Should Wedding Videographers Do Photography Also?

[kwshaw1]

{Note: this discussion was split off from a response I posted in the thread about length of wedding videos. Thanks Hank.}

As far as videographer versus photographer pricing for weddings is concerned, that's a result of the priority couples put on each - which is partly a result of photography having been established longer as a useful service, and partly other factors including competition between videographers. If you really want to level the playing field, start offering combined photo/video services at a price slightly less than doing each separately, and then allocate your time and resources so videography gets the attention it deserves. Nothing we can do is going to change the relative pricing for photography and videography in the near future, and the best way to get paid more is to do really outstanding work (and add photography so you can collect that money too).

[HankCastello]

Well, it's hard to argue with any of that, Kevin - but you know me...I'll TRY!   :lol:

We HAVE added photography to our option list.  Photos From Video is a good option.  Shucks, it takes no extra work, until post and very little then.  With three cameras taking thirty "pictures" every second, we can easily cull out the best expressions, group shots with no blinks, etc., etc.  In that way, we have a big advantage over the photographer.

But, as for covering both photography (with a still camera) AND videography, I will firmly plant my feet and say that you just cannot do your best at both jobs in the same wedding.  

Our Photography option is ONLY for a photo session and ONLY if no other photographer has been hired.  During the photo session, my wife covers with video and I do the photos.  I was a photographer (news; portrait) before I was a videographer, so I do have some background in that area and I can change hats for forty-five minutes or so, without much difficulty.

But ask me to handle both a still camera and a video camera throughout the ceremony and reception and I guarantee my work will suffer on both fronts.  It takes my full concentration to do my best behind a video camera.  There is no way I can do a really good job with both cameras at the same time.   I know there are plenty of people better than I, but I would still say that their work will suffer if they divide their attention.

In the boxing world, you have champions and you have "designated opponents".  I don't think many of us could handle both camera types and still be "champions" in the wedding video industry.

Further, I'll go back to my original assertion that a good wedding video is more valuable than a good wedding photo album.  More work goes into it and more enjoyment comes out of it, ergo it should cost more.

[Forever Endeavor]

I agree with that last statement. I think that before the wedding, photography is the most valuable service. Afterwards, it's the videography. Unfortunately, it's beforehand that we get paid.  :lol:

[On a Roll]

As far as combining photo and video, personally I wouldn't want to do it myself. I'm plenty busy with just the video aspect!

That being said, a cousin of my wife's is a wedding photographer, and we're working with her to offer her services as one of our "add-ons", and vice versa. This way, when someone comes to us, we can offer professional still shots from an expert specializing in still photos, and when someone goes to her, she can offer professional video production as an add-on to her services. A fair commission for finding a client is exchanged, and everyone wins.

We've done that a few times, and I love it. Besides not having to work at all for a client when she brings them to us, we've known her for years, and we almost work as one team, where we compliment each other instead of getting in each other's way.

Personally, this is how I think a videographer should go about doing photography as an add-on. You don't have to worry about it, and better still, you don't need to own any pro photo gear.

In just the last month, we also created an experimental package that includes both photo and video services. We shoot in hi-def, and the couple gets piles of extras, like a wedding scrapbook (put together by my overly talented wife). I'm not sure if we'll ever sell this package at the current pricing ($8800), but you never know, if a high-end wedding comes our way, I want to make sure we have a package to cover them!

[kwshaw1]

I agree that one person can't do both photo and video at a wedding and be expected to excel at both, so offering both does require some careful planning and assistance. As you said it's not hard to 'switch hats' after the ceremony to get the formal posed photos, which is one of the most important aspects of wedding photography. Everything else can be handled by a competent assistant, which can be either a family member or perhaps a budding local photographer. And knowing you have the backup of 30 frames per second from video can help ease any concerns about capturing the best moments for printed pictures, especially if you're using HD video.  

This approach may not be as desirable for some couples as hiring a separate photographer, and I don't discourage anyone from doing that if that's their preference. It is however an appealing option for many budget-minded customers and helps put photography in its proper place - which is as an accessory to the more important task of videography. Also note that there are plenty of photographers now who offer videography as an add-on or try to convince their customers that a photo montage is a suitable substitute for a professional video, so we should have no qualms about returning the favor by trying to take the photography side of the business. It's the single easiest way to increase your revenue per wedding, since videography continues to be a highly competitive endeavor which few couples are willing to pay enough for.

It doesn't matter that video should cost more because it's significantly more work than photography, and it will likely take another generation or so to get most couples to understand that. Plus most couples spend more on their weddings than they can really afford already, so the likelihood of getting them to spend thousands on videography and thousands on photography is a long shot - much better to simply pitch this as a combined service and take all the money for both.   :-)

[HankCastello]

This approach may not be as desirable for some couples as hiring a separate photographer, and I don't discourage anyone from doing that if that's their preference. It is however an appealing option for many budget-minded customers and helps put photography in its proper place - which is as an accessory to the more important task of videography. Also note that there are plenty of photographers now who offer videography as an add-on or try to convince their customers that a photo montage is a suitable substitute for a professional video, so we should have no qualms about returning the favor by trying to take the photography side of the business. It's the single easiest way to increase your revenue per wedding, since videography continues to be a highly competitive endeavor which few couples are willing to pay enough for.

That pretty well sums it up.  I probably should break out this photography stuff into its own topic.

Thanks guys, for your wealth of knowledge, experience and varying ideas that are always opening new doors of opportunity!

[kwshaw1]

I probably should break out this photography stuff into its own topic.

Works for me. We could have a long discussion about the relationship between photography and videography at weddings and the business possibilities of trying to combine the two. The other good thing about taking over the photography role is that you gain some control over what the photographer does, which can be a major problem with some independent photographers - and a lesser one even with those who are trying to be cooperative. Most photographers seem to be getting more cooperative lately, but some are so obtrusive at weddings it's a wonder they don't get themselves tossed out by the officiant.

[On a Roll]

Our family has several different people that work as wedding vendors. We do video, our cousin does photography. One of our inlaws is a florist, and another is a Pastor/singer, who has a live band. We've often discussed putting all our talents together, and buying a chapel/meeting hall and offering an all inclusive wedding package. Just imagine how easy it would be for the bride. Write a check to us for, say, $25,000, give us the colors you want to use, any decorations you might want in addition to what we do, and we take care of everything. It's an expensive business to start up, but it would be fun.

Hey Kevin, I just realized this. You're the guy I bought one of my GL-2's and a GL-1 from. I've loved the cameras man.

[kwshaw1]

Hey Kevin, I just realized this. You're the guy I bought one of my GL-2's and a GL-1 from. I've loved the cameras man.

Hi Jim, glad to hear the cameras are serving you well! Small world, eh?

When you build your own wedding venue don't forget to mount video cameras in strategic spots on the walls like they do in Las Vegas wedding chapels, complete with remote pan and zoom controls plus live switching to a DVD recorder. That way you can get all the shots you need without obstruction and hand couples their ceremony video on the way to the reception!   :-)

P.S. Let me know when you're ready to upgrade to HD videography - maybe I'll be ready to sell my Sony FX1s by then!

[Forever Endeavor]

I have a brother in law who does Photography, an aunt who does decorating, 3 uncles who are Pastors, my sister has talked about being a wedding planner and my dad is an ex photographer who I've been trying to convince to start up again. That would be cool to at least get a group together and share a store front/office space.