May 15, 2008
Photographer and videographer?
Question by Jule:
We recently went to a wedding event and saw a couple of really nice photographers and videographers. Obviously it costs a lot to hire both of them. The food will get digested and drinks will be gone…but the photos and videos last forever. So I would like to spend a decent amount of money on the photographer and videographer and less money on other stuff. Do people usually hire both? If you have to choose having either photographer or videographer, which would be better?
We recently went to a wedding event and saw a couple of really nice photographers and videographers. Obviously it costs a lot to hire both of them. The food will get digested and drinks will be gone…but the photos and videos last forever. So I would like to spend a decent amount of money on the photographer and videographer and less money on other stuff. Do people usually hire both? If you have to choose having either photographer or videographer, which would be better?
10 Comments on Photographer and videographer?
May 17, 2008
yazar @ 1:50 am:
videographer…
May 18, 2008
~ K * I * T * T * Y ~ @ 7:07 am:
If i had to choose between them i would go for Videographer…
fathead @ 12:01 pm:
Actually they aren't that expensive. Perhaps even less than you'll spend on flowers.
I suggest you hire two sets of each.
Only hire them on full-rights basis; that is, YOU own all images captured, not them. They must turn over all content without reservation immediately at the end of the event.
Next make sure that you collect all the images and video from your guests.
Hire a professional editor to put the content together.
May 19, 2008
detroitbignasty @ 10:33 am:
a lot of companys can do both video and photo. if you only choose one, i suggest the photographer. they are much easier to share with friends/family and there is a timeless quality to photos that video can lack.
May 21, 2008
bizzi @ 8:29 am:
The videographer. There are ways to get still shots from your footage.
May 24, 2008
familyguy @ 12:13 pm:
You'll rarely see video..but photos will be seen all the time..whenever you have someone over at your house for the first time, they'll want to see the wedding photo. It's a good way to entertain guests…but turn on video and they'll go "Urgh..another boring wedding video..how long do I have to sit through this?"…you can substitute the videographer by asking a few friends and family members to take video whenever they can..then you use all the videos from different people and edit it on your comp with background music…quite easy to do…Make it the first anniversary present to your spouce…
Frankly, I had both professional vid and photo people…both were done nicely…but I haven't seen the vid in 7 years…
also, you can use photos and make slideshow with background musci and make a nice vid of it…
Photo all the way..
May 27, 2008
Calculus @ 8:55 am:
I went for both.
If you could only go for one, I would highly recommend photographer.
You would enjoy looking at the pics over and over and over, and could show them to others, or even just have another look if you could only afford a little time, a good photographer will capture all the magical moments, the moments that you feel would last forever.
A video capture of the event just records the event, while it may be interesting to have a look at it once every often, you, your friends or most of your family would not have any time to have to sit and watch a 1½ - 2 hour video record of a wedding.
You can just grab the photo album any time, enjoy it a few moments and then put it back, you cannot do it with a video. Although it's nice to have, video is not very practical to enjoy as it is time consuming, although you would like to have a look at the full video every few years or so.
walyank @ 2:42 pm:
As an ex-wedding photographer, I say, please do not follow Fathead's suggestion.
The only way I would have agreed to such a contract would have been with a huge shooting fee that would have ended making your photography cost much higher.
But in reality I would never have shot that way because I do not want some idiot customer with no understanding of photography in control of the quality of the printed images. This customer will no doubt mention my name when everybody wonders why the photos are so bad…
The only photographers you will get this way are people who do this on the side and don't care.
May 28, 2008
ChocLover @ 10:34 pm:
I had a photographer but he wasn't that good. My friends and family took better photos than he did!
I didn't have a videographer and actually regret that now. I would recommend that you do hire one and get as many photos done that you can afford.
May 29, 2008
Sankei @ 8:20 am:
I will be having my wedding in the coming summer and I have decided to hire both. I have heard many different views in regards to what is more important in comparison to the other. I want to be able to see some real artistic pictures that can capture all the memories, however, I also want to be able to remember exactly what had happened and most importantly, to hear the vowel and our commitment to one another through the video.
Some videographers provide a 5 mins summary of the whole day and also everything uncut. If photography and videography is one of your highest priorities like me, I would recommend that you spend that money on both. It might seem like a lot of money, but I am sure down the road, it's the most well spent item on the list.
Happy planning!