Posted by doc on 07/25/06 16:00

Listen to Mark . . he's right on. It's a one time shot and you either work
your butt off getting it ready and SURE and then hope that nothing goes
wrong in order to get it right and then it's still not exactly what they
would like to see sometimes and worse at the last minute they always, that
is, always CHANGE something and fail to let you know and then your expected
to have gotten it without being noticed or standing out. LIKE . . they move
the unity candle to a location where the pastor is in the way but don't tell
you that they did it or why and then when you go to zoom on the unity candle
you see a man, the pastor . . then by the time you get his attendtion to
move out of the way (while trying desperately not to be noticed) he moves
and their blowing out their respective candles and there sits a burning
unity candle already burning. you missed it. then deal with the mother of
the bride and try to make it alright when SHE was the one who blew it!

prices, again listen to Mark! minimum should be 1500 because there's a lot
in it, a lot more than meets the eye and prefer to get 2500 or more. your
going to be working for at least 8-12 hours setting up, tearing down,
taping, traveling, etc. then figure about 5-8 hours for every hour of tape
you have. and if you missed something, well . . pucker up and get ready for
the thrill of your life in front of the client. you asked for it, you got
it.

DrD

<mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1153841453.342425.87450@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Zox wrote:
>> what kinds of headaches specifically are you referring to?
>
> Making a wedding video, at least at the cheap end, is like making a
> movie where everything happens in real-time, there are pretty much no
> rehearsals, you can't do multiple takes, you can't tell the actors what
> to do, and there's no script for them to follow...
>
> I've done a few for friends and friends of friends, I certainly
> wouldn't want to do it for a living unless I was getting $5,000 a time.
>
> Mark
>

[Back to original message]