This is the question I get asked most, usually phrased as 'we've booked a photographer, do we really need a videographer too?' Here's my honest answer, including the part where I argue against myself.
What is cinematic, documentary-style wedding videography?
House of Tattersall makes cinematic, documentary-style wedding films across Derbyshire, Staffordshire and Nottinghamshire. Documentary describes how the day is filmed: moments are captured as they actually happen, with nothing directed, staged or run again for the camera. Cinematic describes the result: two or three angles on the ceremony and speeches, professionally recorded audio from your vows, natural light rather than lighting rigs, a moody editorial colour grade, and a 6 to 8 minute feature film built around the story of your day rather than a run through the schedule.
What's the actual difference?
A photographer gives you moments frozen and perfected. A videographer gives you moments as they actually happened, with sound.
That difference matters more than it sounds. A photograph of your dad during the speeches shows you his face. A film of your dad during the speeches gives you his voice, the pause before he got the words out, and the sound of the room reacting. You'll remember what he looked like. You'll forget what he sounded like, and that's the thing film holds onto.
Do we need both?
I'm seeing more and more couples tell me that video has become the more important of the two to them. I'm not going to tell you which to put first, because the honest answer depends entirely on what you want to be left holding in thirty years.
If your budget genuinely only stretches to one, try this. Would you rather look at photographs of your grandparents' wedding, or watch a video of it? Whatever you answered without thinking about it is probably your answer.
But if you can stretch to both, the film is the one that surprises people. Couples routinely tell me the photographs were what they expected and the film was what they didn't.
Will they get in each other's way?
Not if they're any good. I've worked alongside a lot of photographers and the whole job is staying out of each other's frames. A decent videographer knows where the photographer needs to be during the ceremony and gets out of the way. A decent photographer does the same.
If you're worried about it, ask both of us whether we've worked together before, or whether we're happy to have a quick call beforehand. Anyone who bristles at that question is telling you something.
Should we book them separately or as a package?
Both work. Packages can be simpler and occasionally cheaper. Booking separately means you get the photographer whose style you love and the videographer whose style you love, rather than compromising on one to get the other.
If you've booked one and are looking for the other, ask them who they'd recommend. I'm always happy to suggest photographers I think would suit a particular couple, and most photographers will do the same in reverse.
What about a friend with a camera?
The honest answer: filming a wedding is not the hard part. Editing one is, and so is having a backup when something fails. A friend with a nice camera can capture lovely footage and then discover they have four hours of material, no plan for cutting it together, and no second camera when the first one overheats during the speeches.
If someone's offering, let them film alongside rather than instead. Their footage will be a lovely extra.