wedding photos
2. Wedding videos tend to have a significantly higher perceived value (emotionally) than wedding photographs;
3. Even though it may be true that wedding photographs will be seen much more frequently, the whole wedding videography industry is so much alive and well precisely because of that high (perceived or real) emotional value that a video memory may have, compared to still photo.

So, in conclusion, we may have our own opinions regarding the value of wedding video compared to still photography, but it seems that the percentage of people who paid (good) money for the video and had subsequently regretted it is negligible (and is likely related to the substandard quality of the end result, more likely than the value of the concept itself).

In defense of CI, I must admit that I also cherish 8-mm film memories from the 60s, from my own childhood. The 120m reels have been sitting in a closet for decades, although I had pulled out a few of them recently and dusted off the old projector. My two little daughters were thoroughly fascinated by the contraption, as well as moving images projected on our living room wall. Between the pictures from the 60s and 8mm film from the same period, I have to admit that I tend to cherish the film more, even though I get to see the pictures much more often.

Perhaps that perceived value is NOT a function of the frequency at which we get to use it. Which explains why my brother loves his wine cooler (and believes it was a good investment), even though he doesn't drink wine all that often. Squeezing it into a Manhattan apartment wasn't an easy decision, mind you...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vasic

Based on the arguments from various angles here, I think I can conclude that:

1. Wedding videos tend to be watched significantly less frequently than wedding photos
2. Wedding videos tend to have a significantly higher perceived value (emotionally) than wedding photographs;
3. Even though it may be true that wedding photographs will be seen much more frequently, the whole wedding videography industry is so much alive and well precisely because of that high (perceived or real) emotional value that a video memory may have, compared to still photo.

So, in conclusion, we may have our own opinions regarding the value of wedding video compared to still photography, but it seems that the percentage of people who paid (good) money for the video and had subsequently regretted it is negligible (and is likely related to the substandard quality of the end result, more likely than the value of the concept itself).

In defense of CI, I must admit that I also cherish 8-mm film memories from the 60s, from my own childhood. The 120m reels have been sitting in a closet for decades, although I had pulled out a few of them recently and dusted off the old projector. My two little daughters were thoroughly fascinated by the contraption, as well as moving images projected on our living room wall. Between the pictures from the 60s and 8mm film from the same period, I have to admit that I tend to cherish the film more, even though I get to see the pictures much more often.

Perhaps that perceived value is NOT a function of the frequency at which we get to use it. Which explains why my brother loves his wine cooler (and believes it was a good investment), even though he doesn't drink wine all that often. Squeezing it into a Manhattan apartment wasn't an easy decision, mind you...

---

I've never disputed the "value" of having video or film footage that captures an event, like a wedding. Yes, absolutely, having film or video IS worthwhile no matter how many times it is actually viewed (relative to still photographs that DO get more traffic.)

All I am saying is that when I am asked about wedding videos, I recommend that newlyweds don't spend money on a lavish production (or unlavish, which is more the norm) and instead put that money into better still photographs BECAUSE that video footage won't be seen nearly as much. They can still get video footage from their relatives, most of whom have a camera or an iPhone these days. Heck, most people who get married usually invite at least one or two teenage kids who would likely rather be anywhere else, so asking them to hold up their iPhone or shoot the wedding with a real camera A) gives them something useful to do and B) gets the newlyweds the footage they want, which, is just as good as most of the professional wedding videos I've seen.

I don't think anyone is disputing the value of having memories captured on film or tape (or a harddrive). The question is in regard to how much money does one spend on a professional shooting a wedding when the final product USUALLY isn't very good relative to the money spent and that final product likely won't be seen very often relative to the still photographs taken? I suppose if someone has unlimited funds, then it's a moot point. But in that situation, a person could afford to hire an entire crew with multiple operated cameras and quality wireless mics to truly make a production out of it. But most people are NOT in that situation so what they wind up with is only slightly better than "uncle Bob's" shaky iPhone footage from the seats. So why spend thousands of dollars on something that they could get for free?

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by mahdyhasan

?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?

---

Well, that's an entirely different discussion. 🙂 If someone is just dying to blow some cash, then it's their pejorative. While they're at it, I'm sure I could come up with some other "products" they could pay me for.

I have shot weddings.. for friends and relatives...for NO money but I don't just use a single camera. The last wedding I shot was covered by something like six cameras and I spent HOURS/DAYS editing. Why? Because if I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it right, money or not. But I've never seen a "professional" wedding video that even came close to what I did for free. No multiple angles. Shodding camera work. Lousy sound. Crapping editing. Overpriced for what the newlyweds get.

Maybe I'm of a different philosophy that says that you do the very best job you can do regardless of how much money you're paid. Obviously, things cost money (like extra camera and sound equipment and people to operate them), but I haven't seen wedding videos that have cost THOUSANDS of dollars utilizing quality cameras or quality crew. The whole "industry" just appears to be a big ol' scam and that, indirectly, effects the attitude that people have toward EVERYONE who shoots video or film (aside from motion-pictures). If someone is going to claim to be a Cameraman, then they should represent that craft well and not drag the reputation of everyone else down by churning out crap that is overpriced.

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

Vasic, your current list is very different than your previous statement.

I know I was commenting on your statement that it is simply a reality
that wedding videos are a waste of money. I understand that you came
to that conclusion based on a percentage of people you know who
regretted paying for a wedding video. I'm sure many do. But I'm sure
that many don't regret it. It seems both jamie and I took exception to
that one statement both you and Brian made.

I wonder how that percentage changes when a couple reaches their 10th
anniversary? And I think we could all agree that the percentage of couples
who regret paying for a wedding video changes by the time they reach
their 25th. And even though I am not a betting man, I would bet everything
I own that when a couple reaches their 50th any video (or film) of their
wedding is something they would pay triple for.

So if you take the emotion out of it - which I was the first to introduce - a
$2,500 wedding video ends up being an expense of $50 per year on the
50th and $100 on the $25th. A couple that divorces in a year or even five
may see the expense as a waste of money. But I suspect whatever they paid
for the photos is considered a waste of money, too. And even then I know
people who enjoy looking at the video years after a divorce. Seeing friends
and family is priceless. Recently a friend's father passed away, One of the
only videos he has of his father is at his wedding. A wedding that ended in
a rather contentious, angry divorce. He sure doesn't see the wedding video
as a waste of money.

I'm not as convinced as Brian and vasic that the quality of the video has
any bearing to the couple. Six camera operated by professionals, or two
cameras operated by "weekenders" or one operated by an 18 year old
cousin or friend doesn't change the personal value of the video.

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

I wonder how that percentage changes when a couple reaches their 10th
anniversary? And I think we could all agree that the percentage of couples who regret paying for a wedding video changes by the time they reach their 25th. And even though I am not a betting man, I would bet everythingmI own that when a couple reaches their 50th any video (or film) of their wedding is something they would pay triple for.

---

I don't think that I or anyone disputes that. All I am suggesting is that they can get those same "memories" for far less money (or free) AND by using that money to get a better Still Photographer, they'll have BETTER still photos (which are seen far more often) AND they'll still have that video by gathering up the footage shot by relatives who are there anyway.

This statement:

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

I'm not as convinced as Brian and vasic that the quality of the video has any bearing to the couple.

---

Seems to contradict this one:

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

Six camera operated by professionals, or two cameras operated by "weekenders" or one operated by an 18 year old cousin or friend doesn't change the personal value of the video.

---

Your second statement is what I'm "arguing." I don't really think that a standard couple really notices or cares about the quality of the video, how it was shot and edited. One could also argue that they also don't care about the quality of the still photographs either. That said, BECAUSE the video isn't seen as much, it seems more prudent to spend their budget on STILLS because that product is what WILL be framed and hung on walls while the videotape/DVD will be watched once or twice then put into a drawer for twenty years or more until someone finds it. At that point, those future generations might appreciate a "professional" job, but they don't really care. What's important is to see Grandma and Grandpa in any way they can.

SO, UNLESS a wedding "documentarian" does all that he can to capture that event with QUALITY camera work and quality sound thus making the product exceptional for the money he charges, there doesn't seem to be any inherent value in spending hundreds or thousands of dollars for something that they could just as easily obtain by gathering up footage from relatives who were there.

To wedding "documentarians" I would say, go out and make REALLY FANTASTIC products, so that (within the given parameters) the final product is worth the money you're charging in that it has QUALITY sound and multiple angles so that it tells a compelling story for generations to come.

To newlyweds, I would say, unless your Wedding Videographer is using multiple cameras (operated or locked off) and is using RF mics to capture quality sound.... DON'T waste your money and instead reallocate those funds to a better still photographer. If you want "motion memories," then ask a couple of your relatives who are there already, to shoot video of the event. What you pay a "professional" for if he is only using a single camera and the camera mic is NOT worth the money by any stretch.

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

This sounds like a fun debate. In many ways, I had started out completely supporting Brian's assertion. After hearing a few more arguments, I've come to realise that there is the emotional value of video that provides fairly solid justification for the expense to those who are spending the money.

I think we can all agree that a photo album will get to be seen much more often than any video. I believe we are also in agreement with respect to the argument that subjectively, a video recording of some event has more powerful emotional impact and consequently greater perceived sentimental value than a collection of stills.

Thus, I believe what remains to be argued is the way wedding/event videography as an industry does their job. Most of us here have some lesser (me) or greater (CI, Brian) knowledge and experience in this area, and can therefore assess the quality of work of those videographers. And I think we can agree, majority of such work is poorly done and doesn't represent value, compared to amateur, handheld home videos shot by family and friends. I am very much in agreement with Brian on this. He does exaggerate his point a bit (a teen with an iPhone will likely NOT create a watchable video, unless he has learned how to hold camera still and how to properly frame his subjects), but the point is valid. Spending over $2,000 (which seems to be the going rate for a single-camera wedding video delivered in HD on Blu-ray in NY area) should get you much more than that single-camera, single wireless mic, formula-driven edits, titles, transitions and effects. These videographers do weddings every weekend. They are NOT shooting different documentaries in different parts of the world, on different subjects. Every single wedding in the US follows the identical script. You know EXACTLY who is going to be where, how they'll get there, who will stand (or sit) where, what will be the order of things, it is almost like shooting a feature film. Once they are done with their material, they finish their editing in a matter of few hours, since templates are already there for them, they just have to plug in the shots.

Considering that an average wedding costs over $20,000 these days, spending 10% of that budget for poorly shot, edited and produced video is a rip-off.

I'm sure there are gifted, motivated and dedicated wedding videographers (documentarists) out there, who make an effort to bring a crew of 4 or 5, with (at least) 3 cameras, plenty of microphones and some lighting gear. I have never seen these (and I played hundreds of weddings in NYC area), but there must exist such guys. Unfortunately, in this industry, the job almost always comes in via a referral, and since most of these wedding videos look (marginally, but still) better than home videos, people just keep hiring them, no matter how poorly they do their job.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vasic

I'm sure there are gifted, motivated and dedicated wedding videographers (documentarists) out there, who make an effort to bring a crew of 4 or 5, with (at least) 3 cameras, plenty of microphones and some lighting gear. I have never seen these (and I played hundreds of weddings in NYC area), but there must exist such guys. Unfortunately, in this industry, the job almost always comes in via a referral, and since most of these wedding videos look (marginally, but still) better than home videos, people just keep hiring them, no matter how poorly they do their job.

---

The problem is that most "consumers" don't know what they're NOT getting.

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

It is a fun and interesting discussion. Too bad we arent doing it
over beers at Bordners here in Hollywood. Or at Off the Wagon on
MacDougal in NYC.

I see where I am supporting your argument, Brian. A couple can
spend no money at all and still love their wedding video. Your
conclusion is; dont spend any money on it youll regret it, mine
is; go ahead and spend money you wont regret it.

As often happens in a discussion any disagreement usually comes
from semantics. I took issue with waste of money and overlooked
the root of what what you meant. There is no real need to spend
any money on a wedding video because in the end production value
wont have any personal meaning to you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bjdzyak

The problem is that most "consumers" don't know what they're NOT getting.

---

If only they had a chance to see what they're missing, they'd likely refuse to pay so much money for such an assembly-line product.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bjdzyak
If someone is just dying to blow some cash, then it's their pejorative.

---

You probably meant prerogative...

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator
It is a fun and interesting discussion. Too bad we aren't doing it
over beers at Bordners here in Hollywood. Or at Off the Wagon on
MacDougal in NYC.

---

It's a shame... Can't remember when was the last time I walked around Bleeker, MacDougal, 3rd street. Such great neighbourhood...

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

There is no real need to spend
any money on a wedding video because in the end production value
wont have any personal meaning to you.

---

Yeah, unfortunately, consumers/viewers generally don't give a sh** about quality PARTICULARLY when it comes to something personal.

As an example, I like to take lots of photographs at my son's baseball games. At the end of the season, I use those photos to make baseball cards (handmade) for all of the kids on the team as well as the coaches. I choose the best photos of the kids based on what I think is best. Everyone is happy. No complaints.

After a number of years doing this, a team mom noticed and decided that she too would do the same for her kids and their teams. After a couple of years, she and another mom decided to make a business out of it and charge people for the photos and cards. Lo and behold, suddenly she wasn't allowed to use the best photos anymore. Moms just wanted to make sure they could see their son's faces, no matter if it was the "best" photo or not. Art collided with commerce and commerce won over quality. As usual.

The consumer doesn't always know what's best. And in the case of wedding videography, they typically don't know what's POSSIBLE because they just take what they get and are happy because of the emotions they attach to the event. Production value is disregarded entirely.

Which is why I find it silly for anyone to spend exorbitant amounts of money on a wedding video/DVD when A) they don't really care about quality and B) they'll only watch it once or twice. Who would pay $1,000,000 for a house that they'll only stay in once every twenty years? Who buys a car for $250,000 that they drive once a year? So why pay thousands of dollars for a wedding video that they'll only see once or twice in a lifetime, particularly when they can get that same event footage for free (assuming that they are typical consumers who wouldn't know quality if it bit them in the face)?

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