Video University: Video University Forums: Digital Photography for Videographers: First photo/video job has been edited

VideoUniversity.com
Home	Free Library	Store
Free Catalog Please support VU by making your B&H purchases and links through this B&H ad. Doesn't cost a penny more.

See The New VU Postcard Catalog

To post in the forums see the Forum Guidelines.

Join or Renew Today.
New Benefits for all VU Members

Forum Guidelines and FAQ
Main Index	Search Posts
Who's Online	Log In

Home: Video University Forums: Digital Photography for Videographers:
First photo/video job has been edited

Scott Brooks
Veteran

Nov 11, 2006, 11:05 PM

Post #1 of 15 (1088 views)
Shortcut

First photo/video job has been edited	Can't Post

No ... no video to share ... just the experience.

Some time ago I posted on here how I was going to handle a trimmed back video coverage along with shooting stills. My daughter and I shot the stills and my wife handled the video. It was to be a very easy setup that provided a basic video, but absolutely no frills.

Here's how it ended up and the elements included.

$2000 for photo coverage. Video was an $800 add-on about a month prior to the date. This was 6 hours of photography. Video was to commence with the seating of the mothers and end whenever I was finished with photos.

After I finish shooting a wedding (stills) I usually do an on-line slide show and send a link to the couple. They can distribute the link and when the show ends it goes to an order site. I keep those photos that have been touched up in a special folder for later.

I simply drug that folder into FCP with dissolves and then laid the music underneath. That was my opening ... fade to black.

Fade from back to the video with mothers being seated. Continue shooting (single camera) through the parents being dismissed after the recessional.

Back in with the announcement of the wedding party. After they're seated I took video clips of people and put them in a musical montage to LOVE. No slo-mo and no effects. Toasts, prayer, cake cutting and fade to black. Finished off with another 2 minute montage of clips of guests and end with a photo of the couple kissing ... fade to black.

BTW ... this was just a dinner/cake reception and no dancing.

I found that my wife actually took direction quite well on this shoot. She was getting 5 to 8 second shots of tables, people talking, mingling and enjoying themselves. All I had to do was cut it. Under an hours worth of footage.

My goal was to be able to edit the video under 8 hours.

The final result is that I was able to edit the video under three hours.

Eliminated:

Pre-ceremony shots ... nothing outside, no guests signing in, no bride and no groom
2nd and 3rd cameras ... no video editing through the ceremony needed
Groom with a wireless and a shotgun for ambient ... little audio editing needed
Post ceremony gone ... no following the photog (me) to get shots of formals or any other shots at the church
No highlights ... no going back through the video to pull the "best of"
No interviews (usually don't do them anymore anyway)

The bride still received a quality recording of her wedding ceremony and reception. They had great audio. They had an experienced camera person that knew what to shoot ... when to zoom in and when to pull back.

They had two - two minute montages with video clips of their friends mingling, so they had shots of everyone attending the reception.

Had this been a typical reception with dancing then everything would have been the same, but I would have inserted the first dance, father/daughter and bridal party dance ... all un-edited shot from a high tripod. It might have added an additional hour for editing?

I'm surprised to say this went much smoother than I thought. I didn't try and "over-edit" thinking this had to be video art. It was a quality recording of what happened. The closest thing I got to any special effect was a two second dissolve to the very last photo.

So I didn't make a fortune on the wedding and this isn't going to make sence to anyone that does wedding video full time ... not enough money in it. But as an add-on to another package it makes perfect sense. I think my wife was assigned to cover about 4 hours ... a 45 minute ceremony and the rest in the reception.

I realize there's more expeses involved, but it's going to come out to right under $100 per man hour. That's better than some of my other projects.

If you made it reading this far ... congratulations. I posted this here instead instead of the Members Only because in this case ... video was used as an add-on and not the primary sale.

Oh yeah ... on top of this they had a high number of reprints.

I hope to have more like these.

(This post was edited by Sparky on Nov 11, 2006, 11:05 PM)

Colvin ADTR
Enthusiast

Nov 12, 2006, 2:08 AM

Post #2 of 15 (1074 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Sparky] First photo/video job has been edited [In reply to]	Can't Post

Sounds like a good workable solution.

Brackish
Veteran

Nov 12, 2006, 2:27 AM

Post #3 of 15 (1070 views)
Shortcut

Post deleted by Brackish [In reply to]

Scott Brooks
Veteran

Nov 12, 2006, 2:44 AM

Post #4 of 15 (1066 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Brackish] First photo/video job has been edited [In reply to]	Can't Post

See, this is something I have been considering offering but switched around. It would be $2000 for video coverage and photo would be an $800 add-on. Photo would commence with the seating of the mothers and end whenever the video was finishted. So, it would be very basic -- perhaps "non-comprehensive" -- photo. Maybe some quick on-location formals after the ceremony. I just don't know if there's a market for this. Anyone have any thoughts if this would fly?

Honestly ... no I do not ... at least not around here. Photography is still king. Low or high end - either one - photography seldom has anyone at all hired to shoot video. On my weddings this year the only video has been (us) for two of them and a friend of the family for the rest. There's no way I would be going out on a wedding if my package was video first and photography second.

Also, Sparky, in the shoot you described, where was your wife's cam placed for the ceremony? Was it locked down on one shot or moving?

The entire shoot was from the balcony on a tripod. As a matter of fact, we refer to it in-house as our "Barb-in-the-Balcony" package. (She would prefer that I come up with another name for it.)

I had a second camera set for a wide shot right next to her in case her camera went down, but I never even loaded the footage into the system. If I were to start cutting between her footage and the backup ... then I would have completely destroyed what it was I wanted to accomplish.

On an outdoor wedding we shot ... cermony only ... she was at the back and shot the processional as they walked by her. Once the bride passed by she moved her tripod to the center aisle.

Dieps
User

Nov 12, 2006, 10:57 AM

Post #5 of 15 (1050 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Sparky] First photo/video job has been edited [In reply to]	Can't Post

Thanks Sparky,

I have a Bride that wants me to shoot her photos next month and asked me if I could do video as well. I've been trying to figure out how to do the shoot but had not given thought to how I would edit. Bingo! Edit solved - thanks for your recipe.

As for the shoot. We won't have a balcony at our venue so I plan to have a wide angle on a Bogen 3246 that I can get about 8' high. We can shoot the photo and video about half way up the aisle and from oth sides. When the Bride passes, we will move to the back and continue video from the center aisle.

I absolutely love the idea of a short photo montage on either end of the video. Thanks.

BTW. An $800 add on sounds fair to me for the amount of work involved.

Jim

PD-170, VX-2000 (2), TRV-900
Sony Wireless, iRiver, Mini Discs, other stuff
Canon 20D with some lenses

Scott Brooks
Veteran

Nov 12, 2006, 12:56 PM

Post #6 of 15 (1039 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Dieps] First photo/video job has been edited [In reply to]	Can't Post

Some people might say why not just have a friend do it if you're not going to put anymore effort into it than that. But the thing is, they still get someone with experience, they still get quality audio, it's shot from a fluid head tripod so it's steady.

It's not going to take home any awards, but that isn't the purpose.

I might not have mentioned this ... but this type of production is only available if I'm shooting the stills. Otherwise ... single camera coverage of a wedding is $1500 and two cameras is $1950. Those have a bit more editing that go into them.

Jeko
Enthusiast

Nov 12, 2006, 6:14 PM

Post #7 of 15 (1028 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Sparky] First photo/video job has been edited [In reply to]	Can't Post

Wow. Simple, concise. I wonder if it is appealing to prospects.

I think I may have to add a few new video coverage options to my photography ala cart options. I like the idea of adding "simple to edit" segments... like the ceremony.

A similar option is to record basic ceremony audio for use as a bed in a summary photo montage. I think Rusty mentioned that idea before....

Jeko

Sony VX2100's, iRivers, M-audio 24/96, Canon 5Ds/20Ds (and too much glass), Vegas6, PhotoShop CS3, Lightroom, etc.

Scott Brooks
Veteran

Nov 12, 2006, 7:18 PM

Post #8 of 15 (1024 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Jeko] First photo/video job has been edited [In reply to]	Can't Post

Adding audio to the photo montage (no video) was something I had toyed with. I don't know if it would take more time to edit or not. I would think I would have to do more in terms of spacing out the recorded audio to make it match the photos along with a bed of music.

I could always try it with my latest edit, but honestly ... I would rather collect $500 for taping a ceremony only than have to go back to spending addional time trying to edit my photos to the audio. I think it would defeat my purpose ... which was speed vs pricing.

Jeko
Enthusiast

Nov 12, 2006, 7:50 PM

Post #9 of 15 (1017 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Sparky] First photo/video job has been edited [In reply to]	Can't Post

Montage idea by Rusty was just to have images unsynced to sermon. Music is just layed softly underneath.... just provides a bit more than the average photographer can accomplish.

Jeko

Sony VX2100's, iRivers, M-audio 24/96, Canon 5Ds/20Ds (and too much glass), Vegas6, PhotoShop CS3, Lightroom, etc.

Brackish
Veteran

Nov 13, 2006, 3:09 AM

Post #10 of 15 (999 views)
Shortcut

Post deleted by Brackish [In reply to]

Scott Brooks
Veteran

Nov 13, 2006, 3:24 AM

Post #11 of 15 (997 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Brackish] First photo/video job has been edited [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

There's no way I would be going out on a wedding if my package was video first and photography second.

You're saying no client would hire you if you told them video is your
priority and stills is second place?

I'm saying damned few. Is that really illogical considering the very low percentage of people that actually hire a videographer?

Sure ... I've had a few clients over my many years tell me that they prioritized video over phtography ... asked me where they could get someone cheap. And I always had one person to send them to ... both times.

BUT ... eveyone has their own way to doing business and if anyone can stay busier by offering phogography as an add-on as oppossed to video as an add-on ... then that's what they should do ... no questions asked.

Jenn M
Veteran

Nov 13, 2006, 1:17 PM

Post #12 of 15 (977 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Sparky] First photo/video job has been edited [In reply to]	Can't Post

Hi Sparky,

Congrats on your shoot. I know it is completely do-able in the way you described, and that is pretty much identical to what we plan to do, except at certain times, such as the first dance, parent dances, etc. one of us will man the video cam while the other shoots stills. I know it's completely feasible, you know it's completely feasible, the trick is convincing brides. Our number one obstacle that we are encountering is that brides find us b/c of our videos, they love our style, and they say it's a priority, therefore, they worry that the video will suffer if we take ourselves away from it to shoot stills. That's the few brides who are willing to pay $3K for a video.

Problem is, they are too few and far between. Also, for the amount of work I have to do to get $3K for a video... I'm just getting burned out. AND when the day rolls around, no matter how much they say the video is their priority, once that independent photog shows up, all bets are off.

It's annoying, b/c the video, which I believe will eventually give us our edge, is actually holding us back right now. Not enough people are finding us for photography first... despite our efforts. AND I don't have a ton of samples to show and they are wary.

You would think it might be better to start with a higher to middle end market, but it's actually not. It's easier to book couples (or at least catch their attention) who are motivated by the low price (for starter photo) than those who are more discerning about quality.

But it's picking up slowly. What I'm running into most often with brides who were referred by previous brides is that they like the idea of more streamlined photography, but they contastly question what will be missing from the video. Fact is, the video coverage will also be streamlined - less footage during pre-ceremony, pre-reception - less fluff, so to speak. So I'm trying to find a diplomatic way of explaining that they aren't going to miss the main points, but I also don't want to mislead them. It will be different.

So it sounds as though you are marketing yourself more for photography, with video as an add-on...
I think we need to make a decision to do this, b/c right now we are marketing both equally, which is slowing the process b/c we lose photo brides b/c they don't want video so they overlook us, and we lose video brides, b/c they worry that we won't be able to do both.

argggg. We just need a few samples to demo exactly what we have in mind. As always, if they see it, they are more likely to understand and want it.

thanks for sharing your experience. I look forward to doing the same... hopefully soon.

Scott Brooks
Veteran

Nov 13, 2006, 3:43 PM

Post #13 of 15 (962 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Jenn M] First photo/video job has been edited [In reply to]	Can't Post

When I did this year's bridal shows I deliberately did not advertise video. I had no mention of it in my name and no video running on TV ... only a slide show of photos from my wedding.

My wife about went nuts ... wondering why I stopped advertising video all together. I told her it was because I didn't want to be identified as a videographer / photographer. In my mind I felt that if a bride were to walk by the booth from a distance and see a "video" running they would automatically decide I was a videographer and skip me.

I did have some DVDs to hand out should someone ask, but it rarely happened.

My daughter who now shoots stills with me but has always accompanied me to bridal shows said after the first one ... "It sure is nice to show up and be busy with brides at the booth." How telling was that!

Like it or not there's a whole different respect for photography. People and organizations can talk about "educating the bride" all they want ... but I don't see the overall priorities ever changing.

For yourself and Brian I would suggest finding a second shooter for video so that you could assure your customers that the coverage would not suffer. I don't think any client is going to feel overly confidant with the same person switching back and forth from a video camera to a still camera, so it's important to let them know that it's the same team working together ... each one dedicated to their own job. I did not shoot a single frame of video at the above wedding.

As you said, those brides willing to pay 3 grand for video are too far between. It took me almost 16 years producing weddings to get $3000. This year I made (and will probably make even more w/reprints, etc.) than $3000 on a wedding in my first year. (Doesn't include the $100 she stuffed in my shirt pocket as I was leaving.)

I've been tipped twice as a videographer in 16 years ... I've received 2 $100 tips this year in my first year of photography. Tell me there's no difference in respect.

Ok ... done ranting for a while, but I'll leave you with one last comment.

This first year I tried to do all the packages and additional crap that all photogs do. I quit playing that game as a videographer years ago (no packages), but thought I had to do it in the photo world.

In the middle of this year I basically said screw it ... I'm doing it the way I want to do it ... one package / one price and they can add on anything they like. No proofs printed, no proof magazine, nothing but a CD with all photos color corrected and exposures adjusted. I'm finally having fun again. Cool

(I really need to lay off the caffine.)

Brackish
Veteran

Nov 13, 2006, 11:23 PM

Post #14 of 15 (939 views)
Shortcut

Post deleted by Brackish [In reply to]

Jenn M
Veteran

Nov 14, 2006, 12:07 AM

Post #15 of 15 (933 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Brackish] First photo/video job has been edited [In reply to]	Can't Post

The video is not going to suffer, but it will be streamlined. I'm designing packages that require the couples to add additional coverage, such as pre-ceremony, pre-reception and highlights. If they don't add it, it will be more basic. So of course, if it's left up to them to add it, most won't. That's what I'm planning on. So it will be different in that way.

Right now, I shoot waaaay more than I have to, mainly b/c I don't know what the photog is doing - I'm there to cover stuff on my end. If I am the photog and I know I have certain things covered (such as the photo session) I'm not going to bother shooting video of it. Half of the time, I end up canning most of this footage as it's just boring on video. People standing and posing for a still camera. Yawn.

Same thing goes for photo - I came home from my photo-gig wedding last month and sifted thru many of the reception photos, and though they were nice to have since it was all they had, much of it I would consider a 'video moment' so in that case, I would cover it with video - maybe snapping off only a few photos in between.

So my point is that it's difficult to explain to bride before the wedding that half of the stuff they think is important now won't be later, while other stuff that they overlook beforehand will be more important later. We are designing our coverage with that very idea in mind. AGain, I consider most video of the photo shoot to be boring, except for a few gratuitous pretty shots which can be captured more deliberately. Hundreds of photos of people dancing and looking quite stupid in a still - that's boring to me and most of the newlyweds (video customers) I've spoken to, but much more entertaining on video.

It's hard to try to explain this concept without having samples to show it. Brides are so convinced they are going to miss something on one end or the other, but I really believe, having spoken to sooooooo many of our brides after their wedding, that future brides will not miss a thing - not the way we work. We are very thorough in our coverage. That won't change. However, the type of camera we are using at any given time may change.

Does that make better sense?