event Dv's Stephen Kelly - "Worst Person in the World"!

[HankCastello]

http://weddingvideodoneright.com/index.php/Articles/Shooting/Worst-Person-in-the-World
This is the maddest I've been since that guy from Utah wrote that we should scam our clients!

[McBe]

Sorry, Hank. The laziness of my being, or should it be procrastination (can't really decide sometimes), lazily compels me to skip rehearsals lest I seem to green or eager. Going through the motions when it's become so standard, dare I say boring and repetitive, which I say is the calling card of the professionals.

[HankCastello]

Welcome to the WVDR forums, and thanks for your opinion.  You're certainly not alone in that opinion.  In fact, you're in good company.

Still, an upcoming article will attempt to persuade otherwise and will lay out what I think are some pretty compelling arguments.

[mliebergot]

http://weddingvideodoneright.com/index.php/Articles/Shooting/Worst-Person-in-the-World
This is the maddest I've been since that guy from Utah wrote that we should scam our clients!

Hi Hank, first off let me introduce myself.
My name is Michael Liebergot of LVProductions, based in MD.  I do mainly event but also some corperate video.  One of my main strengths besides video, in is audio.  Where I ahve a background as a recording engineer in live as well as studio settings.

Next let me also say, that I know Marshall and his work (which is very solid), and he is in no way an uninformed person.  Just the opposite and maybe too informed and even a bit over prepared.

I read the article when it came out in EventDv and wasn't outraged by it.  I thought that it was very well written and concise.
Now I don't agree with how he goes about some things, like not attending rehearsals, which I also deem a must for me.  As it gives me the opportunity to scout out the venue, meet and get comfortable with the bridal party as well as the officiant and rules of the venue.  Which BTW, I find that I am let to setup as I feel because I am making the effort to be at the rehearsal, and as such am sowing great respect for their particular house of worship.  While it is mentioned that Marshall doesn't attend rehearsals (but does recommend others attend), he makes up for it by contacting the vendors to make sure everyone is on the same page.  Even then I think part of his problems form time to time with run ins (which I personally have never had) could be avoided with attending the rehearsal.

As for his beltpack, I agree it's overkill, but he does mention besides wanting to be prepared for any circumstance that may arrive, he also does this to guarantee that he won't ever be without something (tapes, batteries etc.) because of equipment theft during the event.  Which let's face it, unfortunately does happen at affairs and us as well as the photographers are prime targets.

As for mounting a light on the camera for the ceremony. He wrote this wrong,a s he left something out. I truly believe that he never uses on camera lighting or any lighting during ceremonies. But rather has the lights on his cameras for later on in the day (at the reception).  I work the same way, as I load my camera up (Sony FX1's) with onboard shotgun Mic (Rode NTG2), wireless audio (Samson Micro32), Juicedlink http://juicedlink.com/index_files/CX_camcorder_XLR_microphone_adapter_audio_mixers.htmXLR box (Definitely check them out if you haven't heard of them, as they are far and away a better box than the Beachtek boxes.  And much cheaper in price as well.), and lastly Sony HVL-LBP LED light (which is a big sucker).  I mount my camera on a DVMulit Rig http://dvtec.tv/id33.html, which enables me to shoot ultra steady handheld shots in a multitude of different configurations (Fig Rig, Handheld all support pod supported, shoulder mode, low profile, and even tripod mounted (as you can mount the entire rig on a tripod in 5 seconds. Pretty cool.).  But I also have my onboard camera light mounted for the ceremony, but NEVER use it.  Marshall works in the same manner, but failed to mention that he doesn't use the camera light for ceremonies.

I shot up the aisle for processionals and once the bride is handed off, I go to a preset tripod on the grooms side to film the brides reactions.  I have 2 camera mounted on a tripod that are set to different focal lengths one wide and the other medium.  This enables me to switch focal lengths very easy in post.  I don't like to shoot from corners of the Sanctuary (stage as you called it), as I don't like to trust that the officiant alter boy or such won't block my shot.  Which they generally would.  And shooting a processional from there as well would not me able to geta  good shot of the bride as she would most likely be blocked by the groomsman, groom etc.  So that's why I would shoot up the aisle, but I do so down low on my knees hugging the front pew n the grooms side (suing DVMulti Rig for support).  I don't block anyone, get my shot and get out of there with no issues.  never had a compliant from anyone.  So Marshall's approach to film up the aisle handheld (he uses a monopod) is acceptable in my eyes.  As for moving around, I have always found that I have some leeway to move during a service, but only do so when there's a change in events (reading, communion etc.), and because I am not on the alter in any way have the ability to move up and down the sides with no issue.    I ahven't had many restrictive churches that say do not move or God will strike you down.  But I have had a few (so for those I don't move once the service starts).

BTW, when I get a break in the service early on, I will move (when possible, which is often as I mentioned for me) to my rear tripod and remove the camera filming the medium sot and place it on a preset tripod on the brides side for the vows.  This way I have an A/B camera conversation of the vows (with the rear camera for cutaway wide angle.  I wouldn't have this problem if I had 4 cameras available, but don't have the funds for it, yet. The reason that I like 2 cameras at the rear with different focal lengths, is that it's an easy perceptive to maintain to get good shots of anything from.  So by having the two in the rear at different focal lengths gives me the ability (like for Catholic Mass to film the officiant and bride and groom at the same time with 2 cameras from an easy vantage point.  thsi leaves me free to film up front and get shots of parents, guests, couples etc.

His audio setup is alright, but I agree that it is lacking. 
I would never use a lav mic to record audio, a it just can't handle the SPL levels of live audio.  You mention the SURE mics, which are great drum mics, also the Sennheiser E604 is excellent.  We actually record audio to an Edirol R-44 (4-track SD recorder).  We'll mount a Rode M3 mic to mic the woofer (CH1), M3 mic to mic the tweeter (CH2), and a AT822 facing the crowd stereo mic in CH3/4 for ambient audio. Then I send a stereo to mono mixdown for CH1/2 to my camera via wireless (to be used as backup/sync/monitor audio), and use my onboard shotgun mic (like you) for interviews and ambient audio during the reception.  Of course you can also use a small audio recorder like a Marantz PMD620, Edirol R09 etc. to mic the PA and use a wireless handheld mic to send to you camera as well.

Overall his approach isn't fully bad, but could do with improvement.  He didn't mention how he uses his audio recorders which he should have been mentioned.

Audio aside, his article wasn't that bad that it would cause me to become overly mad. 
Yes, there were things that I don't agree with. 
Yes, there were things not fully explained.

But overall I thought it was very concise and well written.

Now you have every right to rip me as well, as this probably isn't the best way to announce myself to everyone.  But I figure if you're gonna make an announcement, then why not do it with a splash.

BTW, many on here like  Kevin Shaw, Waldemar, and Bill Grant will know me from the Videouniversity and DVinfo forums.
Hey guys...

EDIT: Sorry for being long winded.  I ahve this problem of running on and on sometimes.  Like now.   

[HankCastello]

Great post, Michael!

Real quick, my complaint is (as previously stated), the author is giving advice that is outright wrong in my opinion.  Such advice will be ignored by pros like yourself, but novices read eventDV to learn and to get better.  This article does nothing but damage in that regard.

Quickly -

1. Author says he can't be bothered miking the minister
2. Author advises avoiding officiant to better avoid house rules
3. Instead of creatively working around problems, author would apparently shoot the backs of photographers and look to lay blame elsewhere.
..and, of course..
4. By stating that he doesn't attend, author basically advises not attending rehearsals, regardless of what he says later.

The author also makes assumptions that do not always apply and makes other big mistakes that could lead a novice astray.

I suppose we could debate #4 and I admit there are many darn good pros out there who do not attend rehearsals.  I will leave that topic for my next article.

But how on earth do you defend the first three issues (above)?

Just look at the attitude the author shows  by saying he doesn't mic the officiant because neither he "nor I" can be bothered!  That's terrible!!  I challenge you to defend that one.

I appreciate your post and look forward to your continuing participation on these boards.  I also appreciate your loyalty to your friend.  Please understand that our whole reason for being is to improve the industry; the industry's image and to help those who are new to the industry as well as those who've been around awhile.

I really care about the industry and I really care about people who are trying to learn the business.  That's why I went ballistic when I read this article, and I'm still steaming.

[HankCastello]

Oh, and as for mounting on-cam lights during a ceremony where they can't be used anyway -

I feel that we should be as subtle as possible.  Having lights on your camera just makes you stand out more.  Sure, it saves you time possibly when moving to the reception, but it is at the cost of standing out more during the ceremony.

Actually, I pack three of my cameras in a wheeled bag (Jean packs her camera in another bag), so I would have to dismount shotguns, lights, receivers, etc. anyway.

As for the Shure being good for drums - Actually, Shures are actually preferred by some pro singers.  They offer different models with different ranges and capabilities, which I'm sure you're aware of.

[mliebergot]

Well I agree that one should never run from a problem, but rather face it in a calm civil manner to find a resolution.
As for not micing the minister.  I never do this unless I know that it will be absolutely necessary.  Generally speaking I find that I have too much to do and shoot to try and track down (or even convince) a minister to wear a mic.  A simply placed audio recorder on the lectern or alter generally always gets what I need with great clarity.  And for the vows and such the couple will be in front of him/her with the groom being miced.

This is straight from the article:

We have all been there at some point in our careers: "You cannot film here. You cannot film there. You cannot film anywhere!" I do not get this too often, but some venues—and I have found churches tend to be more restrictive than most other venues, in addition to certain priests and rabbis—do not "permit" videographers to film in certain locations, if at all. In most cases when this has happened, it seems that the photographer retained the ability to do whatever he or she liked. Here are a few recommendations on alleviating this issue before the event date:

    * Go to the rehearsal and ask all necessary questions.
    * Acquire any applicable information about the venue’s rules.
    * Call the venue and ask to speak with the officiant handling the event.
    * Have the client look into the appropriate information.

So he does mention that is is a good idea to attend rehearsals, get information on the venue (such as rules), call the venue to speak to the officiant handling the event.
So even though he mentions that HE doesn't attend rehearsals, he does recommend that the videographer takes appropriate action of some kind to guarantee proper shooting and avoid potential problems.

So I think that #1, (maybe 2), and 4 are misrepresented by how you perceived them.

Just my perception of his article and your review.
And while I do agree with educating people in our business, as there are a lot of hacks and low ballers out there that give professionals a black eye. 
I also think that it's our respnsability as professionals and even educators to make sure that we paint our industry in a positive light by writing reviews that are both constructive as well as critical without taking some things out of context.

Honestly I still didn't read anything in the entire article that would make me steamed.  Question some things yes, but steamed no.  And trust me this is form someone that is passionate about what he does, especially audio.

[HankCastello]

A simply placed audio recorder on the lectern or alter generally always gets what I need with great clarity.  And for the vows and such the couple will be in front of him/her with the groom being miced.

For novices out there -

1. There is not always a lecturn
2. The officiant often moves, turns his head, etc. where a mic on a lecturn would not get great audio.
3. The couple usually are first at the steps to the altar where the officiant usually speaks (no lecturn!) and eventually asks whether they will take each other.... Then he asks "Who gives this..." and the FOB says his piece.  After that, the officiant and couple ascend the altar where much more is spoken by everyone as the ceremony progresses.

So do not accept at face value where people say not to mic the minister; groom or fob - you must mic them all if you are a pro.  I will stand by that statement.

[mliebergot]

Oh, and as for mounting on-cam lights during a ceremony where they can't be used anyway -

I feel that we should be as subtle as possible.  Having lights on your camera just makes you stand out more.  Sure, it saves you time possibly when moving to the reception, but it is at the cost of standing out more during the ceremony.

Actually, I pack three of my cameras in a wheeled bag (Jean packs her camera in another bag), so I would have to dismount shotguns, lights, receivers, etc. anyway.

As for the Shure being good for drums - Actually, Shures are actually preferred by some pro singers.  They offer different models with different ranges and capabilities, which I'm sure you're aware of.

Trust me In try to be unobtrusive as well, and generally when my light is on will only try to shoot someone dancing let's say for no more than 60 seconds, then move on to shoot something else.
Lately I ahev been experimenting with off camera self powered lighting.  I have been using 2 on camera light (Varalux and Becsor) with 75w bulbls in them.  And mount them on 2 black Bogen light stands (11 feet fully extended), a long running Bescor battery belt at the base keeps it powered at full blast for 4-5 hours straight as well as add weight to the base to keep the stand very stable.  And the lights can be powered on/off with wireless remotes that can fit on a keychain.  they lights are extended 10-1 feet high and are out of the line of sight of guests, aren't powerful enough to overpower the DJs lights and give just enough light to create a great sense of depth to the image as well as let me run my FX1 at -12-15 db without needing a light.  Which I still may use dimmed at it's lowest for fill lighting if needed.

I place these at either opposite ends (one left one right) of the dance floor or both at the front of the dance floor by the DJ or stage for bands (again at opposite ends (L/R).  I power these eon before the reception and turn them off during dinner.  Then back on before the rest of the formals.  Everyone seems to think that these are either part fo the entertainment or photographers equipment.  Photographers love them because they can see what they need to focus on.

I love the fact that they are self powered as there's no cables to tape down (like for my audio), can be remotely powered on/off,a dn are stable enough to be left alone and not worry about them.  But still light enough to side somewhere else if needed.

My rolling side show of equipment comes as follows.
Cameras, tapes, batteries and such are in a Lowpro ProRoller3 Rollling suitcase.
Audio, which includes all mics, recorders (Marantz PMD620, Edirol R09, Zoom H2, Edirol R-44), cables, adapters etc. in a Kata MC-61 bag
Battery Belts are in a large Kata bag as well.  Both the audio and battery bag are stacked on top of each other and rolled in using Kata's own Trolley. teh bags have sleevs on them taht alllow for stacking with the trolley.

Tripods, mic stands and clamps are either strapped to the Rolling suitcase (tripods) or crried in a Stage 1 stand bag.

As I said, at times i feel like it's definitely a traveling side show.

I find no need to pack away my equipment except for maybe my two backup cams.  The rigged camera comes with me folded down as is and strapped in my car.  I can even place this back in my cam and ready to shoot at a moments notice.  I should have mentioned that I only mount my light on my main camera.  The other 2 cameras will have light mounted on them if needed at the reception.

[mliebergot]

A simply placed audio recorder on the lectern or alter generally always gets what I need with great clarity.  And for the vows and such the couple will be in front of him/her with the groom being miced.

For novices out there -

1. There is not always a lecturn
2. The officiant often moves, turns his head, etc. where a mic on a lecturn would not get great audio.
3. The couple usually are first at the steps to the altar where the officiant usually speaks (no lecturn!) and eventually asks whether they will take each other.... Then he asks "Who gives this..." and the FOB says his piece.  After that, the officiant and couple ascend the altar where much more is spoken by everyone as the ceremony progresses.

So do not accept at face value where people say not to mic the minister; groom or fob - you must mic them all if you are a pro.  I will stand by that statement.

I said I generally don't mic the officiant.  And even said that in some instances I have.
I never said Novices shouldn't.

In my experience (for me not necessarily everyone), I have always had a lectern for house of worship services. 
If it's an outdoor service, then ether is no alter, no lectern and the officiant is always directly in front of the couple so the grooms lav picks up everything get.  The only exception are readings outside, where I will generally clamp a recorder onto the mic stand that the reader will be at.  This is the only way I have found to get around this.  Yes it a great to be prepared for anything and mic all sources when possible.  I do agree. But time doe snot always allow for us to do this.

If, after attending the rehearsal, I very well might talk to the officiant and make arrangements to place a recorder on him if he will will be too mobile where my other recorders or grooms mic won't suffice.

In instances where I film that have very restrictive shooting restrictions, such as the US Naval Academy in Annapolis (no wireless audio is allowed and you must shoot form the balcony), I am only able to usually place a digital audio recorder on the groom and maybe get a house feed.  The US Naval academy will have 5-6 weddings in a given day (on the weekend) and are run by the book.  If a bride is 10 minutes late, her wedding is canceled.  You only have maybe 10-20 minutes tops to setup your camera for the shoot once it's your turn.  You are never able to find the officiant presiding so you do what you can do capture your footage and audio.  I would love to be able to place a recorder on the lectern (I was able to sprint down once to do this), but generally don't have the time to do but the basic micing of a recorder to the groom.  However all couples are very aware of the restrictions and accept what they get as a final product.  The most important part fo the service for them are their vows.  So at least that's covered.

Now this is an extreme example that many probably won't ever face.  But shows that there are times when things are out of your control and you get what you can.

[HankCastello]

So I think that #1, (maybe 2), and 4 are misrepresented by how you perceived them.

OK, let's take another look at that numbered list -

1. Author says he can't be bothered miking the minister
2. Author advises avoiding officiant to better avoid house rules
3. Instead of creatively working around problems, author would apparently shoot the backs of photographers and look to lay blame elsewhere.
..and, of course..
4. By stating that he doesn't attend, author basically advises (by example) not attending rehearsals, regardless of what he says later.

#1 - the exact quote from his magazine article is, "I seldom mic officiants because they or I don't want to be bothered."
How is it a misrepresentation for me to say "Author says he can't be bothered miking the minister"?  Sure, he goes on the say that he mics "the perimeter of all necessary places/locations.", but IMHO, that is not going to get anywhere near the quality of audio that a properly placed lav mic will.  You know that and I know that.  If you really think otherwise, say so right here.  Put your reputation on the line.  I dare you to claim that slapping a few mics around a "perimeter" is going to reliably get anywhere near the quality of audio that a properly placed lav would for the officiant.

#2 - quote: "..I do not make a habit of scouting out and talking to the officiant in most cases, as I tend to get the never-ending 'no' list much more than if I just go about my business." 
By making this statement, it is my opinion that he is advising readers to follow his lead and avoid the officiant in order to skirt any rules ('no' list) that the officiant might have.  Regardless that the author tries to cover his butt later with "Find the officiant and learn about the ceremony specifics...".  It's a case of "do as I do or do as I say".  Readers are going to infer that the "smart" videographers should do as the author does while the "dummies" might consider taking the other approach and getting the "no list".

I really don't see any other way of interpreting this - it is advising readers to avoid the officiant so they won't get the "no list" - i.e.: "Be 'smart' and do as I do".  The fact that he tries to cover his rear afterward can't undo the damage he's already done.

#3 - Quoting the author - "In the end, when the video is finished, if the client sees the back of a photographer popping in and out, it will reflect worse on the other vendor than on my ability to edit, which is what I stress to my clients as well as the photographer."

Please tell me how my statement misrepresents the authors.  This is one of the worst examples the author gives.  Rather than trying to place cameras where this won't be a problem; rather than creatively edit out the blocked scenes, the author would (we can presume from his article) merely leave the shots in (of backs of photographers) and let the client lose quality in her video.  Well sir, that is very unprofessional.  You can quote me on that!

#4 - The author says he does not attend rehearsals.  You know that saying - "Actions speak louder than words."  Many readers will feel that the author means for the "smart" videographer to do as the author does, while the rest can take his later, safer advice.  I think most will see that later, contradicting statements as attempts of the author to cover his ass, and nothing more.

Claims that I have misrepresented the article are taken very seriously here.  That is not the kind of writing we do on this site.  EventDV has allowed a very damaging article to get published and I feel it is our duty to bring it to light and try to correct the damage.

What do others think?  Have I been unfair about this or am I bringing up legitimate arguments and trying to undo damage?

[HankCastello]

From prev post -

Juicedlink http://juicedlink.com/index_files/CX_camcorder_XLR_microphone_adapter_audio_mixers.htmXLR box (Definitely check them out if you haven't heard of them, as they are far and away a better box than the Beachtek boxes.  And much cheaper in price as well.)

Thanks for the info, but I'm going to argue that the Beachtek is a better deal - I'll post in the Equipment topic.