Opinion: Hired a videographer, I thought he sucked. What do you think of footage?

S

Screenforme

Active member
Hey everyone,

I am posting this just to see what people think.
My bandmates hired a video person without my knowledge and the dude came to film a show. He didn't have his own camera and asked if he could use mine....
Regardless, The plan was to use some of this footage as our LIVE bits in a compilation video but, as a videographer myself, I found this footage to be garbage and unusuable, even only using short bursts/clips. Not looking for opinions on audio...The cost for this was $200.

I just wanted to get some opinions on it?

It is on my personal account, It is raw and long so feel free to just skim through. And, feel free to move thread if it should be elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXiIm4t8_PY

 
Last edited:
It depends...did you pay him for pro work or for just operating a camera. This is exactly what I do for a full time living. So my rig and experience is fairly expansive in this type of work. I think it comes down to the amount paid verses workload. Is it pro?...well, not so much, but that does not mean its disproportionate to the amount being paid for services. If you paid him a considerable amount of money for professional services...then it really comes into question. Personally, I would need more details before making any assumptions.

Not owning a camera is a pretty big red flag....unless it really was a shoestring budget and he just did not want to bring one out.
 
You're right, I'll add in the details of amount paid in the post, $200. The band was under the impression that he was a pro, not just some hobbyist. He calls himself a videographer and filmmaker...and gets paid for it, maybe not high...
Other details I'm missing in order to establish opinion?
 
Last edited:
Yea...$200 doesn't really hire much, if any, in the area I live. You would be lucky to get someone out with 0 gear. So for that....its appropriate. More so than this issue....I would have a talk with your band in regards to what you are trying to do....plan for it as a group....budget for it....research it.....and then do it right.


In this case, I see the fault as the band. The videographer gave you $200 worth of effort.

If I would advise....I would say....plan for a big gig....biggest you can.....bring as many people out....maybe even pay extras to be on site. Have a dedicated light crew....for cinema and live performance applications....nail your wardrobe, get a few top notch, proven cinematographers wiith real gear and track history....and a solid audio crew. Put the pre-pro work into it to make it right.

If you don't....you will be left with footage something like this....and is it the videographers fault....not so much. Its the company producing it...and in this case....that is your band.

Though to answer your initial question....the footage is not great...and others could have shot it better.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies, I do appreciate it, and the band advice. We've already had that chat.TBH they weren't expecting it to be the video production that you suggested.
You didn't really touch on usability. You don't think $200 for an hour of work should result in something usable or editable into something?
 
The footage is absolutely usable IF parts of it could be cut with other cams. With one cam, in my opinion, you have to favor continuity of quality over variety. In other words, if it's just one cam, you need footage that is stable with no slop. This has a lot of slop. It is boring to be static, but it's the only way to ensure that you are capturing all or at least large chunks of the performance in a usable way. So yes, I would be very disappointed in the results even though $200 is not a lot.

I've done a lot of live music event stuff, and the critical thing is to work backwards from the end goal. What did you want to get out of this? A 30 second promotional clip? An entire song? The whole show? I don't think this video is worthy of any of those, unfortunately.
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
Yea...$200 doesn't really hire much, if any, in the area I live. You would be lucky to get someone out with 0 gear. So for that....its appropriate. More so than this issue....I would have a talk with your band in regards to what you are trying to do....plan for it as a group....budget for it....research it.....and then do it right.


In this case, I see the fault as the band. The videographer gave you $200 worth of effort.

If I would advise....I would say....plan for a big gig....biggest you can.....bring as many people out....maybe even pay extras to be on site. Have a dedicated light crew....for cinema and live performance applications....nail your wardrobe, get a few top notch, proven cinematographers wiith real gear and track history....and a solid audio crew. Put the pre-pro work into it to make it right.

If you don't....you will be left with footage something like this....and is it the videographers fault....not so much. Its the company producing it...and in this case....that is your band.

Though to answer your initial question....the footage is not great...and others could have shot it better.
Click to expand...

Yes, the fault is the band, but mostly because it sounds like direction wasn't given nor goals discussed. That same camera with the same bad lighting would yield something at least usuable if he had simply thrown it on sticks from a decent angle. Even with zero pans, zoom, etc, it would still be better than what you got, and the person would have still been paid only $200.
 
Yes, I do. If he was only there for an hour...yea, you should be able to use some of the footage. If you paid him $200...he should be able to deliver to you some assets that you would feel comfortable using in a larger project. Of course everyone is at the mercy of the available quality of light and other production elements.

Was there any pre-production discussed with him....ie...types of shots wanted or needed....or was he just turned loose? A good approach, even in a quick simple shoot like this, would be to talk to him in advance and let him know what type of shots you guys would like to have. For example....make sure to get some nice close and medium shots. If the crowd is thin or room is boring....make the footage more abstract in nature....tighter....lens flares....angles....dont be afraid to get behind the drum kit....use blocking....get creative....ect.

So it may not be great for your purposes on this one. Moving forward....you could hire another person and give them enough direction so the know what is preferred. This helps so he or she is not walking in cold turkey....especially for genre specific music.

Also....send video example you like. This will inform shutter speed and things like that.
 
I mean I don't think it's any surprise that someone found a guy without a camera who was willing to take $200 and point the camera kind of in a direction (normally I'd say not owning a camera isn't a big deal but for an ultra low budget without knowing the person's work, it's kind of a red flag since it could just be a random guy who agreed to take $200). Sadly I've probably seen worse work that was paid more for, but that looks pretty bad. Clicking through it it just looks like there aren't any framed shots or intentional moves etc so it's probably a nightmare to use much of it. At least its mostly in focus and pointing in the right direction and has consistent exposure?

What is the question exactly? Clearly you could've gotten more for $200. You probably would be better off with a camera rolling locked off on a tripod. You should hire people who you trust and who do good work. There will always be people you can pay a little to shoot something but it's up to you to hire the right person. Unfortunately anyone can call themselves a videographer or filmmaker and get paid for it occasionally, but probably not often by the same client twice...
 
It is what it is.

I mean really, how much planning and effort went into this before the shoot?

You, a fellow band member didn't even know about it.

Take it for what it is, a learning experience.

Next time you will know better, and have a plan in place.

All the best!

Dave
 
Yeah - that wasn't good. We had volunteers at the community station I worked at over a decade ago who ate at the local homeless shelter that shot better video than that. Hopefully the lesson learned here is worth the $200.
 
Taking into account that there probably wasn't any prep, that the budget was low, that the guy basically just showed up and was handed a camera he potentially didn't know well: it was still crap.

I watched the first few seconds.. skipped around a bit... there might be something in there, but judging for what I saw I wouldn't count on it.

If he agrees to come out for that price and do the shoot… why not try to impress and make something decent since he's already there anyway?

Shooting a band on stage has got to be one of the more forgiving environments for unplanned shoots. Everyone is in one place. Often you get some exiting lighting. If someone does something cool, or you see a cool light effect—it's often repeatable, or it will occur in a similar fashion again in the same place.

I mean, it's not a bunch of pasty guys with ill fitting suits in a white room with cheap furniture and cables hanging here and there from cheap PC monitors that doesn't lead to anything...
 
Razz16mm said:
Did you edit it too? I would certainly consider that good value for the money. Much better than what the OP got.
Click to expand...

Thanks Razz, I did both the editing and shooting, arrived at the location 2hrs ahead of time to plan the shots (as much as I can anyways most was winging it) and grabbed a few shots of the club before anyone arrived.
 
That was really really bad. He clearly had no clue what he was doing. He's just whipping the camera around like a drunk kid with a smart phone.
And it's not helped that it was a horrible location for shooting with really bad lights etc. When I'm asked to shoot something in places where I know the lights are bad I usually advice them that it's not worth paying someone to film at that location and the money is better spent at some other occasion.
For live performances it's also important to know what you are shooting for. Will it be for a highlight clip or is it to be used from beginning to end? How you film for those two is vastly different. In your case that doesn't matter much as it's pretty useless for anything...

I have found that shooting live stage performances is very different to other stuff as well. Even reasonably decent camera men struggle with it if they've never done it before and/or if they don't know much about live performances in general.

But also, if you are a videographer and the band hires someone without asking you there seems to be some serious bad communication within the band as well.
 
When shooting live event I keep my camera rolling from the very first moment to the last, you never know what will happen. A bare minimum is two cameras so you can cut between framing changes. With only one camera (as someone said before me) I would just stick it on a tripod, frame and record without doing anything more.
In defend for this guy, maybe footage is not worth $200 but is (barely) acceptable- not as a whole piece but you could definitely cut a short 30-60 second piece from it.
 
Do you have studio quality (or garage band quality) recordings of your music? The raw footage isn't entertaining by itself. Bad sound, camera moves around a lot. In post you can make it watchable. If you have recordings, see if those sync with the live footage, you'll have better sound. Add some titles with the name of the band and band members and any other important information. If it doesn't sync, use the band's recordings as an underscore and make a montage of clips that cut to the music. Add the same titles and information. A highlight reel can be made out of it. You probably can't make a music video.

There's usable camera angles in there, and what's especially valuable is shots of the crowd, so you can cut away from the band. The footage is in focus and not shooting the ground the entire time. I wouldn't hire or pay the person again, but if you're a capable editor, you can salvage the footage yourself and save money and have a better result than keeping the raw footage.
 
I skimmed through the video... For me, I'd probably junk most of it... if not all of it...

I don't like the lighting... Some types of lights just look crappy... and violet is one such. Unless there was a major weirdness in the encoding, the entire clip looks mostly out of focus. Further, with the lens used, and the position of the camera at 'ground level' looking upwards... just doesn't yield much of a good look at all.

While not quite the same thing... when I was doing wedding work, I would bring a step ladder along, or find some higher vantage point for reception/dance shots... because floor level shots are pretty boring.

The lens is too long for most of the work, so one has a lot of hip/torso, but few 'full length' shots... hip/torso may work for belly dancers... but even then full length provides variety... but for a bunch of guys, and one gal in a band setting... yields very cluttered shots.

Handheld and much motion... I get motion sickness just watching films with such technique... I have been able to accommodate some amount of camera motion... but this I think is too much.

Then there's sound... basically one method is to use a pre-recorded song, and the band 'mimes' the song for the camera, or, if a live venue type, at least the band is recorded using standard audio recording equipment then the visuals and sound are sync'd together.

Some how I don't think a video promo for a band will be well received if the camera track is used... or you make a silent movie...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top