[Mark Suszko]

Single-camera?

[Mark Suszko]

And hang up their skateboards in the hallway cupboard, we don’t want any accidents in here.

[Mark Suszko]

It’s pretty. Nicely shot, edited, directed. Good pacing. Good sound. I didn’t personally care for the music, but it’s fine, despite that.

[Mark Suszko]

I’m not sure this is the right forum for what you’re asking, but I did have an idea about the rooftop.

LED panel flooring under a protective glass top layer, relaying a live image of the ground from a nearby camera location, such that, it looks like the roof is a transparent glass floor suspended however many stories above the ground, with no visible support. Video Trompe-l’œil.

A variation would use a thin intermediary layer of water, and give the impression everyone was walking on water, with crabs and koi fish and etc. underfoot. You could switch this out to a top down view of a Caribbean reef. or a rainforest floor, as seen from the canopy.

[Mark Suszko]

Seems pretty pono to me, brah. With the understanding that if he likes the lowball route, you guys are done and going separate ways from that point on.

[Mark Suszko]

You’re selling “donut” spots: pre-made spot with a “donut hole” where unique customize client info goes.

Asking for a completely end-to end way to automate that, here, is like asking people to cut their own throats in their business, so don’t be surprised at a lack of candor.

Still, first thing I thought of that was like this, is Jib-Jab customized animations. Ask someone there how they do what they do with customized animations using client-submitted raw material.

There’s some sports database-based graphics packages and election-based CG packages that might do this job for you faster than AE templates. They’re designed to operate in real time, updating autonomously.

[Mark Suszko]

My tired old song: add auto audio transcription and open and closed-captioning to FCPX, or give us a plug-in/App that does that seamlessly and largely automatically. Captioning isn’t just for the deaf; it has massive importance in future and present metadata. And the way we do it now seems prehistoric.

In hardware terms, an updated protube or some other regular polygonal shaped casing, with an emphasis returning to user-accessible upgrades and repairs.

[Mark Suszko]

(Traditional coverage) …”it’s too predictable and in my view, is too fake.”

Now that makes me laugh. I have never seen or shot two weddings that went exactly the same, EVER. Something always goes wrong, or at least, not according to plan (Unity candle lighting, goofs in the vows, run-away ring bearers and flower girls, for example) and part of the charm and interest and what makes it memorable to is see what actually happens.

You didn’t shoot a wedding: you shot a *teaser* of a wedding, montage’d into reception footage. Wedding as background for a commercial. It gives me a vague sense an event occurred, but doesn’t involve me deeply in the story or the people it happened to. And the overall mood communicated by the music, color grading, shot choice – it all makes me feel just a little bit like maybe I’m someone that was not invited to be with these people, on purpose, or that the POV is from a person who doesn’t approve of the wedding, or is indiferent.

Your approach is unconventional. If the couple is also unconventional and the ceremony is not traditional, you may be a good fit. But don’t yell too loudly that you’re fighting tropes and cliche’s with your style. These events are rituals: by DEFINITION, they are structured, composed, follow a form, follow traditions. It’s the entire point of HAVING the traditions… Two people have decided they want to connect to all that came before and all that is to come, to add continuity to tradition, by undergoing this ritual together, in the sight of and WITH their families and loved ones all participating.

You want to defy the form? OK, but.. Then you should have a good, explainable reason, a message we can see and understand, other than just “I don’t think it’s cool, the way most people see this”. Wedding photography doesn’t need re-invention. It needs skill in visual storytelling to bring out the key moments and communicate the emotion of those moments, without becoming part of the story.

[Mark Suszko]

Weird way to fish for complements:-)

If the client liked it and you got paid, I guess that makes you “professional”. Is it aesthetically exceptional? I would have to say that I think it needs work to please me personally, but these things are highly subjective. I think you maybe forced yourself into a corner, creatively, with your music choice. And the lack of nat sound throughout bothers me. Particularly the vows. I’d like to see a version that was color graded in a more “upbeat” way; it might change my opinions.

Part of this is surely generational. I’m an old fart and I have a more “classic” and “documentarian”aesthetic when it comes to weddings. So I’m more sensitive to a sense of “story”, an arc to the events, not just setting a mood. But if this met your client’s expectations, that’s the final arbiter.

You must, however, be careful in assuming that everyone that hires you will want what one client found acceptable and as-expected; this may not fit every future case. My sense of the market may be out of date, but my bet is, more of the people that actually *pay* for the videos (the Mom of the Bride, typically) align more with my aesthetic than yours. Most moms want to hear and see the vows very clearly, for example. The solemn processions in and out are important to them. The actual music is important. A lot of detail on the couple, on the dress, and on their changing facial expressions over the course of the event would be important things to these people. Many candid shots ranging from decoration details to audience members and the venue are expected. They expect more realism and less abstract symbolism. I used to find the way to get everyone happy was to provide more documentary-like coverage and then add a separate version afterwards that was shorter and all-montage.

[Mark Suszko]

I liked most of your reception coverage. It felt very organic and conveyed a bit of character personality.

The wedding, not as much, mostly due to your choices in color grading and exposure.

Specifically, way too muted and muddy for my taste, on a day that should feel bright, cheerful and colorful. Colors and midrange were muted enough to feel funereal. Too many lake scenes were harshly backlit without identifying detail in the people. Don’t be afraid to blow out and over-expose the extraneous detail, if it preserves the key images. Some unmotivated Dutch tilts didn’t add anything. Vignette was overdone. Overall, I didn’t see enough of the bride and groom to get a sense of their personalities.