(Closed) No photographer, only video?

posted 5 years ago in Photos/Videos
  • poll: Should we get:
    Videographer only : (1 votes)
    5 %
    Photographer only : (13 votes)
    68 %
    Both cheap, affordable (not good quality) video and photo : (5 votes)
    26 %
  • Post # 3
    1314 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: May 2006

    @RP7:  Not sure what you’ve heard about this, but there is a tremendous dip in resolution from still images taken from video sources (even HD).  I’m not discouraging you from going an all video route, but you are in for major disappointment if you think you will be able to make quality prints from video footage.  That being said you might try to find a fusion photo/video person that does both.  A lot of videographers now use DSLRs to do video on, which makes switching over to photos in key moments possible.  The big thing to keep in mind is that just because the camera is capable of it, doesn’t mean a video person will have equivalent photography skills and vice versa.  Video and photography are two very different skill sets.

    Post # 4
    733 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: June 2013

    I don’t know, I’d go with the photographer on this.

    Post # 5
    963 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: August 2011

    IMO it’s better to go with photography only than video only. You may only watch your wedding video every once in a while, but photos are something you can display throughout your home and look at frequently.

    Post # 6
    668 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: April 2013

    I’d say if you HAVE to pick one… I’d get a better quality photographer and skip the video. You will have these pictures forever.

    The topic ‘No photographer, only video?’ is closed to new replies.

    Find Amazing Vendors