Wedding and Event Videographers, need some advice

Blackout said:
swyzlstyx said:
A$650 camera that pays for itself in 3 hours:
www.houstonpallet.com


All of those shots were of the ceremony with plenty of light and it looks like he was using other lenses than the kit as well.

The kit lens indoors during reception, cake cutting, bouquet toss and all that jazz SUCKS.
Click to expand...

For sure, just about all the reception action shots are with the 20mm. For me as a wedding videographer, that lens is pretty much the only reason to buy a GH1. With that lens it rocks at receptions, otherwise you're better off with a regular camcorder, IMHO.

One other neat thing about shooting weddings with the GH1: I've started getting all the obligatory static "detail" shots (venue, cakes, flowers, all that junk) by simply taking pictures. Then I can just drop them on the timeline, where I have Vegas set to display them for 6 seconds each (for example) and automatically crossfade them for 1 second. Then you can do pans/zooms on them if you want, without losing any HD resolution whatsoever...and they look way better than getting those shots with video. I fully implemented this tactic at my wedding this past weekend, and will have the "highlights" up in about 3 hours with the photos in it. I've already finished the highlights, and the fully edited 2-hours long version. Blu-Ray and DVD are being burned right now, and the B&G will watch their video when they get home from the honeymoon. I'm ALL about efficiency, and the GH1 does help in this regard. :D

For the OP thinking of using this for weddings with the 14-140, you'll also want the Lumix 45-200mm. It's equally crappy in low light, but it will give you the extra zoom reach similar to a camcorder, for church weddings when you're forced to shoot from the back or balcony. It's only $259. But then it's 45mm at the wide end, so you'll want to pick up a 2nd GH1 for a wide shot...so there's another $650. :D Hey, it's only money.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/588078-REG/Panasonic_H_FS045200_45_200mm_f_4_5_6_G_Vario.html
Click to expand...
 
I've been shooting weddings for about 8 years professionally and the gh1's i bought have been game changers.

Now don't get me wrong i love me some shallow DOF for pulling the viewers attention to the subject (or blurring out the ugly drop celling as is sometimes necessary) but the biggest deal is Low light. Not with the kit lens (though if your outdoors and you have the light it is an excellent lens provided you don't need to zoom in too far as the lens is a wee short compared to a video camera.) but when things get dark i put the aforementioned 20 f/1.7 in my wife's hands for all the wide angles and i shoot with a ~1972 manual Minolta 50mm f/1.4 for all the closeups. I really don't think there is much you cant shoot with these two lenses together.



but i think the biggest changes have been more because of the limitations of the camera than do to its strengths. I think over the years I got a little complacent with my shooting. my clients where very happy and i was getting the job done so it was all good ya know. Then i switched to the GH1 and wow, it was back to the drawing board. to make a long story short i have rediscovered this crazy little contraption from my mass com 101 class called ......a tripod...I know crazy right.

and not just for my gh1, but even my HMC150 (great video camera right) i shoot on sticks. i come home with more usable footage, and the quality of my work went up overnight. also i had to take extra steps to get good audio, and you guessed it, i got better audio. i also stopped doing on camera zooms because you cant with a prime lens right, so now i just don't do them anymore, and i don't want to as i realized now it was a cheap way to add motion to a boring shot. I'm still working on the coming home with more footage than i need but overall the GH1 has done way more for my work than any other single tool.


i cant wait for the GH2 as i shoot 1080 24p and i cant wait for the native 24p and 24mbs

(and i think someone else mentioned the didn't hack their camera) i'm with ya, one wright error is one too many.

hope thats usefull
john
 
I hate weddings.... I used to do them.... to me... the time investment and massive amount of footage to deal with and editing do not equal $1000.

I did a cheapy wedding for $500 for a friend of a friend with two GH1s.. one had the 20mm and one had the kit. Got about 4 hours total footage..... told her I wasn't going to edit for that price.. just dumped it onto a DL dvd and a blu-ray with masters so if someone wanted to edit it they could later.

They were overjoyed at the quality... the went cheapy with their photographers and their wedding pics look crappy... the video came out great.. I did a lot of tear jerker interviews with the 20 mm lens and super shallow dof. Since I am so close with that lens, the on cam mic was fine and loud and clear.


Anyway.. few weeks later a friend calls of hers and said they loved the footage and to please do her wedding... I just threw prices out high because honestly.. again I don't enjoy weddings I really didn't want to do it.... I make 3K on a commercial or music vid shoot for an easy 5 minute edit.

So I said $1200 for just coverage.. no edit.. $3000 for two camera and a nice edit.. $7000 for a full masterpiece documentary film on how you met, and I will edit it together and have a short 15 minute film showing some highlights of your ceremony and some interviews during dinner on an HD projector.


I seriously just... pulled that out of my bum... and she's like "you ca do that"

Oh yes it's the latest and absolutely spledid. The crowd will be in tears and laughter. Imagine.. your own movie on your own wedding day... for a measly $7000

she went for it... the high price.. I almost shat myself...

So you never know... Now I'm just gonna buy a better laptop so i can pull off what I say. Allready got the epson projector and the gh13 footage of of it is absolutely mind warpingly stunning.
 
So Blackout, I'm gonna send you some links to event stuff i've shot, or actually, will just post them here. Cause, I'm wondering how much I should charge, considering what other videographers get away with charging. But my usual set up for weddings, at this point, is

GH1 +50mm 1.4 and 28mm 2.8
Canon HV30 +wide angle lens + Rode Video Mic
Tascam DR-07 + Juicedlink + Rode NTG2.
5 hr shoot. (Ceremony + Reception)
2 hr DVD
5-10min. music montage
so 2 Cameras + 2 Cameramen
Glidecam

Again of course, there's the level of skill involved in executing all of this. Anyway, I'm thinking for me, this is worth at least $500. But i guess i'm asking, what you think all this is worth? ( I realize you personally are charging more).
 
d1rockwild said:
...Again of course, there's the level of skill involved in executing all of this. Anyway, I'm thinking for me, this is worth at least $500. But i guess i'm asking, what you think all this is worth? ( I realize you personally are charging more).
Click to expand...


That's the funny thing about the wedding business whether you're a videographer, a photog, a DJ, a coord, etc...if you're not making your living doing it full time, then you can charge as much as you want....regardless of skill level or experience. Do a Google search for videographers in your area, look at their samples, and it will tell you a lot.

So even if you shoot one wedding per year, you can charge $7000...and eventually someone will buy it. The high price will give you perceived value...no matter how bad (or great) your work is. There's no reason to low-ball if you're doing them part-time, and are confident you are worth it.

How much you can charge for weddings as a full time career will also vary greatly depending on where you live. This website can give you some perspective: http://www.costofwedding.com/

Good luck!
 
Thanks for the link, and the insight! Yeah I live in North Hollywood, CA and apparently, the average couple pays $1,044 - $1,740 for a videographer....Definitely reconsidering...
 
swyzlstyx said:
That's the funny thing about the wedding business whether you're a videographer, a photog, a DJ, a coord, etc...if you're not making your living doing it full time, then you can charge as much as you want....regardless of skill level or experience. Do a Google search for videographers in your area, look at their samples, and it will tell you a lot.

So even if you shoot one wedding per year, you can charge $7000...and eventually someone will buy it. The high price will give you perceived value...no matter how bad (or great) your work is. There's no reason to low-ball if you're doing them part-time, and are confident you are worth it.

How much you can charge for weddings as a full time career will also vary greatly depending on where you live. This website can give you some perspective: http://www.costofwedding.com/

Good luck!
Click to expand...

The Wife has pretty much exited the Wedding Biz, because there are so many 'non-pros' who will offer 'incredibly' low prices, and so there is no real profit, unless you match. And the Wife 'refused' to give less than a 12 hour day... The last weddings she did were between $7-10K and were 'offshore' destination weddings.

Before the DotCom Bust, we got most of our clients from 'upscale young professional couples', who would be paying for their own wedding, with little or no help from 'mom & dad', and so made aesthetic choices based on their own likings... after the Bust, many of the potential couples we saw at shows, looked to be 15... and had a penny pinching mother in tow... but basically the client pool we had been selling to, pretty much 'dried' up.

We also started to move to do more seminars on photo techniques rather than 'sell' to wedding customers.
 
I'm not sure how costofwedding.com figures out there stats, but i think they are super low ball in my area.

"On average, couples that live in or travel to Pasadena, CA spend between $2,136 and $3,560 total for Photography & Video"

I could maybe see photography OR video but certainly not both.
 
I see that people are saying that the 14-140 lens is too slow for wedding receptions. But what about the 14-42 on the new GH2? Looks to be effectively at least a stop faster than the GH1 because you can set a higher ISO and get clean results, and the teleconversion function should mean the short zoom is long enough. I'm about ready to migrate from the DVX-100A to the GH2, but most of the time it's only me shooting and I can't see having no zoom in this kind of situation. Also, I would think that if the kit zoom is still too slow, the 14mm pancake would be more useful than the 20mm, because of the teleconversion function. Wouldn't f2.5 be fast enough? Or, does anyone know of a f2.8 or faster short zoom I could use with the GH2? (Remembering that the teleconversion function allows you to use many c-mount lenses without vignetting..)
 
I would NEVER EVER EVER want to do weddings full time. I did it for a little while with a friend while in collage and it was miserable and we were shooting DV and everyone was low balling each other and giving someone a DVD was a NEW thing worth lots of $$$ cause no DVD authoring systems worked correctly.

In my eyes.... I see it as a breakdown of my equipment and my skill and my time. I value myself very highly and I know I can make things look good. To me... $500 to bring out all that crap and do a wedding is a waste of your time..... but then again I don't know your market. I am in NYC where people will spend $10,000 on video & the DJ for a sweet 16 party, yet at the same time craigslist is filled with people trying to get you to work for free AND bring your equipment!!?!?!? BITE ME! Mandy.com has also turned into a cesspool.

I would rather have far less clients in the high end than far more clients in the low end. People who have the $$$ who like your work don't bicker and annoy you - they trust your skill and unless there is REALLY an issue I find they leave you alone.

$500 clients and under want spielburg / lucasfilm quality and will send you endless lists of revisions and notes and annoy the hell out of you for something they are not even begining to pay you the correct amount for. It's because to them, with very little money... $500 IS $10,000. IN THEIR WORLD. Not in mine.

Seriously - screw low end clients. Let them get their friend to tape their wedding or youtube video.

My market is HIGH END indie film making / commercials / music vids / industrials at lower prices WAY lower than what huge studios charge. So you could say I am the HIGH END of the low end. It's a new ballgame with these cameras.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top