photo or video - for wedding
- Thread starter sundazz
- Start date
- Status
I agree if you are taking about SLR.. but not so much for DSLR.
Photo miss shot.. ask them post and snap again..
Tho the videographer may not be the editor, but the videographer should visualise the flow... an experience editor will know what the intension of the shot. knowing each other style is an advantage.
A simple example.. if the video shots are with many jump cuts.. the editor will be cursing and swearing!
of cos it will be much more easier if the camera and the editor is the same person.
But I hv to agree with you if you are just talking about the expectation from the clients... in local market video is always secondary for the couples.. although video need more time to deliver..
But techincally, I think both are equally stressful.. neither is easier or harder depending on idividual skills set.
my point in the previous thread wasn't really to pinpoint which is easier or harder but rather, which has greater leeway. Badly composed shots (photography) will be badly composed shots. And for photography some moments cannot be missed nor reposed. I doubt you will want to ask the couple to rewalk the aisle right?
Seriously, you don't need an expert videographer if the editor knows what he is doing. Part of video editing is sound, something that poor editors do not understand. Often times, I see wedding videos with no appreciation to the music being played. The music should not be there for the sake of having 1, but rather flow with the music. That can at times, include the lyrics in relation to the image, the accents relating to a cut scene etc. If I'm a good editor, I don't actually need an awesome videographer. I just need relevant footage. If the videographer has good cinematography skills, a pair of steady hands for smooth pans/tracking all the better! I can tell you it is hard for videographer to visualise the flow until you really start doing the editing. What you require is long enough footage, but not too long. 4 seconds minimum to 10 seconds. You can only start to sync the videography with the music only upon reviewing it when you're editing it.
The reason why the video market appears more challenging is because editing video requires more than technical skills.
Seriously, you don't need an expert videographer if the editor knows what he is doing. Part of video editing is sound, something that poor editors do not understand. Often times, I see wedding videos with no appreciation to the music being played. The music should not be there for the sake of having 1, but rather flow with the music. That can at times, include the lyrics in relation to the image, the accents relating to a cut scene etc. If I'm a good editor, I don't actually need an awesome videographer. I just need relevant footage. If the videographer has good cinematography skills, a pair of steady hands for smooth pans/tracking all the better! I can tell you it is hard for videographer to visualise the flow until you really start doing the editing. What you require is long enough footage, but not too long. 4 seconds minimum to 10 seconds. You can only start to sync the videography with the music only upon reviewing it when you're editing it.
The reason why the video market appears more challenging is because editing video requires more than technical skills.
my point in the previous thread wasn't really to pinpoint which is easier or harder but rather, which has greater leeway. Badly composed shots (photography) will be badly composed shots. And for photography some moments cannot be missed nor reposed. I doubt you will want to ask the couple to rewalk the aisle right?
Seriously, you don't need an expert videographer if the editor knows what he is doing. Part of video editing is sound, something that poor editors do not understand. Often times, I see wedding videos with no appreciation to the music being played. The music should not be there for the sake of having 1, but rather flow with the music. That can at times, include the lyrics in relation to the image, the accents relating to a cut scene etc. If I'm a good editor, I don't actually need an awesome videographer. I just need relevant footage. If the videographer has good cinematography skills, a pair of steady hands for smooth pans/tracking all the better! I can tell you it is hard for videographer to visualise the flow until you really start doing the editing. What you require is long enough footage, but not too long. 4 seconds minimum to 10 seconds. You can only start to sync the videography with the music only upon reviewing it when you're editing it.
The reason why the video market appears more challenging is because editing video requires more than technical skills.
Yes i do agreed that not all shot can retake.. but so do videos..
A photographer wont be just taking one single shot for the couple to walk through the aisle.. i am sure he will take multiple shots...
A badly composed shot for photography will equally applied to video as well.. if a badly composed video shot with too much headrooms, it will look terrible on videos.. and if too less headroom, the head will gana chop.
If the photographers do not have steady hands, the photos is blur.. and like wise.. u will feel giddy watching a shaky videos.
As for audio, it is an addtional item for the videographer to take care.. if it crack.. it will be crack.. and of cos same for the editor to take care of the music and sound flow with the visual.
If a videographer that do not consider the shot for editing, then he is not a good videographer.. video is a piece of art which require the whole process from conceptualising to shooting to editing the visual and audio.
If you say video editing can salvage bad video shot.. so do Photoshop can salvage photos...
but again.. i don't agree that when shooting (both photo and video) we can depends on editing to salvage shots.. that is wrong mentality.
Leeway wise.. i think both are equally fair.
Speaking from a point of view as someone who has sufficient experience in D-SLR photography, at the same time a regular wedding videographer...
Wedding video is extremely demanding in these aspects;
1. Flow of Events.
A good "take" or "scene" that the videographer shoots needs to be min. 3-4 seconds long with buffer for space to add transitions if required, and to ensure there is suffice length to fit the music.
A photographer will probably not need more than 1/60 of a second to seal a good shot. Especially photojournalistic pgs who are extremely quick to settle his shots, it may make the videographer seem overly commanding on the flow of events.
2. White Balance.
We don't have RAW and kelvin numbers don't appear on our video editing software (Pls don't flame me by telling me that I can use a RED camera and shoot in REDcode raw.)
The bride's room is tungsten light... whilst the living room is a greenish flourescent. At 6.30 am the light is a 1000 degrees cooler than "day-light" preset. All these are example of the WB nightmare.
Once the white balance is screwed, it is pretty much screwed. Videographers need a reliable source of grey/white to assure that colours are good and presentable. In a wedding, there is seldom sufficient time for this. Most AWB function of current video cameras is just like the D-SLR AWB function; pretty much as good as it can be, but unreliable.
How often do you see videos with bad WB at wedding dinners?
3. Speed of Delivery.
No need introduction to this point. Express highlights is the in thing now.
For D-SLR it is simple to demand an additional back-up camera, or even 3 bodies. Who can say they can bring 2 laptops on-location, 1 being the back-up?
Things are easier now with solid-state memory such as P2. But rendering still needs time.
Wedding video is extremely demanding in these aspects;
1. Flow of Events.
A good "take" or "scene" that the videographer shoots needs to be min. 3-4 seconds long with buffer for space to add transitions if required, and to ensure there is suffice length to fit the music.
A photographer will probably not need more than 1/60 of a second to seal a good shot. Especially photojournalistic pgs who are extremely quick to settle his shots, it may make the videographer seem overly commanding on the flow of events.
2. White Balance.
We don't have RAW and kelvin numbers don't appear on our video editing software (Pls don't flame me by telling me that I can use a RED camera and shoot in REDcode raw.)
The bride's room is tungsten light... whilst the living room is a greenish flourescent. At 6.30 am the light is a 1000 degrees cooler than "day-light" preset. All these are example of the WB nightmare.
Once the white balance is screwed, it is pretty much screwed. Videographers need a reliable source of grey/white to assure that colours are good and presentable. In a wedding, there is seldom sufficient time for this. Most AWB function of current video cameras is just like the D-SLR AWB function; pretty much as good as it can be, but unreliable.
How often do you see videos with bad WB at wedding dinners?
3. Speed of Delivery.
No need introduction to this point. Express highlights is the in thing now.
For D-SLR it is simple to demand an additional back-up camera, or even 3 bodies. Who can say they can bring 2 laptops on-location, 1 being the back-up?
Things are easier now with solid-state memory such as P2. But rendering still needs time.
Last edited:
- Status
