When I started the wedding video articles section on the site, I wanted to create something positive that went beyond New York weddings and really focused on the bigger picture. But the more I wrote, the more I realized how much the wedding video industry needed to grow. So, instead of focusing on the bigger picture, I found it much more interesting to go deeper into the little things. And the more I did so, the more I learned one thing. I like real moments. I like insight. When I see reality unfolding, raw and exposed - it moves me. It is the essence of documentary, and it should be the essence of wedding video, as far as I'm concerned. Pretty shots? Sure, they have a place. But I think they should have a supporting role, not the front seat.

This leads up to what I call "The Shot." It's the close-up of the bride who gazes gently down as the camera moves by in slow motion. She ponderously dreams of the day about to unfold, and we are compelled by the swell of the orchestral score - usually something from the movie Gladiator, and commonly with some vocal undertones that seems to have a hint of an African or Middle Eastern influence. A wash of light floods over the screen, a digital glow of warmth bursts forth, and we know that great things are about to happen. And it really bothers me every time I see it. Why? Because that shot never happens in real life. It is fabricated. This moment that purports to be a dramatic turning point is, in reality, a bride told to look at her shoulder for about 20 seconds.

Now, I don't mind if "the shot" is just used to show the flow of the day. Posing is part of the event. It happens, and seeing it can jog our memories back to what it was like. But I can't help but feel a little cheated when it's used to stand for deep emotion. It's just not usually that convincing. It doesn't show true feelings. There's a certain bite and a glimmer of thought that shows up when it's real, and most the time, that certain something isn't there. I feel like I'm watching theatrics instead of a real person. Like I am seeing the creation of an editor instead of a wedding day, almost if the real moments weren't good enough. So I'm going to make a plea to everyone with any interest in wedding videography, whether it be bride, a groom, or another videographer. I'm going to ask for trust. Trust the moment. Trust the truth. Trust that people being themselves is beautiful, in and of itself. And if wedding videos can find just a little bit of that, then I think the industry can take a huge step forward.

It's been awhile since I've had time to post here, but lately, I've started to think more about the meaning of it all. Creating wedding videos, that is. Life is a whole other subject. I have found it to be the hardest thing to explain what we do. I talk about intimacy and personality in video all of the time, but how do I define it? In my mind, intimacy is the still moments between the frames. It is silence between loudness. Film communicates by juxtaposing one clip with another. It is the arrangement of these clips that creates the feeling and communicates the emotion. The moments we capture - those are the vocabulary, but the arrangement of the moments makes the sentences.

How does this relate to Michael Jordan? And why are we reading about him on a wedding video discussion? Well, a lot of people think of him as the greatest basketball player because of the aesthetic of what we see. It was just downright impressive how powerful, fast, and graceful a player he was. So people remember moments. The slam dunk from the freethrow line. A leap in the air with an effortless spin as the ball rolls off his fingers into the basket. But I really feel that it was his instinct that truly made him great, and not the athleticism. He knew where to be. He knew when to shoot. He knew how to move. He knew what to do. It was the instinct telling him exactly what needed to be done that made the rest of his abilities meaningful.

And so it is with editing. Slow motion may or may not be good. Fast cutting may or may not be good. Black and white may or may not be good. I watch a movie at the theater, and when I see something particularly nice, I say "Wow! That was beautiful!" But I'm going to contend that this isn't what makes a film or a wedding video meaningful. It is the moments inbetween. The things you don't see. It is the decision to sequence one clip after another in a particular order and specific fashion that pulls us deeper and deeper into the moment. Arranged well, a video whether it is stylish and modern or traditional and classic, will hold up viewing after viewing. It will even become better with each viewing. Does the shooting matter? Of course. With no vocabulary, there is no communication. But it is the editing - the glue that binds the moments - that is the heart of it all.

To get to the other side. Simple. Surprising. But no real story there. The reason that people ignore the obvious answer is because we, as humans, seek explanation. We expect a story. We expect that an action is not just a goal-oriented exercise, but that it has purpose. And here we are again in wedding video land. Looking for stories in all the wrong places. A lot of people go from place to place watching videos to find the prettiest and most romantic video. New Yorkers are a unique breed, so that is a bit less common for weddings in Manhattan proper. Still, it's the classic way to see a video. My thought for the day is to remember that no one really cares that the chicken made its way across the street in a golden-hued sunset. People want to understand why we act as we do - to see character and personality. To gain insight into lives. That's what wedding video is really about.

So, I noticed an interesting thing the other day. It sounds a little ridiculous, since we in Manhattan are just across the river from New Jersey, but I realized that the market was entirely different! Actually, speaking with a wedding planner prompted the thought. Leslie from the Bridal Scout mentioned that the services available in New Jersey were slightly different than Manhattan, and I started to think about it as I slept. I didn't come to a conclusion as to why, per se, but I did think back to a wedding that I just shot over the weekend in New Jersey. Green. Spacious. No congestion at all, just a nice day with beautiful lighting. Then I started to think about how weddings in New York look. Urban. Gritty. A contrast of classic and modern, worn and new, harsh and beautiful. It's just a different world. I know that we don't do anything differently when we edit for a New Jersey or Long Island wedding instead of a New York wedding, but it simply feels different. One of our samples was for a wedding at the Puck Building for example. And it feels like something in the city. People walking on the streets, the building itself, and even Central Park, which, for all accounts, looks like a park when shots are cropped in. That feeling, in turn motivates our sense of pace and rhythm. The cadence is a little different, the tones are a little harder-edged. It all adds up. I started to notice, for example, that our videos from Long Island often use a little more saturation in the outdoor scenes with more black and white indoors. Not because we try to make them look different, but it's simply what the footage calls for. Now combine this with the fact that New York is the independent film capital of America, and I suppose it's not so surprising that New Jersey's video market feels largely different. But who would have thought that a river could make so much of a difference?

OK, the title is a little deceptive here. I know it sounds like I'm going to give a list of places. But what can I really suggest that every New Yorker doesn't already know? Times Square? Union Square? Grand Central? The Brooklyn Bridge? Sure, we've shot in all of these locations, and they look great. But so does the wall two blocks down the street from me next to the Chinese take-out place. And so too does the weekly street fair.

So I'm going to suggest something a little different. Instead of thinking about how a place looks for a wedding video, think about how you will feel at that location. Find a place that you enjoy being. Where you can be active and do something. Where you can be yourself, and where the bridal party will have some fun. I remember one couple who went to Times Square, only to realize that it was crowded and that they didn't like the attention. Did it come through on the video? Yep. We couldn't use a large portion of the footage, because they looked unhappy. Another couple shot at Battery Park. Unfortunately, it was an hour's drive each way between their ceremony and reception, so they were so stressed that they looked miserable. There's also the base of the Brooklyn Bridge on the Brooklyn side. It looks great, but there's often a wait for space, since there are usually 2 other bridal parties there at any time on a Saturday afternoon. Not to mention that some people don't like that there are 2 other bridal parties there, which some couples simply don't like.

Now I'm not saying not to shoot at any of the locations I've just mentioned. Times Square is hustling and bustling and it can be a lot of fun. The Brooklyn Bridge can be beautiful, and Battery Park has some great open space along the water. What I am suggesting is to think about how well the locations will fit into the day and whether they reflect the personalities involved. People being themselves tear through the veneer of the day, making a video that is personal. And in the end, the personality is everything.

1. Restraint and grace of style.

I think there's an interesting point here. Elegance is something much sought after in the world. Even scientific equations strive to be "elegant." As do wedding videos. And weddings. And all things related, in fact. Even the packaging for wedding videos seek elegance. And to that end, I see more script-based type and then I've see in a whole year doing graphic design (I've spent a good number of years as a graphic designer). The ubiquitous copperplate. I see it in title sequences and DVD covers. In business cards and promotional literature. And I keep wondering "Why?" And I know the answer. Because it's what people think of when they think "elegant." And I think there's a parallel to be drawn to wedding video here.

Now script type is all well and good for an invitation. It's the standard in the industry, though, I myself, would prefer to see typefaces of more contemporary "elegance." Zuzana Licko, for example, has some richly crafted typefaces that include some of the best there is out there today. But I cringe a little when I see it used in wedding video. I often wonder if it's just a reflection of a state of the industry. It frustrates me that there is a body of wonderful work crafted by some very dedicated and talented people, and that work is swallowed by a sea of mediocrity. And let's face it, the reputation for wedding video by brides isn't exactly the best. Do any contemporary movies look like the archetypical "wedding video?" For that matter, do any movies look like wedding videos? Where did these strange transitions come from? The page peel? Glowing embers floating over the picture? I cherish the day that it all goes away. And along with these is the script styled typeface that must wedding videographers select. It's outdated. Any person can take a walk in Saks and see that nearly no high end product uses such type. And when they are used, they are usually done thoughtfully, not because a designer simply though "Oh, that's elegant, so I should use it."

So this is the parallel that I draw. Elegance is a restraint of grace and style. Script typefaces are just the opposite in this day and age. They are a statement announcing grace and style. They exist to say "Look at how much style I have!" They are obvious and loud. In short, they're not really elegant anymore. And I see the same in editing. Instead of showing restraint, many videographers take elements classically perceived as "elegant," and heap it on. Is some slow motion nice? Then let's use more! 50%? Not enough. 70%? Getting there. How about 80% or more? Having an all slow motion piece can work just fine for a 4-minute highlight, but for an hour? That's not elegant. That's just dull. Or, perhaps, one pretty shot is nice. So wedding videographers begin to look for two, or three, or four and forget about the story and personalities in the exchange. So long as it looks elegant. And so it goes. What is good in limited quantities, becomes excessive and overblown in totality. What starts off as elegance becomes excess. I'm all for elegance. But true elegance lies in economy and efficiency. It's about showing only what needs to be there. It is something that we will understand, and yet we won't know why. It's hidden behind the scenes, because elegance is about thoughtful reduction, and how can we ever perceive reduction?

It occurred to me today, as I thought about a recent episode of Alias, that in the best films, bullets are like words and words are like bullets. In lesser films, bullets are like bullets and words are like words. This is to say that when film is at its best, physical actions have the magnetic power and depth of words, and words have the power to pierce as deeply as any bullet or knife. Ever sit there on the edge of your seat, hoping that someone wouldn't say something? Or do something? How about the ending of Seven, where you're watching Brad Pitt with the gun. Getting ready to squeeze...getting ready, but no...yes...then he pulls the trigger. And you know what it all means. You know that he knows what it all means. But he had to. Start the movie that way, and you simply wouldn't care. That's how stories go. They make you care. They make you interested. They make you want to see more. It's true for movies, television, video, and, you guessed it, wedding video.

I'd read the reviews, so I made a point to avoid the movie rendition of the musical. And I managed to hold out for pretty long, but my curiosity finally got the better of me, and I rented the movie. That was a big mistake. Did it look good? I suppose. But I just kept asking myself, "What's the point?" No characterization, no insight, and no humanity. The musical is a bit of a one trick pony, but it was quite a trick in its day. And I say I enjoyed it. I felt something as Christine returned the ring to the Phantom at the end. But not in the movie. It took a concept, and reiterated it without using the medium. For example, at one point, Christine sings of her father when he passed away. And what do we see? Pictures of her father passing away. As if we were too vapid to understand the concept just through words. Or by showing something less literal. Take Sideways, for example, in the dinner scene where Paul Giametti's character has drank a little too much and recently found out his ex-wife was remarried. We hear the dialogue from the dinner conversation, but what we see is his response. A phone call. Anxiety. Thought. We can feel that he is off kilter, and it lets us understand his feelings towards the conversation that we hear. In other words, by showing something other than the literal imagery of the dinner conversation, we are able to enter his psyche and better understand him. No such insights occur in the Phantom. Instead , it was a slide show in technicolor that said nothing more than the musical on stage. Except that this wasn't on stage, so what worked in one medium didn't work here.

This is a great lesson for wedding video. Many people expect and approach wedding videography as a structural documentation of the day. They count on the photography to capture the emotion and nuance, while the video reproduces the order of the events. But, when done right, this couldn't be further from the truth. Video, like film, is a dynamic medium that compresses time and space in a way that nothing else can. We frequently hear people talk about our couples. "Oh, she's so into it!" or "You can see what he's thinking." People react during weddings, and when done right, a video will be rich with questions, stories, and answers. People will have character, and they will be thinking and feeling as they respond to the tapestry of their wedding day. Might it look good too? Of course. But that's not the real story.

Each videographer has a signature shot in each video and in their arsenal. Here in New York, one of the ones I see frequently is a wide shot of a couple in Grand Central station with the three windows above them and the information booth with the clock on top behind them. I even shot the same thing myself. But how distinct can a signature be when I can name the very shot and take it on any day of the week? It's a nice shot, but I'd suggest looking for something a little different to couples out there looking for a videographer. Most people will recognize composition and special effects (for better or worse). I'd suggest watching for emotional connection. Do you know what the bride and groom are like at the end of the video? Do you know how they felt about the moments and their guests? Did they think about different things during the day? Were they unique as a couple? Were their feelings more significant than the rituals they performed? To me, the shot that defines the wedding video is the one that makes me react most strongly. It's not the most impressive shot - it's the most insightful. Personally, my favorite moments are the glances and gestures. They always tell more than Grand Central Station will.

I had a meeting yesterday, and I inquired about my competition. The other vendors were all quality videographers in and around New York, and I started to wonder. What is it that leads someone to choose one group over another? That's a hard one for me to answer, since I'm on the wrong end of things to answer the question, but it did prompt me to think about different styles a little more. Traditionally, from a marketing sense, vendors tend to categorize wedding video as something that is either documentary or cinematic in nature. I even did so myself in a prior post. Strangely, most vendors aren't fully either, so I thought I'd try to expand the definitions. Here are the four categories I'll try using: romantic, artistic, documentary, contemporary.

Romantic
These videos eschew most of the distractions from the day, ranging from anxiety and concern to hurried moments that don't quite fit in. Instead, they focus on the positive emotions, thick and lush in atmosphere. The signature look for these types of videos are moving camera motions that flow smoothly across the scene and the use of extensive slow motion (frequently, nearly the entire video is in slow motion except for the ceremony). Usually, the music will be either instrumental or ballads.

Artistic
The signature technique of the artistic style is the use of 8 mm film. Artistic videos focus on the abstract flow of the wedding, often using extended shots without cutting to give the full flavor of the event. Very often, there is noticeable camera shake, to offer a bit of a cinema verite feel. The movement, though, isn't the typical type of movement used by novices, but an organic movement that gives the viewer a sense of being behind the camera. Coloration is frequently altered from reality, to give a classic feel to the footage.

Documentary
The truest of documentary styles will capture the essence of the wedding by conveying the emotional tone and temperment of the day itself. It will have the strongest story line, with the most abundant use of audio. Purists will have no music at all, but that is such a rare event that I include in the category those practitioners who choose not to use filters and effects to manipulate footage. If romanticists use almost all slow motion, documentarians will use virtually none.

Contemporary
This is the least defined category of the four. Contemporary videos vary dramatically, but their signatures are the use of editing and visual techniques from modern cinema, music video, and television. They generally have a faster pace than the other styles, with quick cutting and sharp editing. Effects are abundant, most

I talk so much about stories, that sometimes, I almost forget to talk about what I think a story is. A couple recently asked me "So what's the story here?" And I must say that I was surprised. No one had ever bothered to ask before. On the surface, it seems like every wedding story is the same, isn't it? It's a wedding, after all. But, then, most romances are just about the same too. Boy meets girl (or vice versa). Boy loses girl. Boy wins back girl. And I realized that the story isn't the plot structure. The plot of almost every wedding is the same. Each story is quite different. The story is about the places the couple has been and the things they were doing. More importantly, it is about how they react to what they were doing. The story is the excitement or nervousness from the bride and the fulfillment of those feelings at the ceremony. It is about the lifelong friendship between the best man and the groom. It's the playful gestures between the couple that let us know how they're feeling, and the stolen moments off in the corner that tell us that it really was a special day. The story is the collection of moments that informs us about the how the couple feels about the wedding and each other, and there's nothing else quite like it.

A lot of couples acquire the various checklists that you can find throughout the Web about how to choose a wedding videographer. The questions include things like "What type of camera do you use? Does it have 3 CCDs?" or "Have you been to the location before?" Not that there's anything wrong with these questions - they're a good foundation. However I find it interesting that when someone talks about a good movie, people almost never discuss the quality of the audio, the shakiness of the camera, or the graphics used. Instead, they talk about how they felt, whether they enjoyed it, if it made sense and how what things were interesting or moving. And I'm really waiting to see articles that talk about that. It's ironic, given that most of these articles are written by videographers, who almost certainly agree that a cookie-cutter approach is no way to go about creating a video. Yet, in my mind listing a littany of procedural items (which are, admittedly, legitimate) encourages people to look for technical competence and not quality. And judging quality isn't as easy as it seems.

Justice Stewart of the Supreme Court once said of pornography "I'll know it when I see it." And that's exactly how most people feel about evaluating a wedding video. And I agree that each couple should trust their taste. But there are other factors at play that won't be so obvious, but which will affect the final video just as substantially. When we watch a film on television, most people never notice the precision of the set design or the color correction. If it's done right, it should simply feel right. What people notice are the connections between the characters. The personalities. The flow. These are the things that make a show touching or fun or exciting. I suggest that people pay attention to the same factors for a video. Watch to see whether the bride's personality comes through. Is there a sense of her character? Are her real feelings portrayed? I watched a video once where I could see the bride and groom longingly fantasizing about their day as the lush music swept over them, but I wondered, was this how they really felt? If it is, then the romanticism was a proper choice. But a lot of times, brides are feeling anything but romantic. They may be happy and excited, or they may be nervous and a little tense. And I think showing that isn't a bad thing. In fact, showing a bride's concern is exactly what makes the payoff of a happy and tearful wedding all the more moving. I still remember being anxious about my wedding, and I talk about that with my wife all the time. It's part of what makes my story personal.

Other things to watch out for are pretty brides and pretty locations. This is not to say that clever composition shouldn't be noticed. Well thought out shooting is always respectable. But a shoot at Oheka Castle or Grand Central will look more dramatic and impressive than the Marriott Marquis or the Sheraton. By the same token, pretty brides also look better on screen, but they do nothing to improve the emotional quality of a video. Look for the manner in which a location is shot, instead of the natural beauty of a location. And apply the same for the bride in the demo. David Letterman once said of Sandra Bullock that she looked so good, you could just watch her vacuum a room. But the problem was that all of the movies were essentially the same - just her vacuuming a room again. Look for videos that show individual treatments of brides and grooms as couples and that pierce the shell of the wedding structure to reveal more about the individuals. This is what really makes a wedding video something for you to cherish.

I was reading an article about an interview with Godard this morning, and he sadly proclaimed, "Cinema is over." In that, he meant that it had lost its chance to improve society. I don't know whether I agree or disagree. On one hand, we've managed to crawl our way out of the 80's with a new burst of talent and vision. On the other, a decade after that, film festivals are sprouting up as quickly as weeds. While it superficially seems like a good thing, I wonder whether we're witnessing a feeding frenzy of opportunism. When people think of Cannes, now, do they think of artistry or the red carpet? And don't even start with the Academy Awards, speaking of red carpets. So what does all of this have to do with wedding videos? And music video?

I remember someone walking by our booth at a bridal show, and they said "Oh, you're sort of like the MTV of New York wedding video." I rather took it as a good thing - it's always better to have some brand than none, I figure. And, well, we sort of are like the MTV of wedding video. But with a little more heart and sentiment. So why do I blame music video for the decline of civilization as we know it? Dismissing items such as the lack of substantive television (a completely different issue), I should say that I believe that music videos are their own unique artform, and some of them are just outstanding. They can be gorgeous and insightful in their own right. But I also think that a lot of times people take the wrong lessons out of them. It's like someone listening to a Mahler symphony (or for a more conemporary analogy, let's say Green Day), and taking nothing more out of it other than "Oh! My music needs to be louder!"

And there we have the problem. Too many videographers see music videos and pull out the "loudness." I call it the Michael Bay syndrome. Instead of finding ways to create more tension (and let's face it, tension in all its forms is what really keeps things going in a movie), people resort to finding more action. Too dull? Blow up a car. Still too slow? Have someone in the car. That's not tension. That's a headache. Tension is when the bomb is in the car, but it doesn't blow up until we're not expecting it. The same is true in wedding video. A bride who is nervous creates tension. "Will her day be as happy as she hopes?" Whispering in the groom's ear is tension. "What did she say? Will we find out?"

And so it goes. Cool is fine. In fact, I like cool. But what makes it even better is when each clip and each moment is placed where it is for a reason. When they build on each other, not just because they look good, but because they mean something, whether it be whimsical, dramatic, thematic, or something else altogether. That's the essence of creativity, and it might even be a way to restore civilization, while we're at it.

Wedding video in New York City is a special breed. That's not to say that it's superior - there is some marvelous work throughout the country - but it's just different. It's a cross-section of veterans and beginners tinged with a hint of indie film, inspired by students making a living and the film industry in general out here. Even going across the river to groups focusing on wedding video in New Jersey, and you have a slightly different feel. What it comes down to is that there is a huge amount of choice, whether you want film or video, documentary or artistic, it's there. And yet, for all that, I overheard someone asking a bride the other day, "you don't want a wedding video, do you?" I know exactly what she meant when she said that. No, I don't imagine she did want a tacky piece of nostalgia that cheapens her wedding, and I guess this is a bit of a defense of my industry in my city, but there's more to it than that. Try it. Wedding video isn't what it used to be.

Because we base our pricing on time, one of the most common questions we get is how much time is necessary for a wedding video. The real question, though, should be what events are the important ones? For example, a lot of people dismiss the hours before the bride puts on her dress, almost as if the wedding were a production itself. But the time before a groom puts on his tuxedo or the bride her dress is invaluable. These are the times that people show the excitement, the tension, and the anticipation that gives the ceremony so much of its meaning. Other people opt not to cover the last hour of the reception. In general, I agree that this time isn’t as critical as the preparation. However, the hugs and kisses, the final tears, and even some of the dancing that takes place as the guests loosen up add a personal touch that deepens the emotional depth of the day.

So how much time is necessary for a video? For shorter weddings, 8 hours is enough to get a solid video that will capture most of the best moments. This is especially true in cases where most of the wedding will take place within the same location. With this amount of time the best choice is generally to take away some of the time from the late reception, after the cake cutting and to apply it to the bridal preparation, earlier in the day. One thing to keep in mind is that one hour is necessary for preparation at the church, so 8 hours may not permit for groom coverage. For weddings with longer days, over 10 hours provides adequate coverage. The extra time not only amounts to a more subtle story, but the extra preparation time adds a wealth of personality. Better yet, the extra coverage of the small things that comes with a longer day makes for a more intricate story with more subtlety.

I've never taken the time to formally write these things down, but I've certainly written and talked about them plenty, so they're not too hard to infer. I watch a lot of wedding videos, and there are warning signs that go off in my head when I see certain things. These are my pet peeves. Details to come later.

1. Excessive slow motion
2. All dissolves and no cuts
3. Sappy music
4. False romanticism
5. Excessive slow motion (I thought it was worth repeating)
6. Cookie cutter emotions
7. The dramatic dress shot
8. Soft filters
9. Cinematic styles that aren't cinematic
10. Tacky graphics
11. Slow pace
12. Lack or personality
13. 2 and 1/2 hour videos
14. Film scratch effect
15. Most old film effects in general, unless it's really film
16. Masks that show one scene faded onto another
17. No transitional shots
18. The "Big Moment" style
19. Video look
20. Excessive slow motion

I watched The Door in the Floor this evening, and I was a bit disappointed. It happens that I was watching Short Cuts by Robert Altman last night, and the way these two films addressed reality was striking. Both were full of implausibility, but Altman's film had randomness with a core sense of humanity that allowed me to suspend my disbelief, while The Door in the Floor had the opposite. It had direction, but seemed to lack truth. It didn't have verisimilitude – it didn't capture a semblance of truth that allowed me feel and connect. Instead, it felt synthetic and manufactured, as if each scene were part of the mandatory structure of the piece. This is a bit is ironic, since another annoyance was that much of it felt repetitive and overextended. Actions took place with blatant and unnecessary symbolism, and dialogue was dispensed like clues in mystery, but without the requisite tension and curiosity. It was neither conceptually satisfying nor narratively engaging.

All mediums are different from real life. What I really hope for is that the semblance of truth will be so powerful that I accept the differences between the dramatic form and real life. I feel much the same about wedding videos. I often talk about conveying truth in video, but in actuality, this isn't a possibility. Rather, it should feel real, without taking people through all the unnecessary details of reality. I suppose this is what I am really after - verisimilitude.

For a period, we were offering editing options on our New York wedding video services, until I realized that no one knew what editing was. Finally, we removed the options, but it remains the part of the process that I enjoy the most. A lot of people don't know it, but there was a time when editing was at the cutting edge of the film world. Of course, by now, the art of editing is so well established now that creative power lies with the director, but the importance of good editing remains. Especially in the wedding video industry, where many people are relative newcomers or lack formal training.

When it comes down to it, editing is truly about communication. It can be storytelling, it can be abstract concept, but it is always about communication. More tangibly, editing is the language in which all of us understand film. It tells us when time passes, when people cross distances worlds apart, and what people do. It lets us see thought, and understand meaning.

When we see a shot of a person turning their head down, followed by a close-up of a ring, we assume that they've just looked at their ring. When we see a bride staring into the distance and then a romantic kiss with the groom, we know we are seeing her thoughts. When we see a couple walk away from us, followed by a shot of them entering a reception hall, we accept that they’ve moved forward in time and travelled from one location to another.

Everyone knows the importance of shooting. If you don’t capture it, you have nothing to work with. And who can’t appreciate the unbridled majesty of the setting sun as the day comes to and end? In fact, shooting is so well recognized, that people will pay for an extra camera, an extra shooter, or the use of different types of equipment. And yet, when it comes down to it, if I had a choice between adequate shooting with excellent editing or adequate editing with excellent shooting, I would take the editing.

Editing sets up the connections and let’s us understand the experience. It takes us into the world of the couple, and creates the meaning behind the day. It’s a bit like comparing a postcard with an Edward Weston photo. Some may prefer the look of the postcard, but it’s just not something you can dig into to and look at over and over. More to the point, have you ever wondered why some videos feel like they’re from the 80’s? Editing. Or why they feel schmaltzy? Editing. Or why the pace feels slow? Editing. In the end, editing tells the story and creates the meaning behind the video, and that makes all the difference.

I've spent that past couple days helping some friends with their bridal show demo. I think it came out pretty nicely, but being the outsider on this, it was interesting to see things objectively. I could monitor my reaction to the piece, which is something I can't do with my own work. Some things worked very well for me, while others were a little drier. It occurred to me as I watched the piece that it didn't have the exact same tone as their regular work. In fact, most demos I've seen don't. I’ve concluded that a demo is a fine way to help decide who's worth meeting, but don't use it as a gauge for style or quality. It's nothing more than an introduction, and we all know what they say about first impressions. Here are 10 things that a bridal show demo does not show, in no particular order:

1. How does the videographer deal with smaller moments?
2. Are the actual videos fast-paced or slow?
3. How is music and sound used?
4. How strong is the storytelling?
5. Do they do long-form or short-form videos?
6. How do they generate emotion?
7. Is the editing going to be crisp and clean or soft and romantic?
8. What is shot selection like?
9. What types of editing choices are going to be made?
10. Does the full wedding video capture personality?

As a corollary to this list, there are certain things to be inferred from watching a wedding video. A lot of people go into a session to be shown work that is not representative of their video. Not necessarily because all of the other work from that videographer is going to be worse. But usually because the video selected for a demo is going to be one that communicates best with objective viewers, but not necessarily the couple. Here are some things to think about when seeing a sample video:

The couple is the target audience
What is ideal for the couple is not necessarily ideal for an outside viewer. A couple knows the importance of the smaller moments, the transitions, the locations, and people's individual actions. In other words, there is an emotional value for the actual couple that is missing for objective viewers. I've seen videos filled with bloated emotion that are just right for demos. But they lacked the nuances that are valuable to the couple. Or they exaggerate the reality of the day, which looks great as a sample, but doesn’t necessarily connect with the people in the wedding. As I see it, a successful video is not when outside viewers cry. It's when the participants cry.

Storytelling varies
Many videos are not focused on telling stories. It is ironic how frequently I read about the fact that people don't use a cookie-cutter approach, when what they mean is their videos don’t always show the same things in the same order. I look at their work, and I see that the footage influences what is shown. But what is not different in each video is the emotional story. I've seen so many videos founded on the exact same touchpoints. There's the slow motion dress shot. Then the slow motion closeup shot during preparation. Then the beauty shot by the window. Then the first shot of the church. And so it goes. From watching some collections of work, you'd think that every bride had the exact same emotional experience. And I can attest to the fact that no bride has the exact same emotional experience. A good video should show what the couple thinks is important. Not what observers think is important.

Personality is what makes us special
Some people laugh, some cry. Some days are endearing, others are fun. Some couples are playful, some are romantic. Every couple has a personality. A wedding video should show these personalities. You should know what the bride and groom are like by the end of the video. Sophisticated and subtle or fun and frenetic? Quirky or straightlaced? How did they feel about their wedding the day? When I talk with people about how to shoot and what to capture, I tell them to look for the small moments. The revealing ones. Then take all of that material back into the editing room, and craft a story that shows who the people really are and how they experienced their wedding. This is endearing, enduring, and the truth of capturing the moment.

How much time does a wedding video take? I've seen a lot of articles talking about starting your own business with wedding videography being a frequent suggestion on these lists – a perfect part-time gig that can grow quickly into a full-time business. I agree that it's a good business to start on the side, but I do sometimes wonder how much experience the writers of these articles have. A wedding video can be an extensive commitment, and anyone engaging in the pursuit should be ready to put in a good amount of work. How much time goes into a video? Here's a breakdown from a recent wedding:

2 videographers for 1 day's work (driving included): 26 hours
Time to import tapes: 8 hours
Edit wedding video: 27 hours
Create highlight video: 7 hours
Create DVD: 2 hours
Total Time: 70 hours

There are a lot of misconceptions about film, HD, and video. I throw in 24P into the mix, because, while many people don’t know what it is, they recognize the difference when they see it. I remember when I was a kid I would stare at video and films, trying to figure out why one of them looked more like reality, while the other looked glossier and more dramatic. Really. That’s what I would think about as a kid. I wondered about this for about 20 years. And it’s no wonder that there’s so much confusion. Even common vernacular encourages this. People ask, “Are you filming?” to see if they are recording. And the material captured is referred to as "footage."

To start off, let’s explain the difference between film and video. Film is just as it sounds. It's captured on film using a photochemical process to create the image. Just like the still cameras we all used to use before the digital revolution. Movies are generally shot on film, but not always, as I’ll talk about later. Most television is shot on film too. Video, on the other hand, is a different medium altogether. Video is a little harder to describe, but let it suffice to say that it is a different process to capture images, most commonly using videotapes for storage recorded through video cameras.

There are a number of reasons the two look different, ranging from color balance and grain to contrast and tonality, but until recently, the two constants have been that video is interlaced and it runs at a different frame rate.

In NTSC (the standard used in the U.S.), video runs at 60 frames per second. Film cameras play at 24 frames per second, and that fact alone will create a markedly different look. Just as significant is the interlacing. Video is captured in halves. Imagine if the image from your TV screen were broken up into hundreds of lines, and instead of capturing image data from every line in each frame, only half of them were used. More specifically, video alternates between capturing the odd half and the even half of the lines, so when it records an image each frame, it only records half of that image. To make a complete image, we need to combine the one set of odd lines and one set of even ones. Hence, the term interlacing. It is this interlacing and the framerate that make watching a movie and a newscast so different in appearance. Is the look of one medium better than the other? Not necessarily. But most people tend to associate quality with film.

“Your wedding videos look so much like movies!” I hear that quite often. So, if video is so different then how can we make things look like film when we shoot video? The answer is 24P. 24P is a format now supported by several video cameras. Unlike traditional video, it captures whole frames of images at once – no interlacing here, and it does so at 24 frames per second. This is similar to the way film cameras captures images, thus giving a filmic look. Until the Panasonic DVX-100 showed up on the scene, it would cost about $70,000 to buy a camera that could shoot in 24P.

So what about shooting in film? Well, we spent some time playing around with 8 mm film cameras for our wedding work, but it just wasn’t our cup of tea. Among some, this may be considered blasphemous. It seems that here in New York, there’s a niche market among the elite based on shooting weddings with film. It is, after all, the indie film capital. As a director, I’ve choosen to shoot with film, so I’m a little torn when I say this. I do love the look of film. Even 8 mm, which is what most people use for weddings. It is organic with beautiful grain structure.

But really, when I say I love the look of film, it’s 35mm film I’m talking about. This is the format typically used for shooting movies and most television shows. The quality is impressive, as we all know by taking a trip to any theater. Even Super 16 film looks quite pleasing. Leaving Las Vegas was filmed in this format. But most people don’t use Super 16 at weddings. They use Super 8. By this point, we’re looking at a resolution less than 1/10th that of 35mm film. We’re also generally referring to the use of much more elementary cameras than are used for movie and television production.

In then end, what it comes down to is personal preference. If people like 8mm, then by all means, use it. But when people talk about the natural beauty of film and assert that video pales in comparison, I believe that it is a significant overstatement that is more marketing hyperbole than substantive analysis. Being a matter of opinion, several people will disagree strongly with what I’ve just said, but it remains my opinion. What is fact is that in the exchange for the look of real film, shooters are limited to shooting less footage with no image stabilization, and less sensitivity in low light. On top of that, it is harder to focus, and the look of the film will include uneven lighting, dust, and limited resolution. And I’m going to say it. Well shot video is beautiful in its own right. I know that might strip me of any cachet as a high end wedding video provider, but that’s my two cents.

OK, so we can already figure that I’d take good video over 8mm for my own wedding, and, in fact, I did, but let’s add a twist. Now there’s HD. HD is a higher resolution acquisition standard, but it is still video. I know how popular it is to refer to HD as "HD" instead of video. I mean, who really wants people to think that their upscale medium is the same as those little camcorders that tourists use while walking through Times Square? But HD is video. And it is nothing like the little cameras Uncle Bob uses in Times Square.

Large parts of Collateral were shot on HD. And if someone would prefer to shoot a commercially distributed movie in 8mm instead of HD, I would have some serious questions. Of course the Viper Filmstream camera used for Collateral is about as far off from low-end HD as a Ferrari is from a Honda, but it was still HD. The same is true for the new Star Wars films.

What’s more interesting is that a number of HD cameras are about to make their way into the wedding video industry. It’s true that we’re also talking about HDV, which is a spin-off of HD, but we’re still looking at resolutions substantially higher than what you can get with an NTSC video camera. I think there’s no question that HD exceeds the quality of NTSC, all things being equal, but does it exceed 8mm film?

I suspect that for the vast majority of viewers, the answer will be “yes.” Oh, I can hear the people talking about the organic luminance range of film in my head. “It has 11 stops!” The ephemerally beautiful quality of film, yada, yada, yada. But in my book, there’s not much comparison. Even good standard video exceeds 8mm as I see it. Take a look at the footage from an SDX900. Looks great, even when upconverted to HD. And well shot HD just decimates 8mm film in detail and resolution. Color quality can also be excellent. And while dynamic range may be limited to 7 stops for some cameras, the look is still quite nice when shot well.

I don’t think any of this will change the fact that certain people will opt to truly “film” their wedding videos. And I think that’s just fine. My beef is over the assertion that video can’t equal the look of film and is inherently inferior. Or when people wax poetic about the attributes of film, positioning it as a holy grail. Film is film. Video is video. Each medium has its own properties, look, and advantages. People should work with that which they like and works for them. But in the end, quality lies in the result and not the medium.

I read a post the other day on a wedding videography board that was discussing the use of Dutch shots. For those unfamiliar with the term, these are off-axis shots. The tilted perspective tends to be very dramatic in feel, which is why movies usually use them to convey imbalance. In wedding videos, it is more often done for style instead of substance. I've been guilty of doing the latter, I confess. The post asserted that we, as wedding videographers, should avoid Dutch shots, because they were trendy and focus on more timeless technique. I disagree. The idea that we should omit a creative option simply because it is "trendy" is dogmatic. Used properly, it lends drama and perspective, creating a layer of depth that might otherwise be missing.

Now, I'd love to say that I've always been one to buck the trend, but I have to admit that I'm as much a victim to style as the next guy. I suppose the real question in my mind isn't about whether we should use Dutch shots or not, but really, is anything timeless? I read the phrase "timeless wedding videos" on a regular basis. I've probably even used it myself, but it still bothers me to no end. Timeless – it's as if there were some artistic "right" that is immune to the winds of change. If you ask me, it's just the opposite. It's exactly because things address and reflect the culture and time in which they were created that they are as good as they are. And, really, is anything truly timeless?

I was watching the Godfather with my wife not too long ago. She commented that it was stylistically dated, though she still enjoyed the movie. I couldn't believe my ears. "What? The Godfather? It's a classic!" And it is a classic. But I had to admit that its look indicated that it was quite clearly created over two decades ago. And that's not a bad thing. It does nothing to diminish the impact of Chinatown, The Graduate, or Battleship Potemkin that they look "old." Their quality is fully perceptible. But, we can't look at them in the vacuum of "timelessness." Rather, it is necessary to understand the era in which they were created to truly appreciate their brilliance. This is the nature of communication and art. If Rothko and Rembrandt switched eras, neither would have been recognized. Rothko would be incomprehensible, and Rembrandt would be pedestrian. It is the time in which we exist that gives context and meaning to the styles we adopt. This is true in literature, art, and with no exception, wedding videography.

Now, as a digression, I can't help but wonder if trying to find the timeless is a bit of an illusory exercise. Some things seem never to go out of style, while other things leave fast, but who's to know? And who's to say? And even if "timeless" did exist, is it better to have a wedding video that you loved for 5 years, but stop watching after a decade? Or is it better to have a product that you never really enjoyed enough to watch that much in the first place? If the answer is the former, then I figure a person should just take what they like.

More significantly, I believe that for each trend, there is a cultural reaction that endures. Things change, and as a society, we assimilate these changes, which in turn alter the way we perceive. That is the cycle and the process. This means that there will never be an objective standard to judge stylistic merit. In other words, there never will be a stylistic sense of "timeless." Communication changes. There is that which is good and that which is bad, but there is no way to pigeonhole excellence and failure into simple style. To borrow a phrase from Duke Ellington, it is beyond category.

I spent awhile trying to decide whether to refer to what we do as videography or cinematography. Cinematography had such a nice sound to it (hence, our name). But it seems that wedding videography or wedding video is more readily recognized. I figure if that is the case in New York and even Manhattan, it is likely to be the case in most places, but I'm still on the fence on the subject. Sometimes, I wonder how much it matters. I think to myself "It's the quality of the work that makes the difference, not the name or verbiage we use." Isn't it?

Then I saw a "mobile estate" the other day. It sounded so luxurious, until I realized it was a trailer park. What's funny is that I can't help but think that the term "trailer park" may have felt very serene and luxurious at one time too. Not just a "parking lot," but a beautiful park in which to house your trailer. Perhaps, one day we will conjure up the same connotations with "mobile estates" that we currently do with "trailer parks."

There's a lot of buzz from the new HD cameras that were just shown at NAB. It's a tough decision deciding between the Panasonic's HVX200 and the GY-HV100 from JVC. The Panasonic is a monster, with everything that I could have wanted at the price point, but P2 cards will only record about 20 minutes, which is going to make the pretty expensive at $2K a pop. I tend to think that the HV100 is more in line with wedding videographer needs. Using a tape-based acquisition format, it provides the standard hour of recording, and there's no need to download the material in throughout the day. I suppose the question is whether bride and grooms will notice the difference and value it. Tough call, given that neither camera has been released, but I think I'm going to have a lot of sleepless nights ahead looking forward to the upgrades!

I’ve been creating wedding video in New York for some time now, but teaching is a little newer to me. I was teaching the basics of editing the other day, and a student asked one question over and over that really stood out. Specifically, she asked whether what she was doing was right. To her frustration, I would usually say “Maybe.” I showed example after example, but the question never went away, until finally, I realized that the problem wasn’t that she didn’t understand what I was showing her. It was that she didn’t understand the nature of editing and its influence on our perceptions.

She saw wedding video in a completely different context than I do. She was looking at the editing for its ability to reflect the beauty of the footage. Her arrangement of footage was based on the notion of creating the most visually appealing sequence, making it seem like a natural question as to whether she was doing things “properly.”

The problem is that editing isn’t about creating beauty. It is about revealing and creating meaning. This is the aspect of editing that has always intrigued me the most, and, by the same token, it is my most frequent gripe with the work I don’t like. It’s probably also the least understood aspect of the art or editing. Wedding videography takes a bad rap because so few practitioners focus on the meaning behind their footage.

The truest nature of editing is that the sequencing of footage and the selection of footage used has more to do with storytelling than the existence of the footage itself. There’s no right decision until we see what happens before and after any given clip. This is commonly lost upon the beginning wedding videographer, for whom the natural tendency is to focus on visuals, emphasizing the prettiest and most dramatic images. The idea is that the nicer the video looks, the more powerful it is. This belies the truth about editing.

What’s better? A movie that looks great but that is uninvolving, or a movie that looks adequate, but that takes the viewer on the same journey as the characters? All too often, I see videos that play out like a sequence of still photos strung together. Sometimes nice, sometimes not, but almost always failing to reveal the nature of the couple and their personalities. I’ve seen some videos where 80% or more is in slow motion. How much slow motion do we see on television and in theaters? Why not more? Because too much of it interferes with our ability to connect with the story, and connecting to the story is the very purpose of editing, not special effects.

If I cut to a shot of a bride crying after a groom whispers some special words to her, what is the effect? The two events (the crying and the whispering) could have occurred 15 minutes apart, but when placed next to each other in a video, the implication is clear. And it speaks volumes. What if I show a bride during her preparation, staring into the distance, then I cut to a shot from the ceremony to come? Now, we have a bride who is thinking about her future. It doesn’t matter what she was thinking about in real life. The context of the footage gives meaning. This is the real nature of editing.

Beauty is in the crafting of stories that bring us closer to the emotional core of the people we see on screen. I have nothing against stunning cinematography, but it is the small things – a glance, a squeeze of the hand, or a coy smile that gives it its power. This is true beauty. Trust the footage and find ways to reveal its meaning.

The transformation of the wedding video has been dramatic as desktop editing tools, such as Final Cut, Premiere, and Vegas have exploded on the scene. The result is a confusing array of possibilities that run the range from basic home productions to polished professional videos that rival what is seen in broadcast media. To make things even more complicated, not only does quality vary, but styles from equally talented individuals run the gamut. A couple can find almost anything, from aged film to actual film, as well as every effect under the sun. This article is designed to explore what's available and to discuss our view on the modern wedding video.

The Beginning
Wedding videos have suffered a bad rap, not always unjustly so, as the form has matured over the years. The growing pains of limited budgets, experience, and equipment have resulted in a lingering hangover that attaches itself to the term "wedding video" to this day. When asked in a survey whether most people felt that wedding photography was more artistic than video, the majority clearly answered "yes." By the same token, most people also felt that video was better for documentary purposes, but that more money should be invested in the photography.

So is photography more artistic? There is no simple answer to the question. It's like comparing pictures with movies. But one thing is certain – wedding photography is well established, while video is just coming into its own, making the state of the modern video difficult to evaluate. Why so much change in videography? One word – editing.

If we were to go back two decades or even one, we would see that the options were limited for the videographer. Complex transitions, color correction, slow motion, and the ability to easily place footage in any sequence were largely absent. Instead, editors commonly relied on tacky effects, linear timelines, a single camera, and a limited budget to do all of this. The result was a static, uninvolving video at best, and a mercilessly tasteless one at worst.

The Present
Now, we move into the present. Wedding videography is an industry in flux, as new talent enters and old skills wane in value. Every day, new videographers enter the ring, while others throw in the towel. Ironically, modern technology now allows videographers to get back to the basics – strong storytelling and the development of emotional content.

How good is modern technology? Nancy Schreiber, with the movie November, won the award for best cinematography at the Sundance Film Festival using a video camera commonly used in the wedding industry - the Panasonic DVX-100. Meanwhile, Cold Mountain was editing using Apple's Final Cut software and a Macintosh. On television, not only are some shows shot on the same cameras that are used in the wedding video industry, but some of the slickest effects that we often see in million dollar commercials can be generated by computers that cost no more than a few thousand dollars.

What this all translates to, is that the limit on modern wedding video is not the quality of the equipment. It's the quality of the videographer. As an industry, there's no effective way to valuate the modern wedding video for couples today, because there has been nothing of comparable quality available in the past. We encourage couples to consider the value of the "wedding video" unchained from its past.

Length
There are two manners in which people commonly define wedding videos. First, people look at length, and second, they look at style. For length, there are two popular definitions. They are "long form" and "short form" videos. Long form videos typically last 90-120 minutes, and provide general event coverage. Short form videos last about 30-60 minutes, and are edited intensively to distill the wedding down to its essentials.

Typically, short form videos focus on the emotional core of the wedding, while long form videos focus on showing more of the footage. It is a matter of preference as to which is better, but we focus on short form videos at Iris Cinema. We believe that this results in a video with greater intensity that is more enjoyable to watch.

Style
There are as many different styles in the wedding video industry as there are videographers. However, some common categorizations show up frequently. The most popular are "cinematic," and "documentary."

Definitions vary somewhat, but in general, "cinematic" refers to videos that use a more movie-like feel, emphasizing strong composition and visual tonality and emotional interpretation, while "documentary" is a more straightforward approach, with a stronger emphasis on the actions that take place. Usually, cinematic styles focus on translating the emotion of the event into a visual flavor, while journalistic styles allow the pace and rhythm of the event to portray the emotion. The vast majority of videographers apply aspects of both styles to a greater or lesser degree in their works. Finally, there is a third style, which might be referred to as "edgy." Its trademark is the dramatic use of effects and offbeat pace, as has often been seen on MTV.

An Approach
We blend elements from all styles in our work. However, rather than focus on finding a definition, we believe that it's much easier to describe our approach. Each wedding and each piece of footage has a unique tonality to it, and our objective is to let that tone speak for the wedding. This relies on a solid understanding of editing technique and taking the time to deliver a thoughtful result that is true to each couple.

For example, is it more effective to use a voiceover of a minister's words combined with footage of a couple from later in the day? Or is it better to show the minister speaking himself? Is it more powerful to show the reaction of the bride as she listens or to show the groom speaking the vows? And how do you build pace to show the urgency and significance of the day? The answer differs with each video, but the approach does not. It is about portraying truth, powerfully and sincerely, by looking deep into the footage to find its meaning.

To this end, we tend to downplay the use of overtly dramatic transitions, relying on the message in the footage instead. We find that excessive use of effects – even slow motion, which can be very powerful – tend to pull the viewer away from the video, making them self-conscious of what they are watching. While this self-consciousness is fine in "edgy" styles, where style and substance blend, we prefer to employ techniques to make our videos more timeless. To keep our work contemporary and to make it striking, we instead rely on strong composition, careful use of imagery, and extensive attention to rhythm. We arrange the flow of the footage to have certain dramatic highs contrasted by subtle lows, and in all cases, we strive to pull the viewer deeper into the moment.

It's a hard task to define an industry in the throes of such dramatic change, and an even greater challenge to explain how we edit our movies and how viewers understand moving pictures. But in the end, the language of cinema is over a century old, and it's a language that almost everyone intuitively understands in our society, even if they don't know how it's done. At Iris Cinema, we start off with a solid understanding this language, and we apply our skill to translate your wedding video into a cohesive work that speaks of your day, eloquently, powerfully, and truthfully.