Should Videography Be Incorporated Into A Wedding Photographer's Repertoire?
by: Gino Siller



Every couple wants all aspects of their special day to be forever immortalized. For this reason, the wedding photographer is a vital member of the wedding. Often, one of the first dilemmas facing a couple is finding the right photographer for them, be it traditional, photojournalistic, artsy, etc. After deciding on the type of photography, the couple must decide if they also want a video recording of the wedding day. Being that videographers are far more rare than photographers, would it behoove the wedding photographer to incorporate videography into their wedding packages?

Both Nikon and Canon make professional cameras with video recording capability built into them. The Nikon D3S was the first professional SLR that integrated this feature. Soon, the Canon 1D Mark IV followed suit. For what purpose? The idea of including video recording in a SLR began with prosumer cameras. The Nikon D90 was made popular by soccer moms wanting to get both still and video shots of Johnny Jr. scoring a goal. It was the perfect combination camera for the family interested in saving memories, but how does Nikon and Canon expect professional photographers to utilize this feature? Is it their intention for both functions to be used in conjunction?

The idea of wedding photographers being able to easily incorporate video recordings, in addition to still shots, is intriguing. The cinematic quality of the video capabilities is far superior to that of standard camcorder recordings. There is the option of using different lenses to create different shots and effects. However, a still photographer shooting video is not very practical when looked at realistically.

First of all, how is a photographer going to shoot video and manage to get still shots of the same moment? This may be accomplished with a second shooter. However, having a second shooter is not always possible or practical. Also, the role of the second shooter is to get a shot of the same moment from a different angle or prepare for something in the near future. They may not be able to stand around taking video all night. Many priceless shots may be missed in the attempt to video.

Though the quality of the video is intrinsically good, a glidecam would likely be necessary to ensure the best outcome. This would take quite some setup, not to mention cost. Having the camera on the glidecam would be best for video, but what happens when you want to switch back to taking still shots? Should you have a camera solely for videography? Should you remove the camera from the glidecam to get your still shots and put it back on when you want to continue with the video? This would take a bit of excess time and energy. Not to mention getting the glidecam equipment out of the way when itís not in use or when it will be in the way of the wedding.

Then, there is the matter of editing the video. There will likely be five to ten hours of footage, depending on the length of the wedding. This is a lot of video to edit, especially since editing video and still photography is vastly different. The photographer would have to purchase and learn to use the video editing programs, such as Avid or Final Cut Pro. A high speed, powerful computer would also be necessary, more so than for still photos. This editing would be in addition to the time it takes to edit the still shots, make slide shows, albums, etc. Being that editing video is more than two times as time consuming as editing still shots, that is a lot of extra time and energy being put into one wedding.

If you sacrifice time taking video instead of still shots, what happens to print and album sales? If you have fewer shots the couple has to choose from, the photographer will likely lose income from having less to offer the couple. Though prints and album sales are often small bucks compared to the price of booking a wedding, it is still income that is nice to have Sure, you can charge for the video DVD, but wouldnít that be included with the video recording package? Would you really want spend the time shooting and editing video if there was no guarantee it would be seen or used?

It is possible to only offer videography in certain packages. The photographer can charge significantly more for this package or decrease the number of hours of coverage to help compensate for some of the hardships of videography. However, when a couple is on a limited budget, videography is often one of the first luxuries they will forgo. Also, many couples want as much coverage as possible. That may cause charging more or decreasing coverage to backfire.

Though adding videography to a wedding photographerís repertoire is definitely intriguing and may have the potential for positive effects for business, the practicality and details may prove more difficult than it seems on first glance. Could videography in conjunction with still photography be the future of the wedding photography world? I guess thatís up to us.

DISCLAIMER : The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of photographik or any member of the photographik organization.