2 down 1 to go...

[BillGrant]

Hey Guys,
Here is my October 11th highlight. 1 more for the year, and they're all documentary style from there. Critiques and comments welcome, but this one is delivered...
www.grantphotovideo.com/whitneytodd
Bill

[damian]

Well, I do you no justice without being picky right?  Here's how I see it.

From a clients perspective:

It's outstanding...nothing else to say there

From a picky ass's perspective like myself  that believes constructive criticism from tough critics is the best stuff out there:

There's was a bit of overuse with the depth of field shot...like it was a newly discovered trick

Some of the shots seemed shaky....in the sense that they're either too shaky to be tripod shot's (like a hand is hanging on), or they don't move quite enough to be a tastefully moving handheld shot.  It's like the movement is subtle enough that it appears to be accidental.


I really can't say much beyond that.  It really is very good with alot of very tasteful shots.  The quality is very good.  Like I said, I can't imagine any client not being thrilled with it.


Question though...you stated above all documentary style from here on...what do you mean by that?  Just curious meaning, do you do cinematic style highlights with a straight doc. style video entirely or?

[BillGrant]

I have only 1 cinematic edit left, and I have 2 that are straight documentary. My documentary package is essentials only. So, no prep, straight abc roll ceremony, and major elements of reception only. As an example, I started one yesterday about 10:00 and was done completely before 2:00. I am going to try to do as many of these as I can for next year so that I can do more of my non-wedding work.
As far as the highlight goes. I know the shaky shots are in there. I had so many shots that I had to decide whether to use for content or discard because I wasn't steady enough (like the program and the ring rack focus) I went for content in the end because I know they really can't see that stuff unless it's blatant. Also, I think I just went nuts with rack focusing on this one. I go through phases where that's all I want to do, and then I go back to just moving shots again, etc. also I don't know if you noticed the overuse of the normal speed to slow motion transition. I used it like 3 times. Thanks for the comments...
Bill

[HankCastello]

Well, these are opinions, so no offense if they differ -

Number of "shaky" scenes I would have cut out - zero
Number of rack-focus shots I would eliminate - zero

I did have criticisms, but nothing about shaky scenes, and I'm a stickler for steady shots.  I think Bill's clients will be delighted with their video and they are, after all, the ultimate critics.

If you want to see "shaky", you ought to see some of the videos I am sent!  I thought these shots were very steady for hand-held and I don't believe our average client will ever notice a single shake in this video.

Same with the rack-focus.  I've seen lots of videos with overdone tricks, but this one (IMHO) was fine.

Now, I do have criticisms -

I felt that Bill should have fought the photogs more aggressively for a better angle on the cake-cutting.

My other criticisms all have to do with audio, and frankly since I am a doc-style shooter, it would be entirely acceptable for a short-styler to throw all my audio complaints out forthright, but here they are -

1] I hate to watch someone singing and only hear an unrelated music track playing.  I want to hear the singer.  I'm not a short-styler, but if you can't turn down the music track and give us a taste of the singer's song, maybe use his entire song for the music track, so that when he's on screen, his lips match what my ears receive.

2] I'd like to hear at least a short "glimpse" of the toast-giver and ambient on the crowd for the tosses.

3] I'd like to hear better audio on the officiant (i.e.: mic him)

Over all, this is great stuff and your clients should be very, very happy.

(added later) If memory serves me right, the groom's voice didn't seem as loud as the bride's.  If that's so, I would boost the groom a tad (or lower the bride).

[HankCastello]

A bit more about how we cover cake-cutting -

This is a good example of where multiple cameras can help.  The cake cutting is often the toughest round with the photographers because things happen in a very small space and with the big cake in front, often the best angles are forty-five degrees to either side.  As in a ceremony, one side is usually best for shooting the groom, the other side is better for close-ups of the bride.

I usually work one side from 90 to 45 degrees while Jean works from just off a direct-middle view to the opposite 45 degree angle.

I get close-ups of the hands on the knife making the first cut, while she holds on a fuller frame with cake; groom and bride.

I move back more toward 45 degrees to shoot a close-up the person on my opposite side being fed, while Jean does the same for the mirrored side as I hold the two-shot or, if I haven't gotten it yet, I'll pan the crowd for a good 5 to 6 seconds.  Then, after the second "feeding", I pan the crowd again to get the cheers and applause.

Because we cut out all the "dead time", that first crowd pan can be split into two clips which I'll cut to, thus hiding the cake cuts.

Of course, we usually have a third camera on a crane for the setup shot and more cut aways, if needed.  I'm a firm believer that close-ups are what video does best and the cake cutting provides three close ups that are "must-haves" - the two hands making that first cut; bride being fed; groom being fed.

What frees up a camera to hunt for those close-ups is having a second or third camera to cya.  They also help when a pesky photog steps in front of your camera.

[damian]

More good tips from Hank today....  Good cake coverage ideas there, thank ya.

Bill, just to be sure you understand, I really thought the highlight was very good.  The shaky didn't strike me as bad by any means, it just struck me to the point that I thought about it for a second or two.  I definitely don't think it deemed any shot as poor or unusable by any means though.

That's an interesting option you speak of...the doc style, cut and dry.  I think this year calls for an affordable option for couples, and that really is a viable idea worth looking at.

[BillGrant]

Damian,
I took it as such, no worries. I wouldn't have let it go if I thought it was a deal breaker.
Hank,
What you're hearing there is the minister's mic mixed with the grooms mic. I also had my H2 on the PA speaker, and mixed that in for ambient. I may be could've monkeyed with the levels more, but good enough for the time being. I agree with you to a point on the cake cutting, but this goes into maybe a cultural difference. This has always struck me as a thing that is a formality, but not emotional or critical to the b & g, so I've never gone overboard with covering it. Good point about the toasts too, that's a really good idea. I'll put that in next time. Oh and I put the singer in because it was the groom's brother, but I felt like the audio from it would've thrown off the momentum of the piece. Thanks again for your comments guys. 1 to go...
Bill