# Moving from videography and photography



## Matthew Craggs (Sep 24, 2007)

Greetings all,

First off, the standard forgive me if this is posted in the wrong place disclaimer applies.

I am a video guy and have spent the last couple of years shooting primarily weddings and working in television. I have always loved photography and am looking to start letting people pay me to take pictures. Yep, I'm that kind.

There are a number of reasons outside of my really, really enjoying taking pictures, like:

- considerable less post production time (for wedding productions a day is spent merely digitizing video and then another day to render the video to a MPEG to burn)

- cheaper equipment (for the price of one prosumer camcorder I can get two really good DSLR's, which is important to me because I have limited resources and have been a part of enough live video productions to know that it is essential to have back-ups)

- already have Adobe Photoshop and took number digital imaging courses in school. My skills are strong on that end.

- more opportunity for work (engagement shoots, models, and other non-wedding gigs)

The plan is to take what I have now - a Canon EOS 300d and a couple of cheap lenses - and take photos of everyone I know, and put a couple of classified ads in the paper and online asking for models in exchange for 8x10s, which in a University town that shouldn't be too hard.

Then, by next summer I will hopefully be able to make some money. As soon as I get some paid work the plan is to sink about maybe $5000-6000 into some new lenses, a 40D, and some lighting and backdrops. But I'm not spending a cent until I get some sort of paid work because I do have those cheap lenses and the 300D (and it's not the camera, but how you use it).

My question is: am I dumb for doing this? 

Have any of you moved from videography to photography? What sort of problems did you face?

What am I not considering? 

No, really, am I dumb for doing this?

I just have this feeling that there is some big hurdle to my plan that I'm not seeing because I have limited experience to the business side of photography. Any comments to bring me back down to earth are appreciated.

Many thanks, folks.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 24, 2007)

Welcome to the forum.

If you have been working weddings for a few years, then you probably know what they are all about.  They are once-in-a-life-time events, or they are supposed to be...so you have to be prepared and get it right.  

It might be a good idea to assist or shadow a wedding photographer that you know, on a couple of jobs.


----------



## Matthew Craggs (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks for the response, Mike.

I definately agree that shadowing a photographer is a great idea. Everytime I have shot a wedding I have kept a close eye on what the photographer has been doing. Both to learn about what goes into shooting a wedding, and to stay out of their way


----------



## elsaspet (Sep 24, 2007)

I'm not sure about the cheaper equipment thing........Remember a good lens will cost you 1500 bucks, and you will need a bag full of them, or actually, two of them if you work with a partner....which I really suggest.

My current talley:

8 cameras- 
(2) 20ds
(2) 30ds
(4) 5ds
(2) 85mm1.8
(2) 70-200 f.28
(1) 15 mm fish
(2) 35 mm 1.4
(1) 24-70 2.8
(1) 70-120 4
(7)580 flash units
(5) pocket wizards
(4) bogen pro stands
(2) 2 custom brackets and one stroboframe
(2) Manfroto Tripods
(1) Manfroto Monopod
(2) Photoflex strobelights
(1) Q Flash
(1) Boom Light
(2) Vid lights
(1) Light meter w/built in pocket wizard
(2) Photoflex 5in1 reflectors w/stands
100 gig in cards
Epson travel backup
Software: Ligtroom,
CaptureOne Pro, PS3, PS2 (for the programs that don't recognize PS3), YSI, Yervant Page Gallery, Painter, KK1,2 and 3, Graphic Authority 1, 2, 3 and Pro, Pixel Creator Pro, Painter, on and on and on and on.......


My point is......doing weddings is what you make of it.
I started out with a 20D and a few lenses. But don't get confused and think that photography is the easy way or cheaper way out. Fact is, it will most likely cost you twice as much, and you may well spend many more hours doing it.
But the good news is, if you do it right, you can make twice the money, and have much greater contact with your clients.

I'm not trying to talk you out of this. I just wanted to let you know that photography is in no way cheaper or easier.
Good luck no matter what you decide to do.
Hugs,
Cindy


----------



## Matthew Craggs (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks for the response, Cindy.

I realize that both disciplines require a subtantial financial investment. It's just that I look at a couple of comparisons to illustrate my point:

Decent prosumer camcorder - $4,000 - $5,000 without accessories, like bag, on camera lights, tripods, wide angle and telephoto adapters, etc
Decent camera body: $1,500

Wireless lav kit: at least $700 before considering at least two backup audio sources and shotgun mic which is at least $200
Camera Flash: $400 x2

(That's another reason I prefer photography. I am not an audio person and don't want to be)

Maybe I simply don't know how to price good photography equipment yet. It's just that starting from the ground up I would expect to spend about $20,000 on a wedding video setup, and about $10,000 on a photography setup. Is this an unreasonable estimate? I am quite confident in my video estimate as that is my background and I have done endless hours of research on the subject, but is my photography estimate unresonable?

Anyone should feel free to speak up. In my life I have admired the asthetics and technique of photography, not necessarily the tools used to create it. So if I'm confused about the price of these tools let me know.

As for the post production time, it takes me about 40-50 hours to edit a wedding video. If anyone wants to chime in with the amount of time it takes them to do photo post please do. With my experience doing graphic design and manipulating images I estimated about 30 hours, but I am more than willing to eat humble pie if it turns out everyone is spending more time on this task.

Also, after reading my initial post I want to make it clear that I don't view still photography as the cheap, easy brother of videography. I realize it takes an entirely different skill and entirely different mindset. I have great respect for both disciplines. I simply have more fun taking photos.

Also, just to clarify I'm not writing a cheque for all my gear yet. That is why I want to take a good 5 or 6 months practicing with what I have to see if I would like to go further. I'm not going to jump into any business because I think it is the easy route.


----------



## elsaspet (Sep 24, 2007)

Matthew Craggs said:


> Thanks for the response, Cindy.
> 
> I realize that both disciplines require a subtantial financial investment. It's just that I look at a couple of comparisons to illustrate my point:
> 
> ...


 
Hi Matt,
I know it can be confusing.
Say there are two of you. If you want to do it really right, you will need (4) 5d bodies. That's $13,000. Now you need some lenses to put on those suckers. $1500 each or more......some going as high as $2800. You have photoshop already, so you are good there. But you are going to need flashes too. 580 Canon Flash is $480 each if you buy them on sale. You have to mount them. The custom bracket is another $400 bucks. And how about that wizards. Put in another $500 or so. And these are the basics.
That's what I don't think a lot of people understand.
Yes, you can do it cheaper. You can buy at Rebel XTI, shoot alone with a kit lens, no flash and take perfectly fine photos. But to do it right, the stakes are substanually higher.

So, lets do a new talley:
2 5d
1 2800 lens
1 1500 lens
1 pocket wizard
2 58 flash

For this minimal amount of equipment, and ONLY the above equipment, you will need $13500 if you find everything on sale.


----------



## wildmaven (Sep 24, 2007)

What's a "Epson travel backup"??


----------



## elsaspet (Sep 24, 2007)

I'd have to find it to give you the exact info, and I'm not sure where the hubster put it......but basically it's a 40gig backup drive.  It's about the size of a lightmeter.  It's wonderful!


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 24, 2007)

You could trim that a little bit. 

Sub out the 5D cameras for 40Ds...that's a big savings for very little sacrifice.

Top quality lenses are great to have, and I would certainly recommend getting the best you can afford.  But you can get 90% of the performance of top lenses, for less than 50% of the price.  For example, the Canon 35mm F1.4 L, is the cat's meow...but the Sigma 30mm F1.4 is almost as good and it costs about 1/4 as much.  

You would probably be set with just two or three lenses.  A fast 'normal' zoom and a fast telephoto...then maybe add a very fast prime.  On a full frame (5D), the 24-70 F2.8 L and the 70-200 F2.8 L IS.  If on a crop sensor camera like the 40D, the switch the 27-70 to a 17-55 F2.8 IS...but keep the 70-200 F2.8 L IS.


----------



## elsaspet (Sep 24, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> You could trim that a little bit.
> 
> Sub out the 5D cameras for 40Ds...that's a big savings for very little sacrifice.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Mike,
Like I said,  you could do it with a 20D, a hot strobe and a 2.8 lens.......but unfortunately that can only take you so far.  Yeah, you can get places, but............


----------



## elsaspet (Sep 24, 2007)

I'm not a Sigma fan unfortunately.  I spend a LOT of time at this computer looking at various cameras and lenses as I'm the only processor for all the cameras including those of assistants, and there is a HUGE difference between the Sigma and the Canon.  I hate to be brand discriminory, but I hatehatehate the sigmas.  Not that there isn't other off brands that I like.  I just do not like any of the Sigmas.  They are WAY on the red side.
YMMV


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 24, 2007)

I agree, there may well come a point when the 20D, 30D & 40D line may not be enough...but as a start, they are great.  I would even argue that they (especially the 40D) would be good enough for 80-90% of wedding photographers.  

As for 2nd party lenses...I haven't tried them all (who really has) but yes, many of them do have different properties than Canon lenses...but even within the Canon family, there are many differences between lenses.  It's a personal preference as well.  What you call red, others might call 'warm'.  Besides, with the amount of editing you do, what's a small color tweak?  

Either way, equipment is only one part of the equation.  I'd rather hire a talented photographer with a cheap camera than a hack with $13000 worth of gear.  So get what you can afford and practice, practice, practice.


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Sep 24, 2007)

Matthew.....I concur wholeheartedly with Big Mike's assessment. Camera and gear choices are right on. 
In actuality, the hardware is relatively easy to define. It certainly doesn't have to be as expensive as the one outlined previously.

Getting into and learning the mechanics of photography (no matter gear choice) should be fairly smooth considering your Video background. Lighting and optic principals don't change.

The big hump is the business side of it all. when you are not shooting, you are promoting. Actually even when your shooting you are promoting. 
Dealing with people face to face isn't always easy for some. It is a very personal type of business. As Mike mentioned (and he is a pretty fair wedding shooter), this is an intensely emotional experience for those in and around the occasion.
Going just by the OP and having a humble attitude toward it all, I think your certainly a step or two ahead. Just be aware of the almost oversaturated market you are considering.

The best to ya' -Jon

P.S. - I started out in 16mm Cinematography then transitioned to Video.


----------



## elsaspet (Sep 24, 2007)

Ok guys.  Carry on.  Going from Video to Photo is a snap.  You can make 5000 a wedding with that rebel.  You just need the right 'tude.
Me bad.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 24, 2007)

Come on Cindy, you started with a 20D...didn't you?


----------



## elsaspet (Sep 24, 2007)

Yes, I did, but every dollar I earned, I spent on new stuff.  You have to remember my starting package was $500 bucks.  Now it's $3000.
It has to do with what you want out of life.  My normal gig now averages 4800.  Am I satisfied with that?  No.  I can do better.
Some of the coolest photos I've ever seen were by a Magnum photog with a cellphone.  Would I suggest using a cellphone for a wedding?  It's obvious that I would not.
The more you invest, the more professional your photos become.  The more professional you are, the more money you make.
For instance, with a 20d, I could take a killer shot, but I couldn't crop into it.  It didn't have enough pixels.  With a 5D, I can crop into one inch on a 18x24 camera rendered photo.  And it's just as sharp.
It's not that I'm some amazingly talented photographer.  It's that I have a lot of professional gear......all bought from the profits of the last wedding.
Now, here I am, competing with the tops photographers.  Three years ago, I wasn't a blip on the radar.
Yes........again, you can do $900 weddings for infinity.  And be perfectly happy doing them.  But it you take a few more bucks, invest them wisely, you can make several hundreds of thousands a year.
It's what you make it.


----------



## AprilRamone (Sep 24, 2007)

Hey Cindy,
I've been using a stroboframe, but I'm curious about your custom brackets.  Can you post a picture of them if you have the time?  
Where do you get them made?
Thanks
-April


----------



## JIP (Sep 24, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> Hi Matt,
> I know it can be confusing.
> Say there are two of you. If you want to do it really right, you will need (4) 5d bodies. That's $13,000. Now you need some lenses to put on those suckers. $1500 each or more......some going as high as $2800. You have photoshop already, so you are good there. But you are going to need flashes too. 580 Canon Flash is $480 each if you buy them on sale. You have to mount them. The custom bracket is another $400 bucks. And how about that wizards. Put in another $500 or so. And these are the basics.
> That's what I don't think a lot of people understand.
> ...


 
I have to totally agree with you here.  The op came on making a claim that just does not stand up to scrutiny.  I think alot of people do not understand what it takes to be a wedding photographer especially in the days of digital.  To follow your vein I will tally an, and this is the important part_ proper professional _camera setup but I will go with Nikon:


2 Nikon D300 bodies           $4199
4 Batteries                        $180
2 grips (D200 price)            $320
2 SB800 strobes                 $620
I will only do 1 set of lenses
17-55 2.8 Lens                 $1199
24-70 2.8 lens                  $1469
70-200 2.8 VR                  $1590 

Total                              $9577

Now I know this is more than alot of people think you need to get to shoot a wedding but honestly 2 bodies are a necessity and I have included a basic selection of lenses but I am just trying to illustrate what elsaspet is saying photgraphy is in no way a cheaper business to get into.  Remember I have not included memory cards, bags, accessory lighting, pocket wizards, etc. etc................... ad nauseum you can go on forever and if you get into it you just may but do not be deluded it is by no means cheap.  Oh yeah and what happens when you outgrow the D300 body and feel you need to step up to the real pro D3 at $4999.


----------



## JIP (Sep 24, 2007)

Oh yeah and I forgot the bracket............


----------



## elsaspet (Sep 25, 2007)

AprilRamone said:


> Hey Cindy,
> I've been using a stroboframe, but I'm curious about your custom brackets. Can you post a picture of them if you have the time?
> Where do you get them made?
> Thanks
> -April


 
Hi April,
Custom Bracket is a brand name.  They aren't really custom, although we have tricked ours out pretty good so we could get wizards on them.

www.custombracket.com

They are kinda "C" shaped, so instead of flipping the frame back and forth, you just move your camera within the "C" shaped guides.


----------



## elsaspet (Sep 25, 2007)

JIP said:


> Oh yeah and I forgot the bracket............


 
And I forgot the batteries for all that stuff.
We both forgot cards.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 25, 2007)

Point well taken...part of being a good professional is knowing to use top quality gear...and spending the money on it.  

Personally, I don't think there is a clear line in the sand though.  People can't say that a 30D or 40D isn't good enough...and then say that a 5D is good enough...who's to say.
A 1Ds Mk III user might say that a 5D just isn't good enough....someone who uses a Digital Hassy might say that anything less just isn't going to cut it...and laugh at someone with a mk III.
Maybe, that's a little dramatic...just to make a point.  The point is that there isn't a clear definition of what is good enough and what isn't.  

Taking into consideration that cost is certainly a factor is this case...I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 'prosumer cameras'...especially the 40D, which is said to have an image quality just about as good as a 5D...for what? half the price?  Not to mention a shooting speed that is more than twice as fast...if that is important to their style of shooting.

Anyway, to the O.P....these are all just opinions.  Consider what you must and make your own decision.  Buy the best you can afford and good luck to you.


----------



## elsaspet (Sep 25, 2007)

Exactly right Mike.  There is no clear answer as far as gear goes.  I mean, who'd not to say that we all need the Phase One 32 mpx camera back?

I guess my main point was to say that wedding photography is a substantial investment, and you get out of it, what you put into it.

My secondary point, was that photography vs. videography is actually a much LARGER investment, which I felt the OP had a confusion about.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 25, 2007)

> My secondary point, was that photography vs. videography is actually a much LARGER investment, which I felt the OP had a confusion about.


Well, I'm sure a top end videographer would say the exact same thing that you are saying about professional gear...and from what I know...top end video gear is much more expensive than still photography gear.  Like he said, a prosumer video camera is $5000, on it's own...not to mention back up and accesories etc.

I would say that photography is actually a less expensive investment...(if you are comparing professional equipment)....which is what he was saying.  And that is part of the reason why he wanted to try photography.

I think that your point...photography is more expensive than you might think...is valid and hits the nail on the head.


----------



## JIP (Sep 25, 2007)

I don't know the video guys I used to work with had 1 camera a few batteries and a light.  And this is what alot of the wedding video guys around here use http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._AGDVX100ABK1_AG_DVX100B_3CCD_24p_MiniDV.html $2995 a fur piece from a good body and a few lenses not to mention a backup.


----------



## Matthew Craggs (Sep 26, 2007)

Thank you all for the responses. The last thing I wanted this to turn into is a price of video gear vs. photo gear . In the end you can spend tens of thousands of dollars on both set up, and cost is certainly not the only reason I want to try my hand at photography. I also...

- just plain enjoy taking photos.
- hate audio.
- can't spend a guaranteed 40-50 hours on post production every time (although I'm sure a lot of photo gigs will require that much time in front of the computer)

Furthermore, to clarify, I have no intention of charging $3000 to shoot with my 300D (nor do I just want to shoot weddings). Cindy: The way you got into the business is the way I would like to. You charge a smaller amount for more prosumer equipment and then reinvest your earnings into more equipment. It's necessary for any business, start up or otherwise, to reinvest a substantial part of your earnings back into the business. 

In the end, the game plan is still the same. I'm going to practice hard over the next six months or so with what I do have. Family, friends, Craigslist postings asking for models, etc., before I make a decision to purchase or continue. I figure if I take photos every day for the next six months I should know by the end of that time if I want to invest more time and money into the job. I think that is the best way to go because if I'm sick of taking pictures after that time, this whole conversation is not relevant to myself anymore


----------



## JIP (Sep 27, 2007)

Matthew Craggs said:


> - cheaper equipment (for the price of one prosumer camcorder I can get two really good DSLR's, which is important to me because I have limited resources and have been a part of enough live video productions to know that it is essential to have back-ups)
> 
> .


This was one of your original reasons for making the jump. If you did not want people to answer your statement you should not have made it. I have made significant investments in photography gear and I hardly consider it cheap. And I have to tell you pp time is quite extensive. If you do it right and shoot at least up to 500 (most shoot lots more) images at a wedding and then factor in the comuter time plus ordering, making albums (if necesary), etc. pp time is wat more than you might think equal to ar mabye even more than doing a weding.


----------



## Matthew Craggs (Sep 28, 2007)

Yes, I understand that I shouldn't have made the statement if I didn't want people responding, it's just that it seemed like... ah hell, I don't know what it seemed like. 

Again, thank you everyone for your imput, but I do feel like a bit of an ass for whatever reason, and I do, believe it or not, understand your points so I feel like we can let this topic, as it pertains to my situation, die (unless others want to continue in a more general sense). 

- I am misunderstanding about the financial investment - a point I am very willing to concede although I do believe it is possible to start with about $10,000 and work your way up using earnings from previous gigs.

- I am misunderstanding about the amount of post production time that goes into photography - another point I am willing to concede although I would rather spend 40 hours in Photoshop and 10 hours ordering, organizing, delivering prints/photobooks than  5-10 hours digitizing and logging video, 30-40 hours in Avid, about 10 hours working with audio and 10 hours doing DVD design, burning, and rendering.

Once more, thank you all for your input. I feel about 100 times less prepared 100 times more inadequate than I did before, which is a good thing because I know more accurately where I am and where I have to go.


----------



## guitarkid (Oct 3, 2007)

i have been doing photography for years but just started offering it the last 2 years in the biz. we started with video production and audio engineering. i started out in video, like you, and to me, it is more of a hassle. if you shoot 10 hours of minidv, you have to capture 10 hours minidv before editing. with 1200 photos, it takes what....10 minutes to capture to the hard drive? that is the first thing i hated...the capturing. i started out with a 20D which i still have as a backup.  bought some sigma lenses since that is all i could afford.  bought a 30D with a couple first weddings i got.  bought a couple canon lenses, then strobe unit and couple backdrops, all my money went into the biz.  

if you are in a professional industry, it is what you make of it. i have a vocal mic in my studio that runs $2800. do i really need it? no. we really don't need anything but it sounds much better than an $800 mic, which sounds better than a $100 mic. recording software, drives, pc, compressors, rack units, amps, sound proofing, the list is way too long. 

long story short, i think you did a good thing by moving. i'm getting sick of video and the long tedious processes from start to finish.  we now offer that as an add-on. i'm sick of doing it so my partner handles all video edits while i handle all photography, audio engineering and mixing, client dealings, marketing, wedding albums, lab stuff, marketing, everything from start to finish except video. video is an add-on to many people. the church, hall and photography and i guess DJ are the most important. video for some reason has always been an afterthought. 

someone mentioned that videographers they worked with had a camera and a light. that's fine but i'm sure they weren't handling large jobs and if they were, they were limited. we have 4 dv cams running live sound off the mixing board at concert events, while capturing stereo audio to one of our DAT decks. meanwhile, i was running pro tools multitrack audio from the venue's soundboard to mix tracks later on with the artist. this is a huge ordeal and takes a lot of prep work in both pre and especially post production. 

regardless if it's audio, photo or video, the more you spend, the better it will look. another crazy passion of mine is guitars. do i need a $2000 guitar? nope. but after 17 years of playing you know what is good and what is not, what feels like firewood and what feels and sounds like art when you play it. could i play just as well on a $200 guitar? yeah, but the same with cameras....wouldn't be as good. my guitar rig for playing clubs easily reached $5000. 

by the way, i'm not rich, very far from it. i bust my arse and save my pennies and sink whatever money i make into gear. i have yet to pay myself yet.


----------



## JIP (Oct 4, 2007)

guitarkid said:


> i have been doing photography for years but just started offering it the last 2 years in the biz. we started with video production and audio engineering. i started out in video, like you, and to me, it is more of a hassle. if you shoot 10 hours of minidv, you have to capture 10 hours minidv before editing. with 1200 photos, it takes what....10 minutes to capture to the hard drive? that is the first thing i hated...the capturing. i started out with a 20D which i still have as a backup. bought some sigma lenses since that is all i could afford. bought a 30D with a couple first weddings i got. bought a couple canon lenses, then strobe unit and couple backdrops, all my money went into the biz.
> 
> if you are in a professional industry, it is what you make of it. i have a vocal mic in my studio that runs $2800. do i really need it? no. we really don't need anything but it sounds much better than an $800 mic, which sounds better than a $100 mic. recording software, drives, pc, compressors, rack units, amps, sound proofing, the list is way too long.
> 
> ...


I am not exactly sure what point you are trying to make.  The OP's original statement was that he wanted to go from wedding video to wedding still photography because it was cheaper to get started, easier to do pp, and there was more work.  I was simply trying to respond showing that still photography takes a significant investment in money and time and is by no means a "cheaper and easier" way out.


----------



## guitarkid (Oct 4, 2007)

i was just saying that things are as expensive as you make them. video can be 2 guys with a camera and a light or it can be rather intense, as with any profession. it sounded like someone was belittling video.  there is a lot more pre production work in video such as capturing video.  it's all real time.  that's all i was saying. i think it is a good thing to move over to it if you really enjoy it. and if you're going to do it, do it right. get the good stuff.


----------



## JIP (Oct 4, 2007)

And still photography can be 1 guy with a camera (actually 2 you need a backup) or it can be really intense so what's your point.


----------



## guitarkid (Oct 4, 2007)

dude just drop it. forget it.


----------



## JIP (Oct 6, 2007)

It's not my topic I just responed "Dude".


----------



## RyanLilly (Oct 7, 2007)

JIP said:


> I don't know the video guys I used to work with had 1 camera a few batteries and a light.  And this is what alot of the wedding video guys around here use http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._AGDVX100ABK1_AG_DVX100B_3CCD_24p_MiniDV.html $2995 a fur piece from a good body and a few lenses not to mention a backup.



I think that this just goes to show that many people, even some so called "pros", have no Idea what it takes too shoot a wedding,  Photo or Video.

I used to shoot wedding at my church. We would shoot  4-5 cameras All 3-ccd(regular DV when I was there, but went HD as soon as available), and audio from the feed churches mixer to a digital deck, and extra lavs for backup to a Camera. Some heavy duty bogen tripods and dollies, a few stationary cams and a few operators, among other things.
Went to a relatives,  wedding and the guy the there had one camera on a tripod that was so crappy that when he tried to roll it the legs would bend, and he would have to pick the whole thing up and carry it! And that was his only camera, he could not even edit those moves out because he had no other footage! And he was wearing a turquoise and pink wind breaker the whole time!

All things considered in this thread, I think that the OP is approaching this transition wisely and is headed in the right direction. 
Good luck.


----------



## JIP (Oct 7, 2007)

First of all I have been to some pretty high-end weddings and I have never seen anyone shooting video with more than 3 cameras.  But to follow your logic I know the setup you mentioned is the ideal 5 3ccd cameras running simultaneously like some kind of hollywood production.  Following that or not even that just a good high end setup can be as was alreay listed quite expensive and that is not even getting into the fantasy land setup of 5+Hd video cameras.


----------



## RyanLilly (Oct 7, 2007)

I'm not saying that you need 5 cams, actually I think that three would be quite sufficient, A couple of those were stationary to capture only specific things, such as facial expression during the vows, that were difficult to shoot in our church, and one just for a broad shot of the church, which was useful if you needed to cut away to cover a camera operators mistake.

 Really the vast majority of of the edits were taken from two cameras, because we only shot in our church the other cameras were added to for very specific purposes but would probably be completely unsanitary normally. and the fourth or fifth was usually for  hand held shots of guests coming in and hugging each other and other warm fuzzy guest shots before the wedding.


I think my point was that Wedding photo, or video can be as rigorous and as enjoyable as you make it. And there are two extremes here, The All-Out-Equipment-Extravaganza!, and "That guy in the Wind Breaker". I think that somewhere in between is a good place to begin.

P.S. Using HD right now is kind of a moot point because DVDs are SD and we still have to wait out, the Blue-Ray/HD-DVD format war. But Hey the Videographer who goes to all this trouble is the pastor of my church, and video is his passion...second to God of course :mrgreen:


----------



## JIP (Oct 7, 2007)

Well I am not sure what you are trying to say _I_was answering these reasons.  And this comes from someone who has invested a significant amount of money into photograpy.



Matthew Craggs said:


> Greetings all,
> 
> First off, the standard forgive me if this is posted in the wrong place disclaimer applies.
> 
> ...


----------

