• Don't go to rehearsals.
• Avoid the officiant, to better get around house rules. 
• If caught, and the rules don't let you operate the way you like, use them as an excuse for a poor video.
• If the photog gets in front of your camera, just shoot his back because the bride will think worse of him than of you.
• It's too much bother to mic the officiant
  

This is only a sampling of the terrible advice a reader might take from this month's eventDV magazine.  I would hold the author responsible, but he may be just a well-meaning, but uninformed, ill-advised wedding videographer.

 

Stephen Nathans-Kelly and the magazine he is editor-in-chief of, however, are both well-respected and loved by thousands. 

Mr. Kelly should know that this respect is not carved in stone.  It is but a reflection of the content of his magazine and his actions. 

 

When eventDV prints an article promoting such awful ideas, Mr. Kelly and team become responsible for what comes of that - hundreds of new wedding videographers who do not go to rehearsals, ignore house rules and try to shift responsibility for poor work, onto others - just the way they read it in the October 2008 issue of eventDV magazine!

Shame on you, Mr. Kelly!

 

OK, now that I've got that off my chest, let's start at the begining of the article and dissect..

I was most happy to see that this month's (OCT 2008) eventDV magazine had an article about multicamera wedding shoots, but I was more than a little disturbed about several things in the article.

First, there is the layout.

  The editor decided to give an entire full page to an eye-candy image which doesn't give the slightest amount of useful information to readers, and leaves such a small amount of space for the diagrams pertinent to the article that the text within them is illegible. Not even in the online version do they bother to display these diagrams large enough to be discernable and useful.

The author utilizes a "Chuppah" in every diagram, yet Chuppah canopies are used only in Jewish weddings.  The majority of weddings done in this country are Christian, but lumping Catholic and other Christian weddings together, as the author does, may lead to mis-assumptions.  A Catholic ceremony is usually much longer and often requires shooting from greater distances - factors not taken into account or even mentioned in this article.

The author states that he "never shoots from the sanctuary area", which I take to mean he does not operate manned cameras behind the couple. Ceremonies in many venues, take place on a stage, which I suppose would be considered 'the sanctuary area', and is often the best place for manned cameras. 

It is the positioning of the couple, the movements that will be made and the layout of the room and the house rules that the experienced videographer will take into account when deciding whether to shoot behind the couple (i.e.: from the sanctuary area) or from the side aisles, etc.  To arbitrarily state that you should never have manned cameras behind the couple (far sides/corners/etc.) is misinforming to those trying to learn the trade.

Further, the only way to be sure of positioning and movements, and to have a voice in them, is to attend the rehearsal.  We cover our entire state, and sometimes the whole country.  Attending rehearsals means an extra day and extra motel stay, yet we wouldn't think of skipping a rehearsal.

The author speaks of moving from camera-to-camera during the ceremony, yet this is strictly prohibited in many churches and frowned upon by some brides.  Do not count on being able to do this, and indeed it is probably best not to.  By such moving, you are essentially making EVERY camera a static cam, albeit one that occasionally gets reframed.

In all but his "nine camera" example (which borders on the ridiculous), he fails to set a camera to shoot the bride's parents from their side of the room.  One of the best uses of a fourth camera can be to shoot the bride's parents, diagonally so that you also capture the groom's parents.  This not only gives greater viewing relief (since the other cameras are aimed at the proceedings), but it serves as "b-roll" for those times you want to cut something out of the ceremony (technical difficulties, unusual delays, etc.)

One would hope that a wedding videographer who feels he is experienced enough to write this article, would also be experienced enough to properly expose the photographs in it, yet the author gives us what appear to be "auto-exposed" photos with no detail in the dark, under exposed areas that comprise the main subject matter of these images.

The author's "beltpack", reminds me of John Cusack's movie, "Martian Child" where Bobby Coleman (the 'Martian Child') thinks he needs to wear a weighty beltpack to keep himself from escaping Earth's gravity and drifting back to Mars.

In my years of using batteries like the Sony FP970, I have never had a single occasion to change a camera battery mid-ceremony or at any other part of the wedding.  In fact, I have once inadvertently shot two weddings with the same uncharged batteries and still had plenty left for the next wedding (but I didn't push it that far).

Carrying extra camera batteries on a beltpack, when you know you're not going to need them, is...well..it just isn't smart.  Tapes; batteries for wireless sets, sure.  But not camera batteries.  Charge them beforehand, then use a tester to be sure. You can keep those extra batteries in your camera gear bag (which I always keep close-by).  Don't worry, you won't float off into space!

The author says that his typical scenario has him using 4 - 5 cameras and 3 - 5 wireless sets.  But there are many occasions where I've used five wireless and two XLR mics hooked to a digital recorder, for a total of seven mics, not counting the two shotguns.  If we're going to go over the top and talk about up to nine cameras, should we skip over the much more "real" and frequent need for more than five microphones?

And as for suggesting that we should mount our on-camera lights for ceremony shoots - that is a definite NO-NO!  First, most churches and even chapels will not let you use lights.  Second, we should strive to be unobtrusive and subtle.  The more junk you hang on your camera, the more noticable and obtrusive you become.

So, while we're glad that he brings lights for those times the reception gets too dim, we would suggest he keep the light in his bag until it is needed.

We did agree with his disdain of most wedding photographers!  :-)  

Reading further, the article says "From the florist to the bakery...I make sure I know all the vendors..."  Baloney!  Unless your sweet tooth is itching, you have no need to contact the baker.  The florist WILL place a huge arrangement right in front of where you'd planned to place camera #1, no matter how much you communicate with him or her.  And while you might try suggesting the 180 rule to photographers, once the game begins, their only concern is going to be getting their shots and you'll have to rely on their intelligence and experience (and possibly your ability to cajole or intimidate) to keep them out of your way.

The author says that the photog doesn't run the show, but I say the photo sessions are theirs.  Shoot them, if you like, but don't get in their way. Keep tripods, etc. out of their background.  If you need a posed shot at this time, let the photog know before the session begins and ask whether he'd prefer you to get it beforehand or immediately afterward, then communicate same to your bride.

The writer makes too many assumptions, as in the case where he suggests shooting the processional from the aisle.  This is fine, when possible, but many venues and some brides will nix this, and occasionaly you can do better from further back on the stage, behind an altar, etc., if you can count on the officiant to remember to stand slightly to one side.

The suggestion that "if the client sees the back of a photographer popping in and out, it will reflect worse on the other vendor than on my ability..." - BALONEY!  The bride could care less what obstacles you have to overcome - she is paying you to overcome them.  You must find a way to get your shots - not shots of the back of the photographer - because that is what a professional wedding videographer does.  Going to rehearsals gives you time to work things out with your client and officiant, and also to scope out the venue for escape avenues and "Plan B" camera positions.

What really makes this article a candidate for "Worst Article of the Year" is -

"I never go to rehearsals.."  And saying he does not talk to officiants beforehand because "..I tend to get the never-ending 'no' list.."  "I seldom mic officiants because they or I dont' want to be bothered". 

The officiant does most of the talking.  The audio is at least half of your wedding video.  You're going to tell me that because you and the officiant don't want to be bothered, that you're not going to mic the main speaker of the event?  Are you really going to try and make us believe you are a "professional" after such outrageous statements?

What if I were shooting a Hollywood movie and said that I didn't want to mic the star of the movie because neither he nor I "want to be bothered"?  Would you think I was a "professional"?

Most ridiculous is when the writer says that the officiant has no say over what he can or cannot do.  The officiant, in many cases is the resident minister of the church or chapel and has complete control over what occurs in their building and on their premises. Even a visiting officiant, deserves your respect, and that includes adhering to any rules he or she may have.

The officiant absolutely has the right to make rules and to expect you to adhere to those rules.  If you show up at the rehearsal, you'll have a chance to negotiate the rules while everyone is in a calm, friendly mood.  On wedding day, things can be tense and time is too limited for officiants to consider bending rules.

To say otherwise, in print and in a respected event videographer magazine, is irresponsible and I am most surprised that Stephen Nathans-Kelly allowed this.  Where the hell are ya, Stephen?  Sleeping or on vacation?

 

RECEPTIONS

Although he says "I no longer do this", his first advice for reception sound capture is tapping the DJ sound board.  This is not advisable for several reasons. One, which he mentions, is that you'll get bad or no audio more often than not. But even when the tap works great, you're not getting any ambient and your sound is going to seem artificial.

Yes, do mic a loudspeaker, but don't pay attention to the way he says to do it, at least don't bother about "aiming" your lav at a 45 degree or any other angle.  Most (but not all) lavs are omni-directional, meaning that they pick up sound from 360 degrees.  Therefore, aiming the mic is silly. 

Do get the mic up above the bass part of the speaker, (and about two feet away, if possible), but other than that, the frequency range you'll pick up depends on the microphone.  By the way, positioning a lav in front of a loudspeaker can be a problem.  Better to get a mic stand and use something like a Shure XLR mic hooked to either a digital recorder (you can go all night without having to remember to change memory cards) or an otherwise unused camera.  A Shure will do a better job with music than most lavs, too.

Used this way, your mic will get all the DJ music, toasts made with the DJ's mic, etc. AND enough ambient to make it all sound "real".  Set your levels to ALC and forget about it.  You can easily smooth out any issues during toasts when people pause too long and you won't have to worry about monitoring the audio.

You should also mount a shotgun mic on your manned camera in case guests try to say something to the couple on-camera.  It won't look very professional if you video people who are obviously trying to say something, but they can't be heard.  Also, you can get some impromptu, great stuff occasionally, like a child's laughter on the dance floor, the champagne cork popping out, etc.

The author says, "I do not like being tied down by tripods..", yet says he is usually a one-man show.  Trust me on this - there are very few videographers who can shoot handheld well enough that I'd want to watch twenty or thirty minutes of it, non-stop.

Yes, do be careful where you place tripods.  Do not be intrusive.  But do have one or two static cams so that your handheld shots have stable scenes before and after, and so that those dances that can't properly be sliced up, can have their continuity even when you have to cut a photog who moves in front, or you need to change positions, etc.

Lastly, I want to remind Mr. Kelly that the respect and admiration your fans have given you (myself included) comes with a heavy dose of responsibility.  Please do proof-read all articles and if you are going to allow bad advice and false assertions, etc., at least include a disclaimer such as -

Note:  eventDV magazine does not approve of not going to rehearsals; ignoring house rules; pushing blame for poor work onto others; etc.

Note: this article has been edited at the request of the author we are criticizing, to remove the author's name, so that we do not harm his business when prospective clients Google his name. Not wanting to cause him any loss, we have obliged, but we recommend a better way to avoid losing business is not to publish bad advice!  The author has written decent articles in the past and we hope his future works will not lead new videographers down the wrong path as we feel this article did.

 

 

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.