Are Wedding Shooters Filmmakers?

J

JRAnderson

Well-known member
Just curious to see how many wedding/event shooters are roaming DVXuser these days. Are there enough of us to make a home of our own here on the board? Jarred isn't sure, but suggested a test of the waters.

So, if I may, a roll call. Who's out there?

Maybe we can start of this gathering with a question (and a wink to Jarred):

Can wedding videographers justifiably be called "filmmakers"? Some could argue that because there is no script it would not appropriately fall into that category. Others, however, might say that like many documentaries a narrator isn't always necessary to tell a story.

Who wants to chime in?
 
I have shot many weddings and I think that people who have actually done this type of work will say that it doesn't get the respect that it deserves. Its very difficult to get shots that are extremely artistic when you can only have one take, all the while remaining somewhat in the background of the action.

That being said, I think that the term "filmmakers" applies to more than just shooting. Its about visual storytelling, which is done through shooting and editing. So I think that you can shoot a wedding and edit to a point where it could be considered a film. You don't need scripts, narrators, or actors for something to be considered a film, they are just simply tools to help tell a story better, but in the end result its all about telling a story.
 
exactly, just like I wouldn't call music video directors Filmmakers, even though I have the ought most respect for them and am trying to break into that field, it wouldn't occur to me to call them filmmakers
 
I think it's only a way of classifying someone and is completely subjective. I call everyone filmmakers because it's just easier for me :)
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
exactly, just like I wouldn't call music video directors Filmmakers, even though I have the ought most respect for them and am trying to break into that field, it wouldn't occur to me to call them filmmakers
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. I think the amount of creativity put into a well-done music video is definately worthy of being labled filmmaking. I've seen very little (not saying I haven't seen any) wedding footage that made me think...."geez, this guy needs to make movies." Alot of people go from music videos to feature films. I've never heard of a wedding videographer going into the movies.

This is not to put down people who shoot weddings, they are in a league of their own, I just wouldn't consider it a "filmmaking" league (at least with 95% of the stuff I've seen.)
 
better change change the name of this place to "The online community for videographers" since the dvx uses tapes instead of film.
 
I shoot weddings to pay the bills, and im not the only on.... and its awesome practice for all practical purposes, (i.e. how to work with people that are hard to work with, framing, effitiency, the list goes on).... i think a lot of filmmakers make wedding videos.... and i think that a good wedding video takes the same kind of directors instinct or skill, and can prove much more difficult in some aspects.
That being said, shooting a wedding is far from directing, and much less of a creative art than a documentary... or cerntainly film as a medium for storytelling.
Finally i think that having a section for wedding videographers on this site would be very useful.... so props to the idea.
 
johny_pablo said:
I shoot weddings to pay the bills, and im not the only one
Click to expand...

Same here. I shoot weddings to pay the bills, and I actually enjoy it, unlike a lot of others. I can get as creative as I want with the footage in post, and it's good practice all around.

I also consider myself a filmmaker, as a music video director, short film director/shooter, and whatever else I think "deserve's" to be seen by an audience, whether that be an audience of two, or an audience of 2000 (and hopefully more in the future).

I'm working on getting out of the wedding business, but I still see it as a great experience. At least I'm making money with my camera, and don't have to go to work for someone I don't like, doing something I don't want to do.

-brown
 
i shoot weddings, in the years past i've only done maybe two a year, now i'm doing 2 a month. they kinda suck doing sometimes but yes, it pays the bills. i already have a full time job at a tv station but i do like to be able to have some extra lute to throw down on expensive toys when i want. but yes, i feel its a part of film making.
 
It occured to me that it might be useful to see what wordsmiths have to say.

My Collegiate Websters: Filmmaker -- One who makes motion pictures.

Random House Unabridged -- Also called moviemaker; a producer or director of motion pictures, esp. one working in all phases of production.

American Heritage Dictionary -- One who directs and produces movies.

Seems like a pretty big tent.
 
I don't know why, but I just have absolutely no appeal to be a wedding videographer. I suppose that may change when I'm trying to "make it" and need the cash to flow...

Anyways, do I think they're filmmakers? I wouldn't classify them as filmmakers, even if they might be in a sense. I'd put them more under the classification of videographer or cameraman and editor. To me a filmmaker is someone who sets up the content to be filmed (or finds it like a documentary), films it, edits it, and then distributes it. When you make videos you're hired to film an event, like a cameraman would, you just happen to edit it as well, plus you're doing it for a client, not yourself or your producers.

But making a forum for wedding videographers would be a good idea. Or rather any event videographers. It's a technique all of it's own, sort of like docu's, but it's also working for a client and trying to give them what they want, rather than you capturing what you want.
 
Jon Starr said:
To me a filmmaker is someone who sets up the content to be filmed (or finds it like a documentary), films it, edits it, and then distributes it.
Click to expand...

So Speilburg isn't a filmmaker? Pretty sure he doesn't cut his own movies, he just supervises...and by that definition any number of master cinematographers aren't either ('cause they don't cut the movie), and a whole lot of directors and DPs and editors aren't filmmakers because the distribution company distributes it, not the director. And what's the difference between a producer and a client? They're both the ones paying (technically that's an executive producer, but I'm not quibbling).
 
HappyGobo said:
So Speilburg isn't a filmmaker? Pretty sure he doesn't cut his own movies, he just supervises...and by that definition any number of master cinematographers aren't either ('cause they don't cut the movie), and a whole lot of directors and DPs and editors aren't filmmakers because the distribution company distributes it, not the director. And what's the difference between a producer and a client? They're both the ones paying (technically that's an executive producer, but I'm not quibbling).
Click to expand...
I worded it wrong, I'm sorry. I just meant that you're somewhat in control, you're there for the process. But I don't think a client that hires you to shoot their event is the same as a producer. At least as a director you have control (or control with the producers) over the content of the film and you're there the whole, or most of the way.

Yes you have control over the final editing and what you shoot (somewhat), and I suppose you can argue that would make them a filmmaker, but, like I said, it's my opinion. You dont' agree with it then you don't agree with it. Doesn't mean they should get any less respect though. They are cameramen/editors. I'm sure they're filmmakers because they make or have made films on the side as well anyways.
 
I don't do weddings (though I would if the money was right), I was just playing devil's advocate. And one could argue that if a wedding was covered by a team of shooters with some camera rigs (a few glidecams and a jib maybe) and lit and edited with some skill, then that would be a well done wedding documentary worthy of being called a film. But most wedding video operations don't get paid enough to do all that and you get some cookie cutter videography. Even when you set out to make something good in the beginning, you develop a formula and maybe you get a little bit jaded...I could see it turning from play into work fairly quickly (speaking from the outside). Am I making sense here?
 
But they're making a product for a client looking for something specific. It's filming an event and cuting those shots together. They're making a memoire(sp?), a beautiful video of all their best moments to remember the wedding.

A docu is more you going into a wedding to film it for a purpose/goal, and that purpose/goal is up to you and your producers (if you have). You chose what to shoot, which weddings to go to, to shoot behind the scenes or just the cermony, etc...

This how it's a bit diff from a Docu, at least IMO.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm not getting this argument (loosely termed) If I show up to a wedding with a Nikon film camera or a nikon DSLR and document the event, am I or am I not A photographer? My feeling is, if you show up and shoot a wedding whether on mini dv or film, go back to the shop and edit the footage into a presentable piece of work, you are a film maker!
 
Starmapper said:
Maybe I'm not getting this argument (loosely termed) If I show up to a wedding with a Nikon film camera or a nikon DSLR and document the event, am I or am I not A photographer? My feeling is, if you show up and shoot a wedding whether on mini dv or film, go back to the shop and edit the footage into a presentable piece of work, you are a film maker!
Click to expand...
Like I said, it's my opinion. It's all on what people see as being a film maker. Yes you're a photographer when you shoot a wedding, but to me when you shoot and edit a wedding video, it's being a cameraman and editor. To me only directors and producers are "filmmakers", meaning you have control over the whole process. But once again, that's just me.
 
Of course wedding shooters are filmmakers. It appears that it's a common misconception that all wedding are the same and they aren't. Just because a shooters has a formula for delivering his product doesn't mean that he or she isn't a filmmaker. Every wedding that i shoot I approach from a filmmakers perspective. I always go to the wedding rehearsal so that i can block out my camera movement and shots. I also check the lighting and my frames.
Also truth be told I don't like the word filmmaker. I think it's actually misleading because I don't believe there is a such thing as a filmmaker. Due to the fact that it's such a huge collective effort there really isn't one person that does it all for the most part. You will never go on the movie set and say where is the filmmaker.
 
Last edited:
SilverWolf said:
Of course wedding shooters are filmmakers. It appears that it's a common misconception that all wedding are the same and they aren't. Just because a shooters has a formula for delivering his product doesn't mean that he or she isn't a filmmaker. Every wedding that i shoot I approach from a filmmakers perspective. I always go to the wedding rehearsal so that i can block out my camera movement and shots. I also check the lighting and my frames.
Also truth be told I don't like the word filmmaker. I think it's actually misleading because I don't believe there is a such thing as a filmmaker. Due to the fact that it's such a huge collective effort there really isn't one person that does it all for the most part. You will never go on the movie set and say where is the filmmaker.
Click to expand...

Alright, then maybe I'm wrong. Guess cause I've never done it...

But filmmaker is such a loose term, and people throw it around in different ways...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top