Post # 1
Is having a professional videographer at your wedding instead of a photographer a thing? Why or why not?
I ask because I’m seriously considering this option. I’ve never been a person who was terribly moved by photos. My general thought process is:
1. look at photo
2. oh that’s pretty (or that’s ugly)
3. turn the page
4. rinse and repeat
Although I’m an extremely emotional and expressive person, I’ve never gotten teary eyed looking at a professional photo, I’ve never looked at a professional photo and had any overwhelming sense of one thing or another (although I have had emotional reactions from personal or amateur photos). I was honestly considering foregoing professional photography for these reasons.
However, I watched a sample clip from a prospective videographer and I was crying about how palpable the love was between the couple and hearing their vows aloud having multiple sensory experiences at once just brought it all together. It really “spoke” to me.
Post # 3
As far as I can tell, the “pros” of video over photo are:
- we are a “nomadic” couple. That is, we are constantly in transit because of my work and therefore have tried hard not to accumulate many “things.” A wedding album is my textbook definition of a “thing”
- we are having a small wedding, but we both have large families. I think a video would go further to make people feel like they were “there.”
- With modern technology, a video always exists. It’s not like before where you needed a physical DVD. As long as it’s floating out there in the cloud, I can always access it (not the case with an album if my home floods or we have to evacuate with 12 hours notice…both of which have happened before)
The only con I’m seeing at present is that you can hold a photo in your hand whereas you need some sort of device to play a video (I carry two such devices daily on my person. Just saying)
Can anybody throw out some “cons” I may not be thinking of?
Post # 4
I wouldnt do a videographer in place of a photographer. I would do the video to supplement the photos.
Post # 5
- Wedding: June 2013 - Upstate NY
The cons are just that’ you can’t just show someone your beautiful photos, you have to pull some technological system upo to show a video. In 5-10 years when the technology is sure to change, you will somehow have to keep updating your photo. What will you hang on your walls? A wedding album is a “thing” that doesn’t have to take up much space but can mean a lot 🙂
Post # 6
@Overjoyed: I’m sure you will get a lot of reactions telling you photography is the way to go, but it seems like you have thought through both of the major pros and cons of each for your wedding, and a videographer seems like the way to go for you.
I personally am more moved by photos than videos, so I plan to hire a very notive photographer for my budget wedding. However, if photos don’t move you and video does, the only real con I can think of (that you haven’t already mentioned) is that you won’t have anything to hang on your walls or something quick to send people instead of a more long winded video.
I plan to have my ceremony video taped by a family member, but I can see why it would be a real treat to see a beautiful wedding video created by an artist.
Post # 7
I had a videographer and a photographer. It’s been almost two years since the wedding and I still haven’t watched the wedding video. My wedding pictures hang on my walls in my home and I see them every day. I haven’t made an album. The pictures are all stored on the disc the photographer gave me (so I don’t think being nomadic should be a point of reasoning here).
I would do both. But definitely not JUST a videographer.
Post # 8
@KateByDesign: thanks for that. I just wanted to clarify that I mentioned the nomadic nature of my work, not to suggest that the photos would be inconvenient to tote around the world because they take up too much space (as compared to a disk), but because we live a life of “the fewer things to carry, the better” irrespective of their size. For example, I don’t mind admitting that I’m sitting at my desk typing in my underwear, lol. If I got a call right now telling me that I need to drop everything and get to the airport within the next hour. I’d literally grab my phone, throw on some sneakers and leggings and make a move. I’m actually not ewearing my engagement ring right now (took it off to do dishes) and if I were facing an immediate evacuation, I wouldn’t even waste time looking for it. I’d just leave it behind. It’s a “thing.” A very small thing, with tons of sentiment and whatnot. But it’s a thing.
Post # 9
@Kat: there will still be tons of guests photos, I’m sure. Our “engagement photos,” were taken on an iPhone. No lie. And they were beautiful enough to be featured on our invitations and all throughout our wedding website. No one knows I didn’t pay a $1000 for those.
Post # 10
@Overjoyed: I’m not really sure that there is a con to your logic. This is my 2nd time around, I can count on one hand how many times we looked at our wedding album after the first year. Others may have far different experiences, but once life gets in the way, oohing and ahhing over the photo album didn’t happen for me.
My primary reason for hiring a photographer was to get a nice photo of us to enlarge and hang on the wall. We may or may not end up getting an album…. I may decide to make one myself later. You may be able to create prints with digital videography if you decide you would like some.
As an aside, my daughter was married a few years ago in a small courthouse wedding. I took a video of the ceremony with my camera and have it on my PC. Just looked at it again the other night. I think it has far more meaning than the album of pictures from her wedding or reception.
Post # 11
@Overjoyed: Yeah, I hear you about the Iphone pics. My sister did our anniversary pics w/ a cheap digital camera and we edited them together. Everybody was asking who took them and wanted the “photographers” info in order to book her lmao.
Good photography can definitely be done on a budget, but it can be nerve-racking at the same time hoping you got the shot.
Post # 12
I plan on having a family member videotape our wedding in addition to our pro photographer. There are some things pictures just don’t capture. I remember a bee saying she couldn’t hear the way her H quivered through their vows just by looking at pictures. I want those little moments in addition to the pictures.
Post # 13
If you don’t care about photos then don’t hire a photographer, haha! I will say that photos exist in a cloud too if you want them to. Also realize that video files are going to constantly need to be updated and reformatted. For example, video/multimedia presentations done in flash a few years ago can’t be played on a lot of devices now. You’d likely have to keep going back to the videographer over time to get copyrighted material converted to new forms of media. Photo files are the same way but you can at least have physical prints of those. Imagine what happens if one day the “cloud” goes down or digital things are lost forever? Also consider whether you’d want a special print of someone who attended your wedding, especially if they’ve passed away. There’s no guarantee they’ll even show up in your wedding video and you certainly wouldn’t have anything tangible of just them. When I’m shooting weddings I try to take meaningful, candid portraits of all of the close family members and friends throughout the day but wedding videography is generally much more bride & groom centric aside from the usual quick, sweeping wide shots of guests dancing.
Obviously this is a personal decision – for me I’d be happy to have no other possessions in the world except printed photographs but it sounds like you’re not interested in having physical memories of the day. To each their own!
Post # 14
We did both. Can’t imagine not having both.
Post # 15
We’re doing both–but I’m more excited about the videographer. So…we’re spending more on the video. Plus, my fiance’s uncle is a professional photographer and we’re betting he’ll get some amazing photos during the event. I think it makes sense to splurge on the video instead of the photos in that a LOT more goes into editing a good video: MANY more hours of editing, color correction, sound mixing, etc. That is–as long as you hire someone good.
Oh–and there IS a way to take still images from a digital video file. You could get some wedding photos that way. I highly recommend asking your videographer for the raw footage in a digital format. That way you can get those stills. It’s actually not that hard to do, if your at all tech savvy.
That said, I think you’ll be sad not to have some professional wedding photos. I’d try to do both, if you can afford it. Maybe just do what we are doing and get a less expensive photographer. If you’re looking for a place to save–save on the album. Photographers mark the price of those up 200-400%. If you get the digital negatives and right to printing, you can have your own flush mount album made at picaboo.com for $400. That’ll easily save you $800-1200. BUT you have to design the album yourself, and that can be time consuming (though I honestly prefer to do it myself).
Post # 16
@mariematt: That’s simply not true. Most videographers I’ve talked to are willing to give you the raw files as well as the edited DVDs or Blu ray discs. You just have to supply them with an external hard drive for the digital files. If you do that, you can change the file format yourself whenever you want to, as long as you have a good video editing software (and some are free or inexpensive).
BTW…the digital file formats aren’t changing as often as you claim. It’s the devices you play them on that change (ex. dvd, blu ray, etc.). If you get the digital file itself, you could easily archive it forever.
I used to volunteer at the UCLA film archive, and they have transferred almost every classic film to digital format for preservation. They’ll be able to print those digital files into any playable format that comes out…from dvd to blu ray to whatever comes next. The key is to get the digital files.