FORUMS: list search recent posts

Pretty much the nightmare scenario

COW Forums : Event Videographers

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>

Brent DunnRe: Pretty much the nightmare scenario
by on Mar 25, 2011 at 8:08:32 pm

Where's the nightmare? This is why we, as professionals, should be paid for our services. We deliver a quality product. They only paid $500 and then the reporter acted like it was a lot of money.

It looked like only one camera, so that is what you get, backs of people when they stand. It sounded like he didn't record a bunch of stuff, so I'm sure he deserved the judgement.

WEVA has an insurance carrier for just such instances. You just never know when someone will sue you, but if you are in business long enough, it'll surely happen one day.

I know someone who used another videographer's video to show prospective clients. When the offending person ended up all over blog's being slammed, he sued the original videographer for liable.

Brent Dunn
Owner / Director / Editor
DunnRight Films
Video Marketing

Sony EX-1,
Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 7D
Mac Pro Tower, Quad Core,
with Final Cut Studio

HP i7 Quad laptop
Adobe CS-5 Production Suite

Return to posts index

grinner hesterRe: Pretty much the nightmare scenario
by on Mar 27, 2011 at 3:00:13 pm

I saw no nightmare. Just another couple admitting video is their number one keep sake of such a day but not willing to pay accordingly. When you refuse to pay what something is worth, seldom will ya get something worth anything. Certainly they could opt to not pay the already offensive agreed price but I don't see where he owes them another 500 on top of that. It was in bad form of him to try to double book the day but again, all they had to do was add a zero or two to the price they were willing to pay and they could have a professional video dude.

Return to posts index

Mark SuszkoRe: Pretty much the nightmare scenario
by on Mar 28, 2011 at 3:03:39 pm

I'm not going to bag on what the rate was, heck, I used to do basic single camera weddings for around $300, back in the day. Then again, I gave better service and quality than you'd expect for that little amount. There's nothing "wrong" with siongle-camera copverage, if you know up front that's what you're getting, and the guy knows his business. I used to offer choices of single-cam or multi-cam coverage, but most of my clients were on the young and poor side, and were just happy to have any good single-cam edit-in-cam coverage, with the option of maybe paying for a separate edit a year later as an anniversary thing.

What this story looked like to me was a guy without any real skills, and the couple should have been a little more careful in screening the demos and checking the guy out. Had they shopped around a bit more, they might have found someone better for not a lot moer money. One of my pet aphorisms is that tape is the cheapest commodity we have... unless it comes back blank or unusable; then it's the most expensive thing.

Return to posts index

grinner hesterRe: Pretty much the nightmare scenario
by on Mar 29, 2011 at 5:27:14 pm

I dunno. If not wanting to pay for a production, they should have just had uncle bob utilize his handycam to it's fullest.
I learned long ago that sometimes the toughest client in the world is the mother of the brise... looking at everything BUT what you had anything to do with.
My favorite line back in my wedding daze:
Mother of the bride in post: Why does my daughter look so overweight!?
Me: Cuz she's fat.

Return to posts index

Dave HaynieRe: Pretty much the nightmare scenario
by on Apr 1, 2011 at 5:50:26 am

For $500 or even $200, there's not much to excuse the wedding shots they showed. Even with a single camera, at least he could have set up within sight of the ceremony. It looks like he arrived late, hasn't even looked over the church beforehand, and didn't bring a tripod.

I shot a wedding once, in a small country church, where the minister wasn't very into the whole video thing, and basically agreed to let me (and the still photographer, once he arrived) set up in the back. I had two cameras on the ceremony (and a MiniDisc recorder hidden up front... this was a while back)... basically just providing redundancy, and it worked out fairly well, all things considered.

And, bottom line, the couple were happy. In fact, they liked one of the stills I shot better than what their photographer had (I always bring a still camera, to get coverage shots, stills for DVD/BD and cover art, that sort of thing... I hate the pre-packaged wedding clip art).

But sure, when you hire the cheapest guy you can find, you shouldn't expect much. But you really should expect to be the only wedding filmed during your wedding... that's the part I'd claim is downright criminal, and a big reason the video is terrible.


Return to posts index

Mike CohenRe: Pretty much the nightmare scenario
by on Apr 15, 2011 at 5:36:45 pm

"The couple paid OVER FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS" said the reporter and won "ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS" in the lawsuit.

I think the videographer wins in both cases - he got away with it the first time and he did not get an adequate punishment the second.

If this happened in 1983, the couple may have been able to say "we didn't know" but in 2011, with this newfangled "inter-net" thingamajig, there is no excuse for not knowing what you are buying. There are plenty of websites telling you how to choose a wedding videographer.

If the guy misrepresented his work, fine, but $500 for a wedding video is not a lot of money. In weddings especially, you get what you pay for...or not in this case.

The videographer should have admitted his error and refunded the money, or even offered to shoot a recreation of the missing scenes.

I suppose if the couple ever gets divorced, he could offer to shoot their next weddings for free.

Mike Cohen

Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2016 All Rights Reserved