# Worked as Wedding Photographer dealing with unprofessional videographer



## alby87a (Nov 3, 2014)

I'm not one to vent but I figured I might as well do it here. 

Anyways we all heard about the intrusive wedding photographer that was in your face. I experienced it, this time the opposite. Which was the intrusive wedding videographer team. I was working with a fellow photographer of mine which we were hired for a wedding. I get to the grooms house (other photographer is with with the bride) I started to take pictures and then the videographer shows up late literally missing the groom getting ready and instructed to the groom to mock getting ready. I did my shots and finished up. The videographer then asked me can I have a ride to the venue. I said sure, because I'm a nice guy. (Not to mention he doesn't have a car, his mom dropped him off) The other videographer was late for the bride and forced her to do a mock getting ready. 

But this is when it gets really hairy. First of all my setup is a 24-70mm on my 5dmiii and a 7d with a 70-200mm. I like to stand in the back or on the side out of sight out of mind. My past history with other videographers they were either on the side or at least zoomed in. These videographers were literally in the ceremony and up close. I was shaking my head and my other photographer would look at me shaking hers. I was literally hoping for the kiss shot they would at least move. Well they didn't. Luckily with Photoshop I could do my magic. 

Fast forward to the reception, the first dance and the garter toss and so on there were in it too. (the garter shot the videographer jumped in front of me.)

Luckily we still had great shots of the event because my partner had different vantage point to get that shot or I shot multiple times at least which can be usable but that is usually not my style. 

Lesson learned tho. Communicate with each other so you're not in each others way. I wanted to bring this up so other photographers hopefully if they have this issue they would know what to do. 

The pictures down below one of the videographers had a 50mm on a 6D.


----------



## RunAndGun (Nov 3, 2014)

alby87a said:


> The videographer then asked me can I have a ride to the venue. I said sure, because I'm a nice guy. (Not to mention he doesn't have a car, *his mom dropped him off*)



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## RunAndGun (Nov 3, 2014)

alby87a said:


> ...the videographer shows up late literally missing the groom getting ready... The other videographer was late for the bride...



I have a saying, "Better never than late".

I've been shooting for the better part of two decades and I still show up EARLY for everything. It's not that hard. "When do you start shooting?" "How long does it take to get to the location?" "How long will it take you to get ready/set-up once you arrive?" Back time it and add pad for traffic and other assorted possible snags on-site.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 3, 2014)

alby87a said:


> I'm not one to vent but I figured I might as well do it here.
> 
> Anyways we all heard about the intrusive wedding photographer that was in your face. I experienced it, this time the opposite. Which was the intrusive wedding videographer team. I was working with a fellow photographer of mine which we were hired for a wedding. I get to the grooms house (other photographer is with with the bride) I started to take pictures and then the videographer shows up late literally missing the groom getting ready and instructed to the groom to mock getting ready. I did my shots and finished up. The videographer then asked me can I have a ride to the venue. I said sure, because I'm a nice guy. (Not to mention he doesn't have a car, his mom dropped him off) The other videographer was late for the bride and forced her to do a mock getting ready.
> 
> ...



You HAVE!!!!! to give the bride a few pictures before and after you photoshopped the film crew out of the picture. I am sure she will have a good laugh and realize that you delivered quality despite the obstacles... it can only be good for business. Don't bitch to the bride about how intrusive they were, odds are she knows already and the before/after pictures will remind her.... Your calmness and delivering quality can only be good for the business.

BTW, at another wedding, while acting as second shooter, I had the bride ask me if I could "get that idiot out of here" in reference to another "in your face" videographer and to explain to him that the still photos took priority. Sadly, I don't think your case was unique.... there are some pathetic videographers out there.


----------



## gjones5252 (Nov 3, 2014)

This is good to read. It makes sense but I have only ever done the wedding photos and video with just my team. I am now transitioning to where I get hired to do one or the other not both. I have never shot a wedding where I am not the main media person. 
Soon I have a wedding coming up where I will be doing soley video and the clients have hired a very expensive photographer. 
I am pretty nervous about shooting it just because every photographer has their rhythm. I don't want to be in the way of his. If anyone has good advice please let me know. 
I plan on contacting him early in advance to communicate what i would like to accomplish without getting in his way. 
But still any other advice would be great. 

Also I don't think I will achieve the level of stupidity seen above.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 3, 2014)

I agree with OP. It's too close....


----------



## alby87a (Nov 3, 2014)

Trust me I was calm, I was just muttering things to myself and looking disappointed when no one was looking but I still smiled the rest of the wedding. My photography partner is definitely delivering the before and after pictures for sure. I'm not really mad, I just laugh still when I look at the photos on lightroom because unfortunately this was a nice wedding, it was my luck I had some unprofessional videographers to work with. I'll say this we still got the shots we needed, with a little more work that needed to be done to deliver the product that our client expects.


----------



## mrbee (Nov 3, 2014)

Wow. I'm a cinematographer and this makes me sad. He's not even using his monopod correctly. I mean I go in for close shots for diversity and story telling, but never do I linger for more than needed for a 3 second shot.

I wonder if this videographer is going to do a doc edit of the ceremony. He must also be in his own main cam shots......

Their end product must be epically bad.


----------



## alby87a (Nov 3, 2014)

here's more pictures


----------



## Shane (Nov 3, 2014)

I am wondering why the guy has a wireless mic on his camera when he is two feet away.

I do both wedding photo and video, and one reason I still provide video is simply to make sure that as the photographers at a wedding we do not have to deal with the endless new "professionals" who bought a rebel or a 6D and a cheap lens and film the whole wedding from three feet away. Recently had a DJ bring two college students to a wedding and film the reception with two shooters with 18-55 lenses on Rebels. We had a video guy and two photographers already and the other two guys ruined the whole reception.


----------



## alby87a (Nov 3, 2014)

Shane said:


> I am wondering why the guy has a wireless mic on his camera when he is two feet away.
> 
> I do both wedding photo and video, and one reason I still provide video is simply to make sure that as the photographers at a wedding we do not have to deal with the endless new "professionals" who bought a rebel or a 6D and a cheap lens and film the whole wedding from three feet away. Recently had a DJ bring two college students to a wedding and film the reception with two shooters with 18-55 lenses on Rebels. We had a video guy and two photographers already and the other two guys ruined the whole reception.



I wonder why the DJ brought his own shooters when probably there is a videographer and a photographer there already unless the couple didn't realize that DJ's price included photography/video without knowing. As for the mic, they didn't use that mic in the reception so I guess either it didn't work or decided to do without it. 

Anyways Shane I assume that dance floor was pretty small so in every shot there was someone you don't want in it.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 3, 2014)

You are a patient and polite guy. 

I come across this type of thing a lot (though not at weddings as I do not shoot them, but mainly at media and sports events). Generally there are a few unspoken and unwritten rules for photographers and videographers, but there is always one or two idiots that may be new, or simply just ignorant and/or don't care.

It has often happened to me that I have been shooting stills and someone else comes and stands directly in front of me, I just tap them hard on the shoulder and indicate to move, stand next to me is fine, but not in front of me. So far everyone has moved.

However sometimes it is the organiser that has not planned things properly. I was shooting a major sporting event and there was an awards ceremony and the organisers decided to let the fans onto the pitch but had not organised a stage for the fans or the photographers which meant we were all now on the same level. I needed the shot, the fans wanted to see. The fans that were all cordoned off behind the photographers were very vocal about what they would do to the photographers if they did not kneel down so they could see their superstars! Most did, but some didn't. It almost turned violent.

But for the OP, I think this has opened your eyes to a new business opportunity. Instead of talking to the other team, I recommend you find two videographers you get along with, have the same work ethics and like their work and offer a complete package. Plus that way you end up with 4 people on the ground that can take stills and video at the drop of a hat. You have more things covered, you make more money, and the happy couple only have to deal with one company! Win, win!


----------



## alby87a (Nov 3, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> You are a patient and polite guy.
> 
> I come across this type of thing a lot (though not at weddings as I do not shoot them, but mainly at media and sports events). Generally there are a few unspoken and unwritten rules for photographers and videographers, but there is always one or two idiots that may be new, or simply just ignorant and/or don't care.
> 
> ...



I'm actually thinking of fusion, stills with 5 second clips here and there in a video slideshow. As for a videography team, I'm going to probably think of teaming up with one or offering full video services if the client asks for full video. 

As for me being patient and polite, thats how I am despite my military background as I have been a combat photographer since 2005 in the army reserves. I've always been on the sidelines capturing the action. Its kinda hard to tell an afghani soldier how to look or tell the kids to scoot from far away ha when I deployed overseas.


----------



## dash2k8 (Nov 3, 2014)

The responses here have been very polite, so I'll take the fall and be the bad guy. The video person is clearly an amateur with the wrong gear. If this were a true pro, he would mind the shots of the other cameras and make the attempt to get out of the way. Judging by standing so close to the couple, it's clear he thought of no one but himself. And if he's so unprofessional in his attitude toward others, his shots will likely be unprofessional as well.

Gear-wise, he set himself up for a massive fail. Seriously, a 50mm standing that close? Looks like the f/1.4 version, too. Why not the 85mm f/1.2 and back up more? Also, hand-holding it without a Zacuto viewfinder (or similar) is going to produce a lot of shake. Doesn't look like the lens has an ND filter on it so the shutter speed is most likely out of whack (perhaps 1/1000s f/9 ISO100). And as mentioned, wireless mic at that distance?

If these people cannot show proper respect for other shooters on the scene, I cannot give them any respect on my end. Everyone should play nice and obey the rules.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 3, 2014)

Hi alby87a! 



Don Haines said:


> Don't bitch to the bride about how intrusive they were, odds are she knows already and the before/after pictures will remind her.... Your calmness and delivering quality can only be good for the business.


I have to 100% agree here with Don. Best you can do.

It's sad and really annoying if teams of stills photographer and videographer don't work together and make arrangements on how to do so.

But even if they do it can be annoying. I was on a wedding (as guest) where the bridal pair had hired a team of photo- and videographer. So they were playing team. 
But they still were very intrusive when the main parts like wedding dance were over. They were running around the dance floor with their bright LED lamps and I really was about to trip them up or give them a hard body check to show that this was now our area. But I was too well-behaved  . So dancing came short this evening 

PS.: 
I really don't understand how bridal pairs can like something like that.
I told my wedding photographer to stay in the background and that this was the day for our guests and us to celebrate. It's more important to me to have a wonderful day then to have wonderful pics of that (less) wonderful day. (And our pictures were also great)


----------



## docsmith (Nov 3, 2014)

Ha.....maybe this is becoming a thing. I was just at a wedding (as a guest as I am no pro) and kept noticing how close and intrusive the videographer was. Standing right in front of the alter as procession came in. So intrusive that the bridesmaids and groomsmen actually had to move around the videographer and separate early. Close enough to the cutting of the cake that I am surprised that they didn't get frosting on their lens. It all worked and I haven't heard the bride complain, but I felt for the photographer.


----------



## Khnnielsen (Nov 3, 2014)

Just for the record.

I have only tried to shoot one wedding, and it was for a documentary about same-sex marriage. So our team was lucky enough to be allowed to attend a wedding - right from the preparations early in the morning to the party late in the evening. We did our best, so we wouldn't ruin the day for the couple, just because some journalist needed wedding footage. We got heaps of great footage, and we were later told, that they hardly noticed us.

So it can be done, without hassling photographers and brides. A good zoom lens is good place to start.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 3, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> I told my wedding photographer to stay in the background and that this was the day for our guests and us to celebrate. It's more important to me to have a wonderful day then to have wonderful pics.



How very, very true. Well said.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 3, 2014)

It is clearly an ignorant video maker. He only has 50mm and nothing else? No F2.8 zoom lens and no viewfinder on the LCD too. :-[ 

I have to say that I started professionally video before of photography. For some reason, I was always out of the way of the photographers, and kept a comfortable distance for newlyweds. Unfortunately, not all born with common sense and education, and some will only learn when spoiling various ceremonies.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 3, 2014)

So when you have a silll photographer and a videographer working the same event, what is the professional etiquette? Which one gets "priority"?

But in any case, it looks like this videographer was not very considerate. But then we are only getting one side of the story. I wonder if this videographer is on another forum talking about this wedding he shot were this still photographer kept getting in the way.


----------



## gadgeteer (Nov 3, 2014)

Reminds me of this video! ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o9pKc-iFoQ


----------



## risc32 (Nov 3, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> So when you have a silll photographer and a videographer working the same event, what is the professional etiquette? Which one gets "priority"?
> 
> But in any case, it looks like this videographer was not very considerate. But then we are only getting one side of the story. I wonder if this videographer is on another forum talking about this wedding he shot were this still photographer kept getting in the way.



in every job i've worked the photo guy took the lead, and i would jump in front of the video guy if need be. i wouldn't unless needed, but i would and do in a heartbeat. these photos of the video guy at the alter are standard fair for me. really, this is ashame, but i get this all the time. you try to work the angles to not get them in the shot but it's a fast moving flowing situation, and often you get what you get. unless you want to take over the whole damn thing and stage it all, and i don't and the bride/groom don't either. so you get what you get. 
when someone gets dropped off, and you're not buds that already agreed to hook up people with a ride, you are being put on notice that you are in the sh)t. 

the reaction here to this post is much nicer than when i came on here to talk about what had happened to me some time ago. if i recall correctly it was a wedding guest hounding me all night, setting up shots(not wanted or requested),asking me if i had any batteries she could use, as her flash was eating them due to the dark reception venue, and generally annoying me all day. i seem to recall you guys saying something to the effect that i was a whiner and that i should deal. well, of course i did deal and i did the job. sometimes you guys can .... ah,forget it


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 3, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> So when you have a silll photographer and a videographer working the same event, what is the professional etiquette? Which one gets "priority"?
> 
> But in any case, it looks like this videographer was not very considerate. But then we are only getting one side of the story. I wonder if this videographer is on another forum talking about this wedding he shot were this still photographer kept getting in the way.



I would think that priority is set by the bride... as professionals, we should realize that this can be a problem so we should address it up front and make sure that all parties know it..... and don't forget "uncle Fred" with his brand new Rebel....


----------



## distant.star (Nov 3, 2014)

.
One more good reason to not have video. Get the damn video crap outta my camera!!!

One more good reason not to do wedding photography!

And "videographer" seems a bit pretentious for some kid who needs to have his mommy drive him around. Were the bride and groom his babysitters? I'd reserve that term for people like Vincent Laforet.


----------



## alby87a (Nov 3, 2014)

As for me I'm a behind the scenes guy, I think jumping in front of the videographer will be a never ending battle, being that either way even if I did, and telling him/her I need this shot they will still try to get it to get their job done. So I have to work around it. Luckily I didn't have uncle fred or bobby or whatever the new name is for it thankfully! 

here's two more pics from that night!


----------



## alby87a (Nov 3, 2014)

well at least there are images that were without  Actual work that will make it to her after her honeymoon


----------



## Besisika (Nov 3, 2014)

gadgeteer said:


> Reminds me of this video! ;D
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o9pKc-iFoQ


Good find! you made me laugh. I like Lindsay a lot.

OK, back to the topic. What if the videographer is a relative of the bride? It becomes more common to have an uncle bob videographer than photographer.

I was shooting a video reception once and two photographers had 2 assistants with flashes on a stick and softbox. Wherever I went, one of the assistants always faced me. At one time they fired like 2 shots a minute. Can you imagine what these softboxes did to my video?

Both the video and photographer have the right. They are both paid to do their job. Photography is more important than video is only in your mind.
As a photographer, why don't you suggest to the bride to find a fusion videographer to work with. As a photographer, I do understand your need and pain when I shoot video. 
As some videographers said, the videographer on these shots are not full time pro. But, what can you do? The bride decided to go cheap - her choice - you have to leave with it. This is why you are paid the big bucks. And I think, that's why I am a part-timer, I simply cannot stand the stress.
Don't get me wrong, nothing I hate most than having an uncle bob on my shots. I don't take anybody's side. Simply, you need to develop a technique on working with videographer, as much as you learned with uncle Bob.

Maybe it is time for someone to create a YouTube video on how for a bride to choose a videographer?



Don Haines said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > So when you have a silll photographer and a videographer working the same event, what is the professional etiquette? Which one gets "priority"?
> ...


Indeed!


----------



## Joe M (Nov 3, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> So when you have a silll photographer and a videographer working the same event, what is the professional etiquette? Which one gets "priority"?
> 
> But in any case, it looks like this videographer was not very considerate. But then we are only getting one side of the story. I wonder if this videographer is on another forum talking about this wedding he shot were this still photographer kept getting in the way.


Of course, as the still photographer, I think stills have priority  Indeed, the couple should have made their needs clear to all before the day however, neither should be standing virtually cheek to cheek with the couple. In this day and age of quality lenses (and wireless mikes), there is no need to intrude upon the couple to this degree. Unfortunately, not all vg people are seasoned pros and are overzealous to do a great job and get "in there close" and don't realize they just became the center of attention. 
I hope the vg isn't harping about the stills people as you couldn't fit a flea between him and the couple ;D

Sooner or later, hopefully less often than not, as a stills photographer you'll be faced with a vg like this. Unfortunately, you can't just walk up to him/her and ask that they step back. Not when he/she is right there! You'd think that would be the job of the vg well before the day explaining where he/she will be and when in order to get what the couple wants, or the minister at the time. Though I'm sure some ministers are afraid of disturbing the ceremony or the couple's wishes (he doesn't know if they actually want the vg right there). Wasn't there a minister making the rounds on video who kicked out the stills guy for shotgunning his cam? This is what this couple needed to tell the vg to take a step back so the guests could concentrate on the couple.

Nothing to do but to work with it and get your shots and pp them like the O/P if possible. I once had a vg guy set up his second camera on a tripod...in the middle of the aisle. The priest pointed out to him that there was now no way the bride could walk up the aisle so would he please remove it? 

I've only had a few that were a little unprofessional like this ( like the one I mentioned with a tripoded cam in the aisle). Most I've met throughout the years, even those who are not "pros" but merely family shooting video, have always consulted with me just before the ceremony started. Maybe I've just been lucky to have dealt with considerate people and in turn, I try to consider where I stand in order to stay out of any video. The people who "circle" the couple are the toughest to deal with but you get through it by working a little harder. All part of the job. 


Just had to come back and edit this. Sorry that everything was underlined :-[ That'll teach me to use preview mode.


----------



## mdmphoto (Nov 3, 2014)

"Maximillian:
I really don't understand how bridal pairs can like something like that.
I told my wedding photographer to stay in the background and that this was the day for our guests and us to celebrate. It's more important to me to have a wonderful day then to have wonderful pics of that (less) wonderful day. (And our pictures were also great)

and;

docsmith:
Ha.....maybe this is becoming a thing. I was just at a wedding (as a guest as I am no pro) and kept noticing how close and intrusive the videographer was. Standing right in front of the alter as procession came in. So intrusive that the bridesmaids and groomsmen actually had to move around the videographer and separate early. Close enough to the cutting of the cake that I am surprised that they didn't get frosting on their lens. It all worked and I haven't heard the bride complain, but I felt for the photographer"

In recognition of my apparent non-status here, I try to minimize my presence whenever possible, but the op raises an issue I'm encountering all the more frequently as I shoot events. I generally shoot stills at events (parties, receptions, and so on...), and ALWAYS use a zoom (24-70, 24-105, 70-200). "Videographers" amateurs w/ cellies and p&s, and professionals are there and seem oblivious not just to me but to the interests of the other guests and even the principals of the events. 
My results are not so affected thanks to my zooms and learning how to anticipate events, and the actions of these oblivious characters. Whenever possible I will try to talk things out with them beforehand, exchange cards, offer some collaboration, express my plans, but, for me, the last thing I want to do is ruin someone's event by getting in a hassle with guests or other hired guns; hence, anticipation.
I always get a planned flow from the hosts, organizers, and/or guests of honor, and this helps me avoid some hassle with other shooters.
The thing is, the uncle bobs and others don't necessarily always play by even the agreed-upon rules. Without getting into a fistfight I use the zooms, anticipation, and knowledge of the event to try to get there first, shoot, and move on so that the next can do the same. Ultimately, I suppose, despite all that, providence still plays a role...


----------



## dstppy (Nov 3, 2014)

It's the couple's fault; looks like you did your job.

When I got married, the minister was VERY careful to warn us about this sort of thing. He said it was our moment, but an intrusive photographer etc. would ruin things and he may ask them to back off.

We talked to the photog and he was totally cool, no issues had. Never even looked at the video . . . but then again, all we have is raw footage that I never got around to merge.

Of course, I say "get married on the cheap" now, and if it lasts 10 years, have a huge party/remarry. It's a lot more meaningful, you don't put your self into debt before becoming stable, and you have completely different friends (mostly).


----------



## RunAndGun (Nov 3, 2014)

The picture of the second guy confirmed what I saw and was thinking with the first set of pics. These were kids. They probably talked their parents into buying them each a dslr because they think they can be the next Spielberg, Michael Bay, Ridley Scot, etc. This illustrates perfectly one of the major negative consequences of the democratization of video because of ultra affordable equipment that can produce image quality not available for even quadruple the money even ten years ago.

I am a TV photographer and I am in the camp that believes STILLS are the most important in a wedding. When I got married, I only had stills done. I didn't want video, as strange as that may sound to some.

Also, the term videographer is derogatory in the circles I run in(if you're referring to a professional that knows what they're actually doing) and it connotes in my mind, and most people I work with, exactly what was shown in those pictures, some clown shooting a wedding. I usually say "uncle Bob shooting a wedding with someones camcorder", but this was the same thing. So, yes, those guys are videographers.

I have seen some absolutely beautiful wedding videos done by some talented shooters, but that's not going to be one of them.


----------



## meywd (Nov 3, 2014)

there is a solution for this problem   ;D


----------



## RunAndGun (Nov 4, 2014)

meywd said:


> there is a solution for this problem   ;D



Hilarious… But a crappy picture.


----------



## alby87a (Nov 4, 2014)

RunAndGun said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > there is a solution for this problem   ;D
> ...



We as, photographers will critique each others work but normal people won't care about composition, they care about if the moment was captured. I think it was a great idea. As for a trash can being in there all day for a wedding would be disgusting  The last thing I need is my 5dmiii to smell like rotten food lol.


----------



## DanThePhotoMan (Nov 4, 2014)

Oh man, I would have told them something. I shot right around 50 weddings so far this year between photo and video, and fortunately I've never run into situation THAT bad. I have worked with a few amateurs, and I have always been extremely blunt when I see things like that taking place and they usually straighten up. If you're not afraid to be an asshole they usually stay out of your way.

But yeah, priority is definitely set by the bride. I think photography is viewed of the priority simply because it's been around longer than wedding videos. But like it's been said, at the end of the day you're both professionals (hopefully), and if everyone works together and thinks of themselves as a team instead of being more important, things work out great.


----------



## alby87a (Nov 4, 2014)

I think even if we communicated with the videographers they would still be doing what they were doing because of the limitations of the equipment. And again probably another never ending battle. They were cool people don't get me wrong but the equipment and professional courtesy was what they were lacking with.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 4, 2014)

alby87a said:


> I think even if we communicated with the videographers they would still be doing what they were doing...


Yeah! That's probably right. 
I believe the only people who could have said and done something were the couple as their and your boss. 
And best would have been a few days before the wedding.


----------



## Khnnielsen (Nov 4, 2014)

RunAndGun said:


> The picture of the second guy confirmed what I saw and was thinking with the first set of pics. These were kids. They probably talked their parents into buying them each a dslr because they think they can be the next Spielberg, Michael Bay, Ridley Scot, etc. This illustrates perfectly one of the major negative consequences of the democratization of video because of ultra affordable equipment that can produce image quality not available for even quadruple the money even ten years ago.
> 
> I am a TV photographer and I am in the camp that believes STILLS are the most important in a wedding. When I got married, I only had stills done. I didn't want video, as strange as that may sound to some.
> 
> ...



I agree about the term "videographer". As a professional who have been trained using heavy ENG-equipment, it always put me of, when the term "videographer" is thrown around loosely. 

Maybe it's a language thing. In my first language(Danish), the titels videographer or photographer always have a strong association to the professions and committed professionals.


----------



## Hannes (Nov 4, 2014)

I'm surprised that no one has asked but did you not speak to them? They quite obviously were amateurs but they might listen to reason. Otherwise fill flash for every single shot works well to break the ice

It also annoys me he is stood there in a pair or jeans and a stupid hat.


----------



## Deva (Nov 4, 2014)

This reminds me of Princess Diana's quote that there were 3 people in her marriage...

If the bride and groom wanted such in-your-face videography, why didn't they just wear GoPros? And why do I think somebody will have already done that in their wedding?


----------



## Old Sarge (Nov 4, 2014)

Deva said:


> This reminds me of Princess Diana's quote that there were 3 people in her marriage...
> 
> If the bride and groom wanted such in-your-face videography, why didn't they just wear GoPros? And why do I think somebody will have already done that in their wedding?


A couple of years ago my son went to Hawaii to participate in one of his best friends weddings. It was recorded by four or five go-pros strategically placed or attached to participants. So your thinking was right.


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 15, 2014)

Hi alby. 
I find this a completely contradictory statement, if they were "cool" then a quick quiet word with them should have felt like a viable proposition, the fact that you say "they would still be doing what they were doing" means that you felt you couldn't communicate their errors to them, to me that indicates that they were just ignorant kids! And those jeans and stupid hat, trying to upstage the bride, hired help should blend in not stand out!

Edit, I meant to say, shouldn't there only ever be three people on the alter at a wedding, the happy couple and the official joining them in matrimony? 

Cheers, Graham.



alby87a said:


> I think even if we communicated with the videographers they would still be doing what they were doing because of the limitations of the equipment. And again probably another never ending battle. They were cool people don't get me wrong but the equipment and professional courtesy was what they were lacking with.


----------



## alby87a (Nov 18, 2014)

They were cool on a personal level. But we made the decision that even if we have confronted them, their equipment limited them and they would still have done what they were doing all day. True professionals know how to work around each other. So we ended up working around them. As for the alter question, it was an outdoor wedding so there is a lot of freedom a photographer and videographer can do, however just the 50mm lens the videographer was using on a full frame camera was the wrong setup in my opinion.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 18, 2014)

alby87a said:


> They were cool on a personal level. But we made the decision that even if we have confronted them, their equipment limited them and they would still have done what they were doing all day. True professionals know how to work around each other. So we ended up working around them. As for the alter question, it was an outdoor wedding so there is a lot of freedom a photographer and videographer can do, however just the 50mm lens the videographer was using on a full frame camera was the wrong setup in my opinion.



I strongly agree with that. Pretty much everything about their approach was wrong, from the lens to the use of a still camera in the first place. You should never be using a portrait lens for close-up video unless you're doing cinematography—that is, unless your video production is the center of attention and there's no audience. To do this right with still cameras, you should have:


Two close-up cameras with long zooms (70–300 equivalent or longer)—one on each side, about halfway to the back of the crowd (depending on the size of the venue)
A back camera with a superzoom (e.g. 24–300 equivalent)

Your close-up cameras (side cameras) should be able to show anything from a two shot of the couple (partial over-the-shoulder shot, *not* a full OTS) to a close-up on the bride's and groom's hands during the ring part of the ceremony, and a medium shot during the exchange of vows. Minimally, you can get by with one side camera here, but it is less than ideal.

The back camera absolutely must have a superzoom, because it has to cover everything from a medium shot of the officiant and lectors (or at least a three shot of the couple with the officiant and a passable medium long shot or long shot of the lectors) all the way to a wide shot of the entire room. If you don't have a superzoom, you'll need two cameras here—one with a long zoom lens (e.g. 70–300 or 100–400 equivalent)—and one with a wider lens (perhaps a 24–105 equivalent so you can zoom slowly from a shot of the entire bridal party to a wide shot of the entire room).

One of the side cameras should record the audio feed from the house sound system, if possible. Otherwise, you should use a separate portable audio recorder to capture the house sound. The back camera should have a dedicated external microphone on a mic stand, placed several feet above the camera to minimize noise from both the camera and the operator.


At this point, it is worth noting that so far, I've described what I'd use for a wedding if I *had to* shoot it using still cameras, but given a choice, I would never even consider doing so, for two reasons:


Still camera lens zoom ranges are laughable by video standards, and changing lenses while recording video is not really very practical. For event videography work, I would consider an 8:1 optical zoom range to be the *absolute minimum* usable zoom range unless you can afford to throw several extra cameras and tripods at the problem. These days, most high-end ENG/EFP gear has 20:1 or higher optical zoom ratios. So even Canon's 28–300 lens with its 10.7:1 zoom ratio—the longest zoom ratio available in a Canon still camera lens—is considered just barely passable for ENG/EFP purposes.
Electrically operated zooms give much cleaner results that are more likely to be usable without the need to attach long sticks to them.

So in practice, I'd have those same basic cameras, but each one would be more along the lines of an XH-A1, XA20, or XA25.

In an ideal world, I'd also have:


A camera over the altar pointing back at the congregation
A dedicated choir camera positioned opposite the choir
A dedicated choir director camera positioned above and behind the choir
A pair of part-time camera operators in the front row of seating for better angles of certain parts of the ceremony
A dedicated officiant medium-shot camera with a long prime lens so your other back camera can keep a three shot
Dedicated ambo and lectern cameras to cover scripture readings
A moving camera operator

And in an ideal world, all of those cameras would be permanent fixtures of the church except for the moving camera operator, who is optional. That way, you'd just have one or two remote camera operators back in the back steering things, and minimal distractions.

Either way, if you have a moving camera operator, that person should not move very often. IMO, it would be acceptable to have a mobile cam in or near the center aisle during the procession, who gets the heck out of the way immediately thereafter. That person might move immediately to the back to catch the recession at the end, or might temporarily sit in or near the front row to serve as a pop-up cam for the ring exchange, or as an alternate straight-on camera for parts of the ceremony that are off to one side, and then might slip to the back during communion or some other moment of Mass distraction.  Either way, the moving camera should *never* be up and moving around during the ceremony itself on an ongoing basis. That's very unprofessional.

And you should never have a camera behind the officiant unless it is pointed almost exclusively at the congregation. That violates the 180 degree rule, a.k.a. crossing the axis, jumping the line, whatever. Presumably, you'll have a back camera pointed at the trio, and if your close-up camera shoots from the opposite side, suddenly people are facing the wrong direction. It is very disorienting. It also doesn't reflect the congregation's view of the ceremony, which makes it a dubious representation of that ceremony.


----------



## RunAndGun (Nov 21, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> *Still camera lens zoom ranges are laughable by video standards*, and changing lenses while recording video is not really very practical. For event videography work, I would consider an 8:1 optical zoom range to be the *absolute minimum* usable zoom range unless you can afford to throw several extra cameras and tripods at the problem. These days, most high-end ENG/EFP gear has 20:1 or higher optical zoom ratios. So even Canon's 28–300 lens with its 10.7:1 zoom ratio—the longest zoom ratio available in a Canon still camera lens—is considered just barely passable for ENG/EFP purposes.
> Electrically operated zooms give much cleaner results that are more likely to be usable without the need to attach long sticks to them.



Yes. The right tools for the job. Just because a 'camera system' is capable of producing a good image, doesn't mean it's a 'good camera' for what it's being used for.

Shooting an event like that is basically an ENG scenario where you need long, versatile glass because the camera needs to be away from the action and not the center of attention. If you're shooting a movie or a performance strictly for camera, you can use focal lengths like that. I shot some interviews a few days ago with my C300 and 5DIII as a reverse. 50mm on my C300 was a waist up medium shot at approx. 8' and the 85mm was medium/tight(collar bones up) after moving in a bit. The 135mm on the full-frame 5D was just slightly tighter than medium for the over-the-shoulder reverse of talent. Even 200mm, 300mm plus isn't very long on a full-frame or APSC or s35 sensor.

At the distances they should have been working, they wouldn't have had a snowballs chance in hell of being able to get the coverage they needed with a 50mm lens. You really need to be using glass in the range of our 22x(7.8-172) ENG lenses, which would work out to the FF equivalent of approx. 30mm-654mm. Flip the 2x and you're over 1300mm on the top end.


----------



## Hannes (Nov 27, 2014)

If you had professional gear obviously it would be easy. Now the problem is that I'm guessing even renting a single proper film camera and lens would be their entire gear budget for the year. That said, they could have done a lot better than they did with even modest amounts of money


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 28, 2014)

Hannes said:


> If you had professional gear obviously it would be easy. Now the problem is that I'm guessing even renting a single proper film camera and lens would be their entire gear budget for the year. That said, they could have done a lot better than they did with even modest amounts of money



You don't need a film camera and a lens. In fact, that would pretty much suck for the same reason that DSLRs suck; they're typically set up for cinematography, not video—in other words, under the assumption that you're going to be moving the camera around rather than zooming, and that you're never going to shoot close-ups from more than about twenty feet away.

What you need for weddings is real ENG/EFP gear. The most expensive of the three cameras I recommended above can be bought used from Canon for $2200. Yes, you can certainly go up from there and spend tens of thousands of dollars, but you really don't need to spend 80 grand to do a lot better than DSLRs (or cinema cameras) for ENG/EFP work. You can get reasonable EFP gear for about as much money as a decent DSLR and lens. What matters is that you buy gear that is actually designed for video work instead of stills.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 28, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Hannes said:
> 
> 
> > If you had professional gear obviously it would be easy. Now the problem is that I'm guessing even renting a single proper film camera and lens would be their entire gear budget for the year. That said, they could have done a lot better than they did with even modest amounts of money
> ...



*dgatwood* - THANK YOU!!! For saying what I've been saying for years. DSLRs are NOT ideal for video!! Very poor form factor, very weak feature set to support the hand held video use they are marketed for. Cinematography, YES! Hand held video, NO!! I constantly marvel at how Sony, Canon, Panasonic and a whole list of other electronics companies' camcorder divisions spent 20+ years perfecting the handheld camcorder in a compact handheld form to make beautiful stabilized videos in low ambient light with rich feature sets only to see DSLRs come along and steal their thunder with shaky unfocused mono audio videos that look like they were made with 20 year old technology. (Except for the high resolution.)

The only way to get decent video out of a DSLR is to spend another $2K - $5K on equipment to mechanically stabilize, balance and smoothly move a DSLR and use external mics to improve the audio. Then take that video footage and spend more time in post using software to make it acceptable. And once you've mastered all that... you've become a cinematographer!!!


----------



## mkabi (Nov 28, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> The only way to get decent video out of a DSLR is to spend another $2K - $5K on equipment to mechanically stabilize, balance and smoothly move a DSLR and use external mics to improve the audio. Then take that video footage and spend more time in post using software to make it acceptable. And once you've mastered all that... you've become a cinematographer!!!



+1 



> Cinematography, YES! Hand held video, NO!!



I think that thats what most people are going for nowadays... Cinematography being the keyword, people want a movie of their wedding... cinema-like.

If you don't know or don't understand.

This is the trend:

http://vimeo.com/51369324

http://vimeo.com/70750650

http://www.frequency.com/video/percy-niros-wedding-next-day-edit-by/60154255/-/5-1435549

BTW, my wedding had a whole production going on.... 12-foot crane with a Sony ENG, 2 hand-held DSLR video guys, and this was back in 2010. My wedding edit, is pretty movie like, we watch it at least once a year (obviously every anniversary).


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 28, 2014)

*mkabi* - I agree, I think a lot of folks are indeed looking for that and the serious efforts to achieve that result are well worth it and very creative.

But for every crew of professionals that understand how to use the tools at their disposal, a thousand other folks end up discovering that the $3500 DSLR + a couple of $1000+ lenses end up making very poor videos and they don't understand why. Meanwhile, $1200 for a prosumer HD camcorder makes amazing video that can go in the pocket. I mean, obviously the pro crew with $15K of gear and good editing can do amazing things but I think most folks simply want decent quality video of whatever they are shooting to have for fun and family that doesn't suck and will still look good 20 years from now.

And for all those folks, I think the DSLR market is a bit misleading in the hopes of selling some very expensive still cameras that also do video. I shoot thousands of still images all the time and every time I decide to do a little DSLR video, I am never happy with it. The video I make with a 3 year old Panasonic HD camcorder OTOH, is fairly acceptable. At least it's not shaking, out of focus with jerky zooming. All things I have always endeavored (and succeeded) to do smoothly in all my camcorder videos for many years, even before I got heavily back into still images in 2009.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 28, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> And for all those folks, I think the DSLR market is a bit misleading in the hopes of selling some very expensive still cameras that also do video. I shoot thousands of still images all the time and every time I decide to do a little DSLR video, I am never happy with it. The video I make with a 3 year old Panasonic HD camcorder OTOH, is fairly acceptable. At least it's not shaking, out of focus with jerky zooming. All things I have always endeavored (and succeeded) to do smoothly in all my camcorder videos for many years, even before I got heavily back into still images in 2009.



I use my DSLR for video in precisely the same way that I use my iPhone for video and photos: if I suddenly have the urge to shoot video of something, and I have it with me, I use it. The results from the DSLR are considerably better than the results from my iPhone, but considerably poorer (in all aspects except resolution) than the results from the $150 DV camcorder I bought ten years ago.

In much the same way that I grab my 6D if I'm planning to take pictures, when I'm planning to shoot video, I trot out my XH-A1, my moderately high-end Panasonic mini-DV camcorder as a second unit, tripods, mic stands, XLR cables, my VP88, and other audio gear, depending on my goals.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 2, 2014)

"Meanwhile, $1200 for a prosumer HD camcorder makes amazing video that can go in the pocket."

I'm sorry, I cannot agree with this assessment. You will still need a good external mic for sound, and the built-in lens will be terrible compared to the numerous offerings on a DSLR. The only thing that a prosumer camcorder can do that a DSLR cannot is continuous autofocus, but in any serious shoot, the videographer will turn OFF the autofocus. As Philip Bloom said, AF in video is an oxymoron because the camera cannot possibly know where you want it to focus. That's why pro cameras don't have AF lenses. And a prosumer camcorder sure as hell cannot manual focus as well as a DSLR.

A decent ($3000~) DSLR kit can most definitely achieve terrific results. You said that some ppl get really bad results and don't know why. I think it's because they're just not very good at their craft. This is no disrespect to your opinion, but that is enough gear to cover a wedding very well. Not Hollywood, but definitely great.

Put an Arri or Epic in the hands of a child and you will get poor results. Put a 60D in the hands of a master and you will get excellent results (plus bad noise, but the composition, lighting, etc. will be excellent).

The above are my really long $0.02.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 3, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> I'm sorry, I cannot agree with this assessment. You will still need a good external mic for sound, and the built-in lens will be terrible compared to the numerous offerings on a DSLR.



You do, indeed, need a decent external mic. With that said, the audio hardware in prosumer camcorders is much, much better than what any DSLR provides, at least from what I've seen. My XH-A1 (available used for $1,100) has switchable automatic/manual audio level controls with physical knobs, XLR inputs, and phantom power that's switchable on a per-channel basis. It absolutely kicks any Canon DSLR's a** audio-wise. And the upgraded version, the XH-A1S ($1650 used) adds limiters in manual mode, for even greater control.

And the big problem with DSLRs is that the lenses needed for ENG work would be too large to deal with. Videographers routinely work at 300–600mm focal lengths so that they can stay out of the way. Many go even higher than that. Such focal lengths just aren't feasible with a DSLR, much less smoothly zooming from 600mm out to 40mm.

In exchange for the flexibility, you pay a price in distortion and CA, but the alternative, using a DSLR, requires you to be constantly being in the way and, unless you're willing to set up a seriously invasive camera boom system, doesn't provide nearly as much creative control.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 3, 2014)

I agree that a camcorder's sound will be tons better than a DSLR. Actually, the DSLR doesn't record acceptable audio in any form, so I consider DSLR mute without a mic.  Strangely enough, I have a XH-A1 and in my own case, I prefer the colors of my DSLR. It's true that the A1s's rocket pack gives greater control over audio. For my own DSLR video shoots, I just use an external recorder, and that doesn't break the bank at all.

I agree with most of your points. What my own point was, it's not true that a $3000 DSLR kit would pale in comparison to a $1200 camcorder if we're talking about "serious" cinematography, not home videos. There's nothing that a prosumer camcorder can do that a DSLR kit cannot do just as well if we know how to operate it.

I respectfully disagree, though, on the 300-600mm length point. For news gathering, the range is a lot shorter than that unless you're doing sports. And if such range is truly required (White House lawn speech, everyone backed up in a press box?), neither a DSLR or camcorder will suffice, anyway. The big dogs are needed for those situations.

Nice talking to a knowledgeable mind. Looking forward to more discussions in the future!


----------



## richy (Dec 3, 2014)

Wow! His hat tells me all I need to know lol. But seriously, I never ran into anyone like that as an events photographer, that's crazy. I worked in a small market with mostly destination weddings which used coordinators who vetted or the kooks. Threes no need to have video or sold take priority unless the bride explicitly requests so. All it takes is done common sense and situational awareness and you can both get what you need to deliver a great product. There were times I will have been in video and I know I got the videographer in shot (like shooting down from a tree with a wide angle) and that's just part of the day, but sticking a 50 mm on a dslr and zooming with your feet is bad mojo. Everyone has to feed their family and screwing over a photographer is a sure way of not getting more work. 
When working with someone new we would meet up before to talk over strategy but mostly it was working with the same people over and over. The only thing I tended to do was not use flash during anything 'live' to make life easier for the videographer and that was mostly my style anyway. We would then take turns to do semi posed stuff afterwards. Sorry you had such a poor experience!


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 3, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> I respectfully disagree, though, on the 300-600mm length point. For news gathering, the range is a lot shorter than that unless you're doing sports.



For news, that may be true, depending on what you're covering. I was talking more about event videography, where you tend to have a couple of cameras off to the side and in the back of a venue. There's a reason the XH-A1 only goes to 40mm on the wide side (and just shy of 800mm on the long side).

To use an example, I recently shot a bunch of stills from the middle of the audience area in the recital hall at UCSC (during dress rehearsals). For shots of people towards the back of the stage area, a 300mm shot had several people in it. Multiply that by about 1.5 if you're shooting from the back of the audience, where you'd normally be if you were doing video work during an actual show.

Of course, your back camera tends to do a lot more long shots than close-ups, but even a side camera would likely be no closer than I was when I was shooting from the middle of the audience.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 5, 2014)

> For news, that may be true, depending on what you're covering. I was talking more about event videography, where you tend to have a couple of cameras off to the side and in the back of a venue. There's a reason the XH-A1 only goes to 40mm on the wide side (and just shy of 800mm on the long side).
> 
> To use an example, I recently shot a bunch of stills from the middle of the audience area in the recital hall at UCSC (during dress rehearsals). For shots of people towards the back of the stage area, a 300mm shot had several people in it. Multiply that by about 1.5 if you're shooting from the back of the audience, where you'd normally be if you were doing video work during an actual show.
> 
> Of course, your back camera tends to do a lot more long shots than close-ups, but even a side camera would likely be no closer than I was when I was shooting from the middle of the audience.



I guess I was thinking of a different sort of "event coverage." If I'm shooting a concert, usually I'm closer to the stage, not in the middle of the audience. Yes, the back camera and side cameras have the longer lenses, but from where I am anything longer than 150mm would be crippling. For weddings and similarly intimate events, 85mm on a FF body is as long as I can bear; usually I need 24mm or 35mm. (This is without blocking the other ppl, of course.)

In any case, I think we're all agreed that the post I was referring to was inaccurate in its assumption that a DSLR kit cannot do what a camcorder can do.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 11, 2014)

2 photographers. 2 videographers.

We get married in may.

We are not celebs.

Our photographer is getting half an hour, between the service and the meal. a group shot of the party with. the cars in ( we are hiring quite special cars). one of my wife and I. brides party. grooms party. bang. done. No video.

No getting ready shots. nothing at all during service (i want to enjoy the experience, no flasguns) no peeking out behind trees. no macro shots of flowers.

Its a wedding, not a photoshoot. our enjoyment of the day, the comfort of our guests is paramount. The current extremes of wedding photography etc are just ott.

We are not celebs.

When I see stories like the op's pst, I just think, well the coupe invited that. As a cameraman (not weddings, no offence) I have had to put a fair number of photographers straight in my time. Usually a wee 2 minute chat about ettiquite sorts it. Video or stills first, but always seperately. obviously not a great model for weddings. but then , i just don't get that anyway.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 11, 2014)

Tinky said:


> We get married in may.
> ...
> Our photographer is getting half an hour
> ...
> our enjoyment of the day, the comfort of our guests is paramount.


First, all the best wishes to you and your wife. Have fun on that day and for the rest of your lives.
Second, great opinion. Although the wedding photograpers might think different 
Third, don't forget to tell your guests about the "ettiquite".  Normally there are also a lot of cameras invited


----------



## Tinky (Dec 11, 2014)

The priest will make it clear during the start of the service when it's appropriate to take photos, this is common in weddings I've been to. Signing the books is about it.

As for the rest of the day, thats fine, pocket cameras are fine, no big flashguns, no stopping to pose, We will ask for a facebook embargo or set up an album that folk should upload to....

Our day will be built around the wedding. Not the photos of the wedding or the video.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 12, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > We get married in may.
> ...



Yes! Congratulations!! 

I agree, for the most part. I think the entire wedding "industry" has gotten out of hand and over the top. It has become a ridiculous over-the-top circus that costs tens of thousands of dollars. I don't get it.

However, with that said, I think the photography is an important part of the wedding as long as an experienced professional photographer provides a subtle and delicate presence to capture the event. The images are all you will have in 20 years. A few pictures of the wedding party standing with cars may seem lacking down the road.

We did our wedding in '95 at our church. Our primary goals were to have a good time with friends and celebrate our union (ie: spend 90% of the time partying, eating, dancing, drinking, socializing at the reception), get good photos and enjoy some nice floral arrangements. Prioritized in that order.

We had our wedding on time. It was well planned. It ran smoothly. Our photographer did the pictures before, during and after + reception. We were done with the wedding in 20 minutes, photos were another 15 or so and then it was reception, reception, reception where we have a lot of great pictures of friends, family, etc.

The photography is usually not what ruins weddings, poor choices and poor planning ruins weddings.

My point is that our wedding album is priceless, well done and beautiful. It was money well spent. It didn't ruin the event or even distract from it. Don't over simplify such an important day that you later wish you had perhaps gotten a few traditional images to look back on. Looks will fade and you'll be glad you can look back and see how beautiful you were together at this time in your life.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 12, 2014)

I remember, about a hundred years ago, when my brother got married. The Bride wanted to go directly from the church to a cemetary across town. The bride, in her gown, was going to pray at the grave of her mother. OK, a little weird, but if that's what is important to her, great.

The really oggly part was that she had a videographer and she had to do the whole getting out of the limo -- walking to the grave-- kneeling to pray-- and then returning to the limo about 4 times. 

It just struck me as moving from a simple sincere praying at a grave into a big production with retakes. 

There are two sides. 

1. Retakes probably resulted in a much better final edited product. 
2. Retakes seemed a bit.. well staged (duh) and getting far away from the original intent (praying to the dead mother about the wedding)

Is it common for "retakes" when it comes to wedding video? 

"I am ready for my close up, Mr. DeMille."


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 12, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I remember, about a hundred years ago, when my brother got married. The Bride wanted to go directly from the church to a cemetary across town. The bride, in her gown, was going to pray at the grave of her mother. OK, a little weird, but if that's what is important to her, great.
> The really oggly part was that she had a videographer and she had to do the whole getting out of the limo -- walking to the grave-- kneeling to pray-- and then returning to the limo about 4 times.
> It just struck me as moving from a simple sincere praying at a grave into a big production with retakes.
> There are two sides.
> ...


I do both photos and wedding videos (in different events), and never liked staged attitudes grooms.

For photos, okay pretend that the bouquet will play three times, and then actually do. But video, I advise the couple not to make staged actions, which always seem poor taste.


----------



## Besisika (Dec 12, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I do both photos and wedding videos (in different events), and never liked staged attitudes grooms.
> 
> For photos, okay pretend that the bouquet will play three times, and then actually do. But video, I advise the couple not to make staged actions, which always seem poor taste.


Agree, I prefer taking the real emotion and add photos whenever I missed or miss-handled. I leave staging to pro-cinema.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 12, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Don't over simplify such an important day that you later wish you had perhaps gotten a few traditional images to look back on. Looks will fade and you'll be glad you can look back and see how beautiful you were together at this time in your life.



Thanks Rusty.

Looks have already went somewhat, for me at least. 

I plan to instruct our photographer on 5 or 6 traditional poses. My experience so far, not enough photographers want to do it the clients way. They have 'their stamp' that they wish to impose on our wedding. I can't think of any other industry that works this way.

The cars are a pair of citroen DS. In Ivory and Pearl. I didn't care about anything else, she could have what she wanted in every other way... but we arrive in a citroen DS each.

I don't want photos of me struggling out the back of the car, my girlfriends best pal peeking out behind a tree as we cross a bridge in the garden of a house we don't own..

We have an allotment (do yanks get this? it's a vegetable garden that we grow produce for our own consumption on, they are uber tendy just now in the UK although we are not) so my girlfriend actually wants our couple photographs taken there, with wellies on under the kilt and train!

Conventional we are not. And being a cameraman I have a very strong visual idea of what I want, all we want is a photographer who will work with our vision. If they were smart they would realise that our images would make very quirky distinct additions to their portfolio, rather than trying to force our square peg into their round hole.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 12, 2014)

Tinky,

It sounds like you have put a lot of thought into this. IMHO, I think sometimes that it would be nice for a photographer to try to see things through another photographers' eyes like you are wanting. It would be interesting and could produce some very unique results. After all, as you say, it's your day, your images and your vision. The photographer is just the mechanism in this case because you can't take your own picture. Some photographers are a bit too self involved when it comes to their 'craft'.

I think humble flexibility is key when you are working for others. Someone on this forum once explained what being a professional is and it was mostly the ability to give the client what they wanted, the way they wanted it in a timely manner. (Regardless of the photographers' taste or impression.) Practicing ART & CREATIVITY that the photographer is invested in should be reserved for personal time, not professional time.

Good luck getting it all worked out. And have a fantastic, fun and memorable day!!

Rusty


----------



## alby87a (Jan 14, 2015)

I know its been awhile but the video from the videographers came out. http://vimeo.com/116563983 I'll leave the critique up to you guys! Keep in mind, the bride hired them and jumped in front of me for those who are late to the convo. To sum it out from me, the reception portion is dark and colors look bland. That's all from me. 

Pictures from the wedding that made the album from me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2015)

Well I am one to be brutally honest, with myself as much as anybody else, but in a choice between the thirty three minute video, that isn't bad, not a work of art, but not bad, and your four album, shots I'd take the video every time.


----------



## alby87a (Jan 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Well I am one to be brutally honest, with myself as much as anybody else, but in a choice between the thirty three minute video, that isn't bad, not a work of art, but not bad, and your four album, shots I'd take the video every time.



That's fine, everyone has different tastes, a lot of my clients like the dreamy feel and that's what they asked and they loved it. However feel free to CC on the pictures! I'm open to it but anyways I'm just asking opinions on the video. I asked a videographer friend of mine and he pointed out the colors in the video and exposure.


----------



## tolusina (Jan 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Well I am one to be brutally honest, with myself as much as anybody else, but in a choice between the thirty three minute video, that isn't bad, not a work of art, but not bad, and your four album, shots I'd take the video every time.


Seriously, you'd take _that_ video?
Lots and lots of overexposure, white/color balance continuously variable and continuously horrid, lens flare, sloppy depth of field control, um, ick. And some kid with a video camera actually accepted his fee for that? Shame on him.
Regarding the stills, we've already seen how the vid kid in the stupid hat bogarted every major money shot for the stills photog.......... sheesh.

PBD, brutally honest in your opinion, do you sit on your taste buds?


----------



## tolusina (Jan 14, 2015)

alby87a said:


> .... I asked a videographer friend of mine and he pointed out the colors in the video and exposure.


No need for a videographer to point out the horrid colors and exposure, it was plainly and painfully obvious to me and video is excluded from my skill set.
I suppose what matters is if the Bride picked up on the amateurish colors and exposure. PBD apparently did not, maybe could not.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 14, 2015)

First - It looks like everyone had a great time and the Bride & Groom looked great! Thanks for sharing! 

I like the images. Creative and original. Fun. Did I misunderstand? Were these _all_ they used from your stills?? ???

Video - Meh. Hopefully it didn't cost much. It looks like they got a lot of footage to work with and there are some creative shots. But it would be my hope that it could be color corrected and reworked into something a little more polished. I'm definitely not a videographer, I just know what I *think* I would do differently.

For instance, if nothing else was changed in the video I would want the skin tones to be more normal, not look like everyone was either high contrast, blown out or _from *Mars*_. Wow!


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 14, 2015)

If those are your best four it makes me wonder how happy the bride is with your work. The four are average at best.

Also are you done bashing a guy that is unable to defend himself?
Were you showing your work to look better in comparison?

Complaining about some ones bad manners when you were first harmed is one thing. Fixating on it for months is just petty.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2015)

tolusina said:


> alby87a said:
> 
> 
> > .... I asked a videographer friend of mine and he pointed out the colors in the video and exposure.
> ...




Dude, you are a joke, remember when you couldn't spot the video CGI? When you came out with utter bullshit like _"why would our beloved Canon, the long standing dominator of the pro imaging market resort to CGI"_.

Don't carry the chip on your shoulder any longer, you have had half a dozen pops at me since then and you have never had anything interesting to say.

It is particularly funny because after writing this _"I'd consider it a favor if you would please, block me so you won't reads my posts nor offensively reply to them."_ you have taken particular pleasure in directly haranguing my personal opinion in many threads, you are like a lovelorn shunned partner, you can't seem to leave me alone, I suppose I should take your overly keen interest in me as a compliment really.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 14, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> If those are your best four it makes me wonder how happy the bride is with your work. The four are average at best.
> 
> Also are you done bashing a guy that is unable to defend himself?
> Were you showing your work to look better in comparison?
> ...



I for one wondered how this turned out. It was discussed quite a bit. A little more info on what all the fuss was about isn't such a crime is it? So many times things get discussed on this forum and then the discussion stops and there is never any follow up. Everyone is left wondering how things turned out.

FWIW, the OP didn't have much of a negative opinion, he merely posted a link for whoever might be interested. It's a public link. And I'm sure that if the videographer joined this forum and asked for help, he would receive plenty of advice and could avoid some of these mistakes in the future.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > alby87a said:
> ...



You guys should consider using the Private Message feature. ???


----------



## alby87a (Jan 14, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> If those are your best four it makes me wonder how happy the bride is with your work. The four are average at best.
> 
> Also are you done bashing a guy that is unable to defend himself?
> Were you showing your work to look better in comparison?
> ...



Trust me there is no hate for the videographers . If there was hate I would be saying more hateful things. Was I frustrated I sure was. Am I saying my work is the best of the best, definitely not, as I said earlier I don't mind CC. Besides I don't think you want the whole album on here anyways. The bride loved them in the end. As for fixating on them, I'm not I figured I'd update the community on the outcome and what they think of the video and my opinion and your opinion on it. I really don't want this thread to create drama, but as to inform other photographers and videographers about this!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > tolusina said:
> ...



I would, but the little coward doesn't want to talk like that, he just wants to take public swipes at me.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 14, 2015)

alby87a said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > If those are your best four it makes me wonder how happy the bride is with your work. The four are average at best.
> ...



Thanks again for sharing. I think I may have misunderstood in the beginning and I admit to being lazy now and not going back and reading those first posts. Did you say you were the principal wedding photographer for the stills at this ceremony? I think perhaps the forum members are wondering about more traditional bridal or other images from the ceremony that you feel are representative of your best work. Do you have a link to your online gallery or do the clients prefer you not share their images at this time? Just wondering...


----------



## alby87a (Jan 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Can we all get along?


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 14, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > If those are your best four it makes me wonder how happy the bride is with your work. The four are average at best.
> ...



Complaining about a videographer with bad manners is one thing.

But in the first post of this thread the OP posted the picture of the videographer. Totally unnecessary to do this to this guy unless you are trying to hurt his business. 
I thought it was a petty thread from the start.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 14, 2015)

alby87a said:


> I really don't want this thread to create drama, but as to inform other photographers and videographers about this!



Inform them about what? That this guy you posted pictures of does crap work and is rude?

Some people have bad manners, you are being specific to one individual.

Grow up and get over it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2015)

alby87a said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RustyTheGeek said:
> ...



Not everybody all the time it would seem, even when people make conscious efforts to ignore the repeated digs made specifically at them time after time, sooner or later they have to say something. It might sound like I am being the bad guy this time and in this thread, but I am tired of tolusina taking his pathetic little swipes at me.


----------



## alby87a (Jan 14, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



*Sigh I guess it's all about perception now adays eh. The internet is such a cruel world as they say. I don't intend to hurt their business, I'm just here to share a story that's common in the community and which I hope to prevent such instances like this. Besides if I were to hurt them I would post their names and their business pages which I did not. Anyways lets focus on the video!


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 14, 2015)

alby87a said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > RustyTheGeek said:
> ...



You can focus on it, I see no point. 

The internet can be cruel. So you didn't post his name, do you really think that no one will recognize him?

I really wonder what the bride would think about her wedding photographer, which I assume you were paid for, was pulling her wedding photos into this drama? Would she be happy knowing that her wedding pictures were being used to bash this guy?

I say bad manners on more than just the videographers part.


----------



## alby87a (Jan 14, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> alby87a said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Well, its not drama here, its just discussing that photographers and videographers can work together better to avoid this situation. We already discussed in the past replies on workarounds and such. We did work around them. We learn to adapt to the situation. Were we happy probably not but all we hoped is to share this story with others which that was the intent. As for the drama part there is none, unfortunately there are members here trying to create it. I'm not here to "bash" if you want to put at it.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 14, 2015)

> *Sigh I guess it's all about perception nowadays eh. The internet is such a cruel world as they say.



And you are doing your part to make it more cruel.



> I don't intend to hurt their business, I'm just here to share a story that's common in the community and which I hope to prevent such instances like this.



And how does your posting accomplish that?



> Anyways lets focus on the video!



Yes. Lets.

While the video is about 25 minutes too long, I agree with Private -- I'd rather watch that than look at the pictures (Partly because I get so tired of wedding photographers posing the wedding party in fake "gangsta" poses that are supposed to appear funny, but really just make the subjects look obnoxious).

I've been experimenting with video lately, and I'd have to say, the production quality on this one was quite good. (If it were edited down to about five minutes, it would be excellent). So, focusing on the video, I'd have to say I was pretty impressed.


----------



## agierke (Jan 14, 2015)

> I really wonder what the bride would think about her wedding photographer, which I assume you were paid for, was pulling her wedding photos into this drama? Would she be happy knowing that her wedding pictures were being used to bash this guy?



just out of curiousity...do you shoot weddings?


----------



## alby87a (Jan 14, 2015)

unfocused said:


> > *Sigh I guess it's all about perception nowadays eh. The internet is such a cruel world as they say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As for the wedding party, we asked them to do a funny pose and they came out with that. We don't tell them to do exactly that pose. They chose that pose. Of course after the traditional bride and bridesmaid group picture. From experience usually the younger crowd is in love with that. As for video, I thought it was way too long my self. To me 5 minutes, I guess with many videos I've seen now adays is the sweet spot for length compared to the long 30 minute standard?


----------



## agierke (Jan 14, 2015)

> I'm just here to share a story that's common in the community and which I hope to prevent such instances like this



i am fine with your post. i think in a forum such as this it is perfectly fine to report on such behavior and i think its completely natural to express frustration over it.

i also think its good that you followed up to your original post.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 14, 2015)

alby87a said:


> Well, its not drama here, its just discussing that photographers and videographers can work together better to avoid this situation. We already discussed in the past replies on workarounds and such. We did work around them. We learn to adapt to the situation. Were we happy probably not but all we hoped is to share this story with others which that was the intent.



I fail to see how critiquing this guys work pushes that discussion forward.


----------



## alby87a (Jan 14, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> alby87a said:
> 
> 
> > Well, its not drama here, its just discussing that photographers and videographers can work together better to avoid this situation. We already discussed in the past replies on workarounds and such. We did work around them. We learn to adapt to the situation. Were we happy probably not but all we hoped is to share this story with others which that was the intent.
> ...



We wanted to bring up the point that if it was worth jumping in front of us was worth the shot and the final product and we just want your opinion on it. There's no bashing. As I said earlier its to bring awareness that communication is key which we should have told them but with their limitations on equipment even if they were told they would have done it again and again. So we chose the ladder and worked around it.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 14, 2015)

I try to learn from whatever comes along. In this case, I'm learning...

- There are videographers that really need to learn how to work as professionals at a wedding.
- There are still photographers that want to share how their work was possibly ruined by unprofessional videographers.
- After the videographer finally releases the video that came from their amateur behavior at the wedding it turns out to be... surprise... amateur.
- Once the photographer follows up with the forum about how things turned out... he gets grief for it.

BONUS QUESTION - Should the photographer have started the thread or followed up on the the thread later? Was this professional and would it offend his client?

This last point is one I think deserves more consideration. I think it is akin to, "What would your mother say?" or "What would Miss Manners say?" And I understand the point. Would the bride feel it is an invasion of privacy to have her wedding video viewed by strangers for critique? With all due respect, this is a semi-obscure forum. By that I mean that it's not facebook, twitter or some other mega public place that millions of folks visit and things tend to 'go viral' in minutes. It's a photography forum visited by photography nerds who are commenting on nerdy photography stuff. If the bridal client (or the videographer) were to be introduced to it, what would they think? Well, that's the OP's problem, isn't it? He could have never brought this up in the first place. But he did and we responded. We aren't debating whether the bride or the family is ugly, fat or a bunch of yokels. We are debating whether the video has good editing, good white balance or good length. So I don't think the bride would care or even understand what the heck we are talking about. And I also say that if the videographer stopped in, he might learn something. The thread would likely take on a whole other tone of assistance.

But that's just me trying to be positive. I think the video is great for an amateur but not so great for a professional. So like I said, I hope it didn't cost much.

As for the still images, I understand the underwhelming response but I assumed there were more we didn't see and those were just some fun candids. Hopefully anyway!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2015)

> "1- There are videographers that really need to learn how to work as professionals at a wedding.
> 2- There are still photographers that want to share how their work was possibly ruined by unprofessional videographers.
> 3- After the videographer finally releases the video that came from their amateur behavior at the wedding it turns out to be... surprise... amateur.
> 4- Once the photographer follows up with the forum about how things turned out... he gets grief for it.
> ...



1/ There are pros of all kinds that need to learn better etiquette when working in the same environment as other pros. MC's jumping the gun with announcements, videographers and photographers getting in each others way, DJ's going off at complete tangents are all fairly common wedding issues, unfortunately. 

2/ I have absolutely no problem with that! But, for instance, the video has several shots from very similar angles to 'ruined' shots from the OP (and this isn't an OP bashing reply). As we all know stills can give exceptionally distorted appearances, blocking the shot for a few seconds is not the same as ruining any chance of getting the shot.

3/ As you say, no surprises there, but they have some decent 'raw' footage, and as we all know, if you have the raw footage you have the foundation for pretty much anything. A decent editor and run through some grading could turn what they have into something quite a lot better.

4/ That is unfortunate, but often the nature of dormant threads, at 8 pages there is a lot of preamble to wade through and most people can't be bothered, they'd rather make knee jerk overreaction statements. I appreciated the follow up and don't think the OP is out of line.

BONUS QUESTION/ That could easily be debated better and for a long time. Personally I didn't like the start to the thread, but I did empathise with the OP having been in similar situations. I think the OP should have worded the original question in a different way and I whilst I wouldn't say he was unprofessional, I would not post my wedding images in a thread like this, it can only be construed as negative even if it is a genuine appeal for greater understanding. I think a broader question like 'How do you deal with videographers that keep getting in the way?' would have generated a more productive input from many. 

My answer to that question is, they do it a couple of times then I have a quiet word with them to make sure they are aware of my position and responsibilities, that has always resulted in more considerate positioning.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 14, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Was this professional and would it offend his client?
> 
> This last point is one I think deserves more consideration. I think it is akin to, "What would your mother say?" or "What would Miss Manners say?" And I understand the point.



I think the conversation topic would be Professional Discretion and if one should keep the work they perform for another confidentlial. It would be an ethical discussion and end up with an argument over the photographers right to his material vs a "perceived" obligation to protect the clients privacy. In the end there is not a right answer, only what a Professional's own beliefs lead him to do.

As for the original post I followed it from the start. It appeared to be more of a personal attack against this videographer, although it was somewhat veiled. When it came up again posting his work it looks even more so.

Discussing individuals that are hard to work with, guests that are in the way are all legitimate topics of conversation.
There are ways of starting the conversation without showing pictures of someone.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I think a broader question like 'How do you deal with videographers that keep getting in the way?' would have generated a more productive input from many.



+1


----------



## Khnnielsen (Jan 14, 2015)

I can see that this thread has been derailed but I just want to add that while it's easy to sit here and point out mistakes, it's easy for non-professionals to look past production quality , when you have a video from a hopefully wonderful day starring the people you love the most.

The same goes for photos. A technically bad snapshot from a Iphone can mean the world to you, if it brings back some good memories.


----------



## martti (Jan 14, 2015)

I think the video guy should get a bigger hat


----------



## tolusina (Jan 14, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> ....You guys should consider using the Private Message feature.


Tried that, Private Bully Dude abused it, I blocked him.
It's a simple matter to click 'show me the post' in a thread, I no longer see his Private By Design missives in my inbox, I like it that way.

- - -


privatebydesign said:


> ....
> I would, but the little coward doesn't want to talk like that, he just wants to take public swipes at me.


You swiped public at me, then, somehow thinking I wouldn't see your swipish reply, PM'd me to inform me of your swipe and repeated it ad nauseum. I've no time nor interest to be cowed by your passive aggressive bullying attempts.
Odd that your original post is no longer in the thread, it remains safely archived to your current embarrassment.
In part, you criticized me for selectively quoting you yet you started the conflict by selectively quoting me. Hypocritical bully.
- - -


privatebydesign said:


> .......Dude, you are a joke, remember when you couldn't spot the video CGI? When you came out with utter bullshit like _"why would our beloved Canon, the long standing dominator of the pro imaging market resort to CGI"_.......


Yes, I did pose that question, it was not a statement. Had I posted phrasing that Canon would not resort to CGI you could have rightly called me on bullshit.
And, that's the partial mis-quote. You carefully chose to omit and ignore what I posted immediately prior,


tolusina said:


> ....Might have been all CGI'd, might have been well planned and executed primarily in camera.
> 
> I like it a lot, I'd like it even more if I knew it was great camera work and not CGI....


Then as an afterthought edit I posed the question.
- - -


privatebydesign said:


> .....
> Don't carry the chip on your shoulder any longer.....


You've brought up a conflict from a March 26 through April 1, 2014 thread, not I. You've got the chip.


This thread is a different topic. That you...


privatebydesign said:


> Well I am one to be brutally honest, with myself as much as anybody else, but in a choice between the thirty three minute video, that isn't bad, not a work of art, but not bad, and your four album, shots I'd take the video every time.


indicates to me you have questionable taste, are possibly color blind to boot. What of it?


- - -


privatebydesign said:


> .... I suppose I should take your overly keen interest in me as a compliment really.


Don't flatter yourself, you would be in error.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 14, 2015)

tolusina said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > ....You guys should consider using the Private Message feature.
> ...



That's nice for you but for the rest of us, we have to read it. You do realize that no one really cares, right? So why post this at all? It's a waste of both your time and ours. This appears to be a beef between the two of you. If it can't be settled in the PM Board, why not just ignore each other and focus on the topic? Really. Please! :


----------



## agierke (Jan 14, 2015)

> That's nice for you but for the rest of us, we have to read it. You do realize that no one really cares, right? So why post this at all? It's a waste of both your time and ours. This appears to be a beef between the two of you. If it can't be settled in the PM Board, why not just ignore each other and focus on the topic? Really. Please! :



agreed


----------



## tolusina (Jan 14, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> ....why not just ignore each other and focus on the topic? Really. Please!


You are right. I owe the community an apology. I'm sorry.

I'll try and keep it brief, omitting quoted text, leaving just links to the posts because there's only one other that might possibly care.



privatebydesign said:


> ....


I should have omitted reference and quote to that post.
Instead, with parenthetical explanation, my post stating my opinion should have read as follows......


tolusina said:


> ...(insults to PBD's post edited out as should have been in the first place, my opinion of his opinion of the quality of the vid in question being totally irrelevant to the quality of the vid)....
> Lots and lots of overexposure, white/color balance continuously variable and continuously horrid, lens flare, sloppy depth of field control, um, ick. And some kid with a video camera actually accepted his fee for that? Shame on him.
> Regarding the stills, we've already seen how the vid kid in the stupid hat bogarted every major money shot for the stills photog.......... sheesh....




I'll take this as a personal growth lesson, maybe others can benefit.

Contrary opinions can be stated without mockery of other's opinions.
Again, to the community, my apologies.


----------



## jepabst (Jan 14, 2015)

Okay, now that maybe they're done arguing about who has the biggest 'lens'...

I got my start in videography - I don't have much sympathy for this post. Let's forget, for a second, the fact that maybe this guy wasn't 'as professional' as some videographers.

At the end of the day, we are all hired professionals doing a job. It's our job to communicate with each other in an effort to provide quality products to the bride and groom (client.) If you have problems with the videographer, their professional courtesy or the way they are working, you should say something - not a day later, not a week later, not months later, but right then and there or everyone suffers. By not saying something that day, the photographer has more post production to do, the videographer gets some public shaming, and the bride/groom have their wedding used as a whipping post. 

When I was the videographer (obviouschild.com) I was sure to communicate early with the photographer. Asked them where they were going to be and how they planned to cover the ceremony. I told them where I wanted to have my cameras and how I wanted to move around (sometimes even close to the B/G) Now that I shoot more photography, (pabstphoto.com) I do the same thing. I talk to the videographer and ask them the same questions. I ask them how they plan to work the aisle - where their cameras are ect.. I don't care if these guys are the 'less professional' media vendors on the job - even more reason for the photographer to BE THE PROFESSIONAL and show the youngsters how wedding professional coordinate and work together. These guys learned nothing - a missed opportunity for education. 

In my opinion (and there are others of course) communication is key and this problem was avoidable. I blame both photographer and videographer, but I actually blame the photographer as they 'seem' to have more professional experience; unfortunately that experience was not shared.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jan 14, 2015)

I'm glad I don't do weddings any more... room for significant improvement on all fronts. Photographers and videographers can easily be at cross purposes. Photographer tries to capture the "decisive moment" freezing it in one image while the videographer is depending on motion for interest. 32:24 in the video is prime example - video "hat" guy is doing a pan shot and steps right in front of the stills guy at critical moment. Clearly "hat's" shot wasn't used, either he wasn't recording or maybe too prominently featured the other videographer in the background. Still guy is clearly outnumbered with good angles blocked by multiple videographers.

Khakis on pro photographer at formal wedding? Hard to comment on the number of flashes washing out the video-could be Uncle Bob firing away or was OP machine-gunning it? Video needs a good color grading and editing session with a pro editor. 5 minute max. for friends & family, 15 min. absolute max for the couple. Still shots provided were o.k., but not thrilling.

And, certain aspects of the forum discussion needs help as well. My opinion... room for improvement on all fronts.


----------



## slclick (Jan 17, 2015)

Not EXACTLY the correct place to post this but still, a rant about other shooters....

I was out doing some perspective studies; converging lines, atmospheric elements, shadows and contrast, when the official Nikon Birding Photographer approached me and started dissing the Canon system before I even had a chance to say one word, such as "hello". Then he went on to smack talk my genre (abstraction/landscape) and how UWA glass is fine of you want to "...play around with expanding your mind" 

Later he would walk into my shot (4-5 times) but if I approached him from the rear (we were both at an expansive arboretum)he would make a snicking sound at me. I guess I was disturbing the chickadees. 

It's these moments which solidify my desires to shoot in solitude. 

Oh and btw the 16-35 f/4L has a fantastic sunstar!


----------

