I’ve decided to enrol in KDP Select which gives me some promotional options including making the book available for FREE for 5 days.
So that’s what I’m going to do.
I’m doing it for two reasons.
I’m locked into KDP select for 90 days during which period the book can only be available on Kindle. So that gives me a sort of deadline for making the book available in soft cover and putting it on other platforms. I can’t promise it, but it’s a good target for me because I’m going to be pretty busy before then anyway. Plan is to update it and make it available in hardcover next fall.
Though the book has sold a few hundreds copies, it’s only gotten about a little over 30 reviews between the UK and US markets. They’re all good reviews, but I’d like to see a lot more reviews.
The Free Download Offer is NOW LIVE on Amazon and runs through Sunday.
I hope that most of my subscribers here who don’t have it yet will take the opportunity to download it.
In exchange I have a humble request: Please review it on the Amazon page once you’ve read it.
As a 30 year career cameraman, I thought I’d share a few thoughts on camerawork for the one-man-band videographers and small video production companies out there.
It’s a many-faceted subject, but like any subject, it has fundamental rules. And while this isn’t meant to be a dissertation on the rules, I thought I mention one that probably isn’t written anywhere anyway as a foundation for my comments, and that is: the purpose of camerawork is to forward the message of the script or production (and that goes for every other department–sets, props, costumes, make-up, lighting, sound, music, editing, etc.).
The corollary might be: The purpose of camerawork isn’t to call attention to the camera or cameraman.
That said, there are probably few camera support systems I haven’t extensively used in both film and video production–from geared heads, the most expensive fluid heads and tripods, dollies, cranes, camera cars and steadicam. But I used them toward contributing to the overall message of the scene.
In the mid-90s I changed over to video, traveling the world in small teams of 2 or 3, self included, with an 18 pound Sony Betacam. The work was fast and often “ninja style”. Little preps, lots of thinking on one’s feet. My biggest impediment annoyance? Tripods.
So early on I ditched that $7,000 carbon fiber tripod with the Sachler head for everything except sit-down interviews and I learned to do everything hand-held. Not “shakey-cam”, just a nice, steady hand-held. I’d prop that big Sony on my foot, on the ground, on a ledge, on my knee, hip or shoulder, lean against a pole or fence or building or sit it on a small bean bag I carried and shot stuff that few ever realized was hand-held.
But the main point was, I was able to shoot un-impeded. I didn’t miss those fleeting shots on location because I was setting up a tripod and introverted into my equipment.
Then came the digital revolution.
And now most of the cameras we used have built-in stabilization and most of the editing programs we use have camera stabilizer programs to boot.
Better still, the cameras themselves are light-weight with rotatable flip-out monitor screens. What more can you ask for?!
Ok, so now let’s re-visit that fundamental above about the purpose of camerawork.
Camerawork (or lighting or editing or any of those other departments mentioned) is good when it involves the audience in the story; when it helps to impart mood or emotion or direct attention.
And, (corollary), these things are bad when they call attention to themselves, or worse when they call attention to the operator showing off his technical prowess.
In fact my view regarding camerawork had always been that it’s best when it’s “invisible”–when it seamlessly becomes the eye of the audience.
That doesn’t necessarily mean perfect camerawork. It just means appropriate to and not distracting from the message.
It’s quite alright if someone after the show remarks that the cinematography was excellent, but by that they generally mean that everything contributed to the message or story and they were wowed by it all, not distracted or knocked out of the show by it.
Don’t be fooled into the notion that to appear “professional” you’ve got to have all these cool rigs and techniques. You don’t even need it to impart a “cinematic” look.
Think about all the lost opportunities to catch snippets of life and reaction at a wedding or great B roll of people working at their jobs in the office or on an industrial site while you were busy setting up that fancy shot. Instead keep your attention outward. Be invisible. Catch the stuff that only happens when no one thinks you’re watching.
Get your technical expertise up as high as you can get it without losing site of why you’re there.
I’m not saying get rid of all your cool stuff and I’m not saying don’t buy it. Just don’t get the notion that you need it to be professional. Far more important is obtaining total command over your camera so that it becomes an extension of your eye which is always outward looking, and then with it you capture what you came for better than your client ever expected.
Message is senior to technical rendition. In fact it trumps it.
If you capture something in a way that screams the message or mood or emotion, it will resonate with the audience even if faulty. They didn’t come there to watch and critique your camerawork or technique (unless that’s what your video message is about!).
My two cents.
UPDATE: While this was the subject of my last post, it occurred to me that it’s, at least, a current sample of an 11 minute video that’s entirely hand-held except for the sit-down interview (as all my videos are , to be honest). I link to it here as, unlike most of the corporate and wedding videos I do, I think it would be of interest to anyone. It’s a mini-doc on the making of a bronze statue by my wife, international sculptor Laury Dizengremel:
I’m also chuffed that people have started subscribing to this blog. I’ve just added share buttons to the articles, so please share as you see fit.
I called it “Warts n All” because I did this one 100% solo without the benefit of moral support from my assistant/model Gemma. But also I demonstrate and discuss color temperature errors.
For you Americans: “Warts n All” is an English expression that’s sort of self explanatory. So is “chuffed”. The English have a way with expressions that make no sense on the face of it until you hear them in context and suddenly they make total sense. (I live in England)
Interestingly, even though there are more expenses involved with wedding video production, rates for a good wedding video track pretty closely with good photography.
The reason a perception exists that wedding videos should be cheaper than photography is that there is a bigger glut of new videographers out there than there are new photographers.
To make it in photography, one generally needs some training background as well as a lot of experience. And the cost of cameras and lenses used by good photographers is relatively high.
Yet somehow newcomers to video feel they can get away with little training or experience. HD video cameras can be obtained for much less than the cost of a quality SLR, and many editing programs (such as iMovie) are free.
This is the YouTube generation and many of these new videographers are simply from the School of YouTube. And it’s not a very good school.
Anyway, let’s get back to costs.
Costs and Quality
In both videography and photography, you can consider that there are broadly 5 different classes of product available:
(the following rates are summarized arbitrarily from a search of websites and blogs on the subject)
1) FREE (Uncle Joe films or photographs your wedding).
2) BASIC (generally new, un-seasoned and unestablished videographers and photographers establishing their portfolio). Rates: £350-£550
3) PROFESSIONAL QUALITY. Trained and experienced professionals who know what they’re doing and can competently produce a quality product that won’t disappoint. Rates: £650-£1100
4) TOP PROFESSIONAL QUALITY. Two factors influence this category: 1) specialized expertise gained from long experience in a particular genre, 2) equipment. By equipment is meant not only top quality cameras, but specialized camera support systems similar to that used in Theatrical Film productions. Rates: £1200-£2500
5) UBER PROFESSIONAL QUALITY. This refers to famous photographers who can charge whatever they want (typically in the 10s of thousands of pounds) and who are booked solid years in advance. I’ve not yet heard of videographers having achieved this status, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
The Difference Between Videography and Photography
There is a difference. I say that because some videographers in the BASIC category as well as the PROFESSIONAL QUALITY category spend too much screen time shooting inanimate objects which they must think is “arty” or something.
Let the photographers do that.
Video is about capturing motion and telling a story.
And the fundamental conventions of that subject have been developed over the last 100 years. There are lots of books and texts on the subject and whatever has been written about cinematography is equally applicable to videography. It’s simply a different medium.
To give a perfect illustration of what I mean, please click on the video below. You don’t have to watch the whole thing. Just watch the FIRST SHOT and see the choreography of motion and emotion that unfolds in the first 20 seconds.
That’s video.
And that’s the sort of thing a good videographer captures and puts into your wedding video.
A photograph can’t do that.
So What About Video Costs?
I mentioned above that more expenses are involved with video. If nothing else, those costs involve the hiring or paying of additional cameramen.
You simply can not produce a professional film of a live event with a single camera. That’s what Uncle Joe can do (bless him). He’ll have to be zooming in and out and all over the place to get everything and it will make you dizzy. And he’ll miss half of it in the process.
In the PROFESSIONAL QUALITY category you will generally find that the company will provide at least two cameramen. That’s bare minimum. Better still is two cameramen and a 3rd unmanned camera shooting a wide shot of the church or ceremony.
Now assuming one camera is in a fixed position and assigned to the actual ceremony full time, the second cameraman is free to shoot alternate angles of the ceremony, shoot from 2 or 3 different positions in the venue to provide different viewpoints, and also shots of various of your family and guests. All that, done to a plan based on having attended the rehearsal, and with the footage from the unmanned 3rd camera, it is possible to produce a very professional video edit.
So, for about the same cost as a professional photographer, a professional videographer will automatically also be incurring the costs of at least one if not two additional cameramen.
Then to produce the video, he will have to import and synchronize as much as 4-5 hours of video (or more), in addition to separate digital audio recordings from devices placed on the groom or pastor (or both) and often one at the podium where speeches are made. Then he has to organize all of it in the editing program (electronically label everything) so it can be found when needed in the edit. Once edited, the sound has to be mixed, music added, titles, etc. And this generally takes about a week full time for a given wedding.
You can start to see that at a rate of £950, with cameramen expenses taken out, the videographer is making probably less than £100/day to produce a wedding video.
And this is assuming that it is a professional who will go the extra mile to make sure it is something you will love and he will be proud of–as opposed to some sort of assembly line throw-it-together edit which wouldn’t be professional anyway.
A Little Story
I was actually prompted to write this article after a recent series of emails with a prospective client, a lovely girl who is trying to nail down all the major vendors for her wedding next year.
I wasn’t able to come down to her budgeted cost. She was so persistent that I almost considered a compromise, but first asked her where the wedding was to take place. It turns out to be a huge beautiful church, almost a small cathedral.
I knew at once that I’d need a 3rd manned camera during the ceremony and told her so.
She protested, explaining that there were only 130 guests and that the wedding was to be held in a certain portion of the church.
Then I realized what she didn’t understand.
It wasn’t me trying to jack up the price.
It was me knowing by long experience that in a large beautiful venue like that, you can not cover it with one fixed camera on the ceremony (which is a must!) and only one other to shoot the various angles around the church (from the back to the front, from the front toward the back, audience shots, family shots, bridal entrance, etc. One guy running around like a maniac trying to be in all the right places at the right time during a fast moving ceremony 1) couldn’t do it, 1) would be a distraction.
You split the task between two cameraman who can each have one or two different spots to shoot from at different times while still giving full coverage from various angles of the ceremony itself. And its’ all done according to shoot plan which is worked out during the rehearsal which is attended by the primary cameraman.
You can get away with two cameramen in a typical smaller church or venue, but in a large one with scope and grandeur, you’d be silly to not have at least 3 cameramen in addition to unmanned cameras.
Look at it this way: The location you’ve chosen is obviously an important and significant part of this very special day. You’ll expect it to feature as the backdrop to your wedding. Yet you’d be disappointed if so much time was spent on the church that you couldn’t see yourselves during the ceremony, and you’d be disappointed if so much footage was on the ceremony or flower arrangements that you never get to see the church, and you’d be very disappointed if the ceremony footage was always the same camera constantly zooming in and out on you….
The art of cinematography and videography has much to do with the seamless integration of multiple viewpoints from multiple cameras. Two cameras can be made to look like 4 or 5 cameras if one has the freedom to change position. Three cameras can be made to look like 6 or 8 when two have the freedom to change position.
A good editor puts it all together so seamlessly you’re not even aware of the cameras. Instead you’re given the best possible opportunity to re-experience the event.
And a good videographer will automatically do all this without you’re having to ask.
So in considering costs, don’t expect a professional video for less than £650 which is probably border-line for professional quality anyway.
And don’t expect one if the videographer only uses one manned camera.
And don’t use price as the only gauge. Look at their work!
Are they being glorified still photographers or calling attention to their marvelous qualities with fancy camerawork,
or are they capturing the essence of the wedding, cherished moments and emotions that bring tears to your eyes every time you watch?
Is the editing style seamless (you don’t even notice it because it flows so smoothly from one shot to the next) or is it distracting with dated electronic transitions and effects?
You do get what you pay for. But just like anything else, there are those who will charge you more than they’re product is worth.
You’ll know by their samples if they are good enough for your wedding.
Recently a colleague at the IOV (Institute of Videographers) requested a critique of some wedding videos. My reply could be of interest to those seeking wedding videographers
I thought I’d reply privately as “constructive criticism” can sometimes draw in a gang-bang of irrelevant comments on forums.
I watched the video you linked to and then watched half of the one on the home page of your site.
It looks like you’ve done quite a few wedding videos! So don’t think you have it all wrong.
I’ve never been influenced by other wedding videos I’ve seen particularly. My background and training is in cinematography and the disciplines of good story telling along with about 6 years of video documentary work and the need there to move in and out quick while thinking on your feet.
But my approach still goes back to the basics of cinematography. “Videography” is not really different, as it’s just a different medium, but I believe it has largely been influenced by the “MTV” age and also by a plethora of would-be movie-makers who, owing to the relative low cost of video equipment and editing programs, launch themselves into the field with no schooling except what they’ve seen on MTV or YouTube, etc. Their approach, therefore, can be a jumble of “gimmicky” shots edited with no sense and covered up with pointless electronic effects offered up by their editing programs.
I wrote a couple of related articles on my blog some time ago I’d like you to read:
Anyway I have only two observations that might be helpful, beyond what you may agree with or not in the two articles I wrote inasmuch as they may also be helpful to you.
First is that I see a tendency to record on video what is normally in the purview of wedding photographers.
Wedding photographers normally do all the “conventions”–photographing details and doing all the usual posed shots of the couple and entourage, etc. I wouldn’t mix that up with doing video of the same or similar material.
Video is not really a glorified still photograph.
Now don’t get me wrong. It’s not that you shouldn’t shoot these various set-ups as they are happening. I shoot everything–or as much as I can. It’s more because of the documentary aspect–meaning, one shoots as much as one can during a live event just to have the material to cover the edit. It doesn’t mean that you necessarily have to use these things, but your purpose for using them is different than the purpose of the still photographer.
Now let’s hold that thought for a minute…
My view of the end product of a wedding video is that it should distill down the essences of the event and meld together memorable images (memories) in an artistic fashion such that anyone watching it (even just Joe Blow off the street) would enjoy and be moved by it. But more importantly, the couple and their friends will want to watch it over and over and over again and experience the emotion again and again.
How long should it be? Well, that depends on the wedding and any particular requests of the couple. But I’d say even the grandest events in all aspects can be edited down to 30 minutes, more or less. Ironically it takes much longer to do that than to just put it all in there, but will they want to watch a 60 minute or 90 minute pure record of the event with a few cutesy shots over and over again? I doubt it. Twice maybe. Friends and family, once.
It should have emotional impact and should present what they want to see or remember, not what the cameraman thinks is cool.
Along those lines, you know that many more moments than they will ever know which are recorded on your tape, are not really what they want to see or remember.
Sometimes it’s fleeting expressions, nervous gestures, or awkward stumbles and other things–right on down to the obvious (scratching an itch or whatever).
For example, in one of the two I watched, the groom really stumbled badly on part of the vows. While they might socially laugh about that, you must know that it’s really something that makes the groom cringe and which could make the bride “wonder”. Those kind of things, wherever possible, I would cut out.
But it goes back to creating a moving montage of wonderful and poignant memories.
Part of that is “who was there”. So going back to shooting photographer set-ups, I tend to use them to get close shots of the people, or two-shots or three-shots where they are interacting, for the purpose of including faces in the video I may have not gotten otherwise. And I usually do all that kind of stuff in slow motion to their chosen song. That’s just my approach–the ceremony (or the essential parts of it) real time and most of the rest in slow motion montages interspersed with any necessary real-time footage such as speeches, or highlights from speeches.
But the reason I do it that way is to create a piece that they will want to watch over and over because it’s got so many memories compacted into a short space.
Which brings me to a second point. I feel that your shots go by too quickly. You’re editing nicely to the tempo of the songs, but, for the most part, you don’t need to cut on every beat. What happens there is that it’s all going by too quickly in terms of those memories they’d want to savor. It’s a subtle point, but just a bit too fast to allow the various bits to be soaked in.
I personally never stage anything. I prefer to try to capture as many good candid moments as possible while being as invisible as possible. That way they’re seeing themselves as they’ve never seen themselves before. If they’ve posed something, they’re not seeing anything they don’t already know.
However, you have some beautiful shots there–walking in the woods, etc. So your eye is good–and I’m not saying to never do that. I’m just saying, consider using that eye more to capture moments without them ever knowing they were captured–and those moments will have a lot more emotional impact for them.
Again, it’s all about presenting an emotional memory package to those who want to share or re-experience the memories. And when you accomplish that well, it will always exceed their expectations and they will always tell you so and you will know that they really mean it. And that, I feel, is the end product one should go for.
The Video Whisperer 