Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Forums Event Videographers Videography and Photography= Votography? Do I understand this correctly?

  • Videography and Photography= Votography? Do I understand this correctly?

  • JD

    March 1, 2006 at 4:37 pm

    If understand this correctly, this seems like it could increase profits of the wedding videographer considerably. I some case double profits per job.

    It will be much easier and quicker for a videographer to learn the photographers tricks of the trade than vice versa. I’m wondering if anyone is already doing this. What are the pros and cons?

    I think Peter Ralph mentioned this in an earlier post… how he had a couple frame grabs developed for his booth and they had potential of being good quality even beyond the 8×10 size.

    Is anyone out there providing photographs from footage for your customers already, or thinking about offering it as a future service? If so what kind of camera are you using and what have been the results?

    Any takers?

  • BillM

    March 1, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    JD,
    If you’re referring to my previous post regarding the new Texas Instruments DaVinci processor, I don’t know if there are any affordable cameras on the market today capable of giving high quality still images from a video frame shot. As a side note, a few years back I read the results of a Kodak survey. Niney-five percent (95%) of all wedding photographs ordered by brides were 8×10 or smaller.

  • Doug Graham

    March 1, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    Most videographers who also offer photography use separate cameras for the two. Current HDV camcorders are capable of making adequate quality prints up to about 4×6, but still can’t equal the resolution of a digital SLR like the Canon 20D.

    There IS some commonality in the two skill sets, but there is something for either the videographer or the photographer to learn when adding a new medium to his or her arsenal.

    Regards,
    Doug Graham

  • Jeff Carpenter

    March 1, 2006 at 7:12 pm

    My own feeling on this is that it’s like hiring a musician to play the guitar and the piano at the same time. Yes, they are probably good at both, but it’s just not going to turn out that well in the end.

    I know there are people who do it, and more power to them, but for ME, I find that I’m in a very different state of mind when shooting video or photos. As a videographer I try to be invisible. I don’t want people to notice me or my camera. A photographer needs to be much more of a “people person” and always in command of special-event situations (like cake cutting) so that everything ends up heppening correctly and in the right place.

    They just feel like very different kinds of jobs to me and I would not want to do both at once. I’d always feel like I wasn’t doing one of them justice.

  • Don Greening

    March 2, 2006 at 5:19 am

    [Jeff Carpenter] “They just feel like very different kinds of jobs to me and I would not want to do both at once. I’d always feel like I wasn’t doing one of them justice.”

    I’m in total agreement. We do have a digital Rebel that we bought just to get high quality stills for our DVD printable discs and case jackets. During the course of the wedding day my wife will manage to shoot “targets of opportunity” and if we collect enough stills we can offer the couple a slideshow set to music at extra cost. We always tell clients that our first priority is video, but if we have the time we’ll get some extra stills. In any case, we tell them they’re welcome to any of the stills we’ve managed to get. I just burn a CD and give it to them, regardless of whether or not we do the slideshow. This little extra perk has impressed more than one couple in the past.

    – Don

  • JD

    March 2, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    Bill, Doug, Jeff and Don; thank you for shedding light on this subject.

    It seems like technology is holding this back. But mainly the devotion to the trade of Videography by its professionals is the main reason.

  • Aanarav Sareen

    March 4, 2006 at 9:28 am

    [JD] “It seems like technology is holding this back. But mainly the devotion to the trade of Videography by its professionals is the main reason.”

    Technology is not the only limitation. Photography is a whole another area of professional creativity.

  • debe

    March 4, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    I just did a “favor” for a friend. I shot stills for a local band at a small club. I only agreed to do it because it was last minute and the real photographer who had originally signed on had some sort of unavoidable conflict arise. They were in a bind and I thought I was helping.

    What a disaster. There might be a fistful of “ok” photos in there, but nothing like what they would have gotten with someone who really understands still photography. Granted, I haven’t even tried to take a still that was more than a snapshot in years.

    Photography is a whole different animal, and to be really any good at it, you either have to be a natural-born photographer, or have spent a lot of time practicing the craft. A person who shoots movement on tape thinks differently than a person who shoots stills, whether the stills are movement or portrait. To be constantly switching your brain from video to stills in the middle of an event I would think would be very draining on the best of folks.

    There might be a few unique people out there who can do both superbly, but I don’t think it’s the norm, and I don’t think most people should strive to do both. Unless you are one of the few who can excel at both simultaneously, you may find that you are able to charge more initially, but when you get a roster full of customers that aren’t raving about your work, you’ll find it harder and harder to get more work.

    I’ve always had respect for still photographers, but this experience for me dramatically underscores how different of a world it is from what we normally do.

    debe

  • Peter Ralph

    March 9, 2006 at 5:28 pm

    no – don’t do anything you don’t feel confident about. The same problem occured when video cameras replaced film cameras and all of a sudden camera operators had to record sound as well as picture. And editing – 15 years ago few camera operators didn’t editing.

    My background is in photography – my stepfathers family ran the local photo studio – the skills aren’t really that different. Go back 10-15 years and most film schools relied heavily on still cameras for training. The market IMHO will always be driven by demand not by our comfort level.

  • JD

    March 10, 2006 at 12:32 pm

    “Go back 10-15 years and most film schools relied heavily on still cameras for training.”

    That’s interesting. I can see where still cameras would come into play as there functionality and mechanics are naturally similar to video and film cameras;shutter speed, f/stops, aperture and such. And I agree now, that still image photography and videography are two totally different skill sets each with there own unique subtleties and feeling.
    However, as video cameras develop will there be a new oppurtunity to learn the craft of shooting a certain way, in order to grab the right frames in post, to create a portfolio of photographs? An entirely new skill set that combines both arts?

Viewing 1 - 10 of 14 posts

Log in to reply.

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy