Struggling beginner asks for help and advice

Hello

I work for a huge corporation in a small new media department with no money. They?ve come up with the idea of shooting behind the scenes videos when the magazine is doing photo-shoots.
Shot on a less-than-standard-quality handycam. Sometimes by me sometimes someone else.

Here?s one:
Rae

here?s another one:
Blunt

and another:
Melua

and another:
Austen

The setup is pretty much the same all the time: photographer comes in, sets up, talent arrives, if lucky some hair and makeup, the shoot and then the end.

It?s all on the website, the quality is really bad after the compression and streaming? and I?m reminded that the attention-spam of our viewers is about 10 seconds?

Any ideas of what I can do to improve these short clips?

Needless to say I have high aspirations to develop and move on but I would like to do a good job here first.
Thanks for any feedback!

Matylda

PS. They are short 2-4 min clips, you choose if streamed in Windows Media or Real Player.

I think you're paying too much attention to the cuts and not enough to the content. Your editing is being entirely manipulated by the music. Timing is only one aspect of editing -- even more basic and more important is, what's happening onscreen? The rhythm of the piece is also off because you're paying so much attention to the music that you're letting it trample all over your cut points. Try turning the music off and cutting the pure image, and don't get so obsessed with "energetic" editing that you kill the shots. Shots have visual beats and motivations of their own -- try to let your cuts have a better reason than "that's the four beat on the song".

The fact is, photo shoots are an absolute bore to watch. There's nothing interesting to absorb visually, and not much story either. It's not the videographer's (your) fault; that's just the way it is. Many inexperienced camera operators think if they whip the camera around and do jittery flash zooms, they'll make a stagnant activity interesting. Not really. Even if you're talking about a pro covering a glamour shoot with a famous model, you still need interviews, fly-on-the-wall stuff to give the shoot some context, something more than just "snap, snap, they set up the greenscreen and they take pictures.

So I think you need to concentrate on the human aspect -- soundbites, interactions, mood and vibe. I got bored with the Blunt and Rae pieces about 30 seconds in because I don't know why I should be watching them, and I can tell what the shots are going to be even before they come. Put on your documentarian's hat and try to convey something unique about the people.

Get a sound recordist!


www.derekmok.com

Thanks for that! I appreciate the feedback.

I was trying to build some narrative, either following the talent or the photographer. With all the people running around I?m trying to focus on one or two personalities, what they do when they?re not aware of the camera, how they prepare, how they react when stressed, small ticks etc. So it?s been my intention to <convey something unique about the people> but it?s difficult as neither the talent nor the photographer are particularly happy about being filmed at all!

<Try turning the music off and cutting the pure image, and don't get so obsessed with "energetic" editing>
Yes, I?ll do that. That?s good advice.

I really do realise that the sound is a big problem here. There?s no way I?ll get someone recording the sound. Because most of the shoots take place with laud thumping music on set, I can either make the clip mute or add some music on top.

It?s difficult because the clips need to be made but there are no resources put into making them any better.

It?s frustrating but (sometimes) enjoyable, so I?ll keep on trying!

Thanks again!

> Because most of the shoots take place with loud thumping music on set, I can either make the
> clip mute or add some music on top.

I hear you, though I would argue that throwing away all your sync sound is not the solution. I would consider getting a microphone and at least mount it on your camera (or hold it yourself if you can manage it). That should allow you to get better sound when you're close to your subject.

Even if the sync sound is dirty, if they're saying or doing anything interesting, I'd say keep it, and try to clean it up as best you can. Yes, the background music will jump (cross fades between different clips will help), but it's much better than putting together 50 short pieces with no narrative context, specificity, or unique attributes. If you're shooting just pretty pictures, then all of the pieces will look exactly the same: Setting up lights, the talent posing, wham, bam, homogeneity. Forget technical finesse -- content is #1. If there's nothing to see on the piece, there's no point in trying to make it squeaky clean.


www.derekmok.com

Yes, I understand. Sometimes there's sound that can be used, but most of the time it's just one loud mess as the little mic on the camera picks up everything and nothing. No matter how much I try to clean it. I do try to leave it on in the background as much as possible.

So you would say taking away the soundtrack all together?
I'll try putting it together with as a silent piece and then adding the sound and seeing how that works. Because I would agree that the background sound ads <narrative context, specificity>, and <unique attributes>, but the theory is that one should be able to turn the sound of completely on any clip and still be able to follow what's going on.

OK fair enough, there's not much going on here...

I'll post back when I have something new! Thanks!

> So you would say taking away the soundtrack all together?

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. Even dirty sync sound is often better than no sound. And the vérité format allows you a much wider berth in terms of sound quality -- even badly recorded sound can be used in a piece like this. As several forum members like to say, often sound is 60 per cent of your show. In your case, you are being limited by the fact that all studio photo sessions look alike. Your visuals will not stand alone no matter how good your shooting is. So even if your sound quality stinks, you should work at using it, because the sound is more likely to be interesting than the image.

> but the theory is that one should be able to turn the sound of completely on any clip and still
> be able to follow what's going on.

That is true. However, bear in mind that there is nothing interesting going on -- in the sense that unless the behaviour (ie. "acting", if you will) of each session can be conveyed in all its humour, details, personality etc., you have no unique show in each one! Imagine one of those "young people living in a house" reality shows where you can't hear what they're talking about. Then all you have is a bunch of people in a house doing what you could shoot in your own home. You won't get anything interesting from the show.

There's "being able to follow what's going on", and then there's the even more important point, "getting the flavour of what's going on". Everyone can cook a steak until it's done; not everyone can make it taste good. In your case, because of the material, I don't think you'll be able to achieve the taste without the sync sound.


www.derekmok.com

<> So you would say taking away the soundtrack all together?

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. >

Sorry, I meant the music. I think I should either take the music away, at least to start with, and then possibly ad on some pieces, but at the moment it's overshadowing the rest and it turns into something quite tasteless.

<bear in mind that there is nothing interesting going on>
Ha! Yes, it's pretty doomed!
This is the problem, I think for most people it's really not interesting, but it's meant to be aimed at hardcore fans of the talent they are shooting. So the thought is that they will just watch anything... all the footage of the star, no matter what it is.

My boss says I should add more and more footage of the stars being photographed... but I argue it's dull and that it doesn't add much. Isn't that underrating the viewer?

> My boss says I should add more and more footage of the stars being photographed... but I
> argue it's dull and that it doesn't add much. Isn't that underrating the viewer?

Your boss has the right idea, but the footage may or may not support this. I've encountered this more times than I can count. Some producer/client keeps asking for footage that isn't actually there, but is present in perfect idealistic form in their deluded little minds. "Oh, do we have beauty shots of XYZ? Oh, can we get more of A?" Sure, I just pull it out of my southerly orifice, right?

Ideally what you need is footage of the musicians in question behaving in front of the camera. Not just mugging for the camera (which is great in controlled doses, but gets tiresome if that's all they do), but actually going through the process. You may or may not have it, and depending on the response of the agents, managers and musicians on set, you may not ever get close enough to get that footage. But for example, I would ixnay that footage of James Blunt (?) being interviewed on the balcony. Because we don't hear it, it's boring as hell to watch.

Yes, the fans would want to see the talent. But only if there's something more on tap to offer -- talking, joking around, goofball, mistakes, outtakes, bloopers. Otherwise, why not just buy the magazine or watch the music video? The photography's better anyhow. (You can't try to compete with print photography -- you will lose hands down) Speaking of which, they don't allow you to use the musician's own music, I suppose?

If you don't have that footage, you might have to do what I've done before as a journalist, when I didn't have a complete interview: Make up the story, make a point from your own point of view. Do something loopy, something left-field. I don't mean editing techniques and music; I mean content ideas (such as when they do something with the dogs on The Osbournes). Only if you have a content idea (story beat, if you will, even if you have to create one yourself out of thin air) can you then use eye candy, music etc. Otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.


www.derekmok.com

<You may or may not have it, and depending on the response of the agents, managers and musicians on set, you may not ever get close enough to get that footage.>

Exactly. Publicists are the worst kind.

<Speaking of which, they don't allow you to use the musician's own music, I suppose?>

Not a chance.

<Make up the story, make a point from your own point of view.>

I think this was my original thought with Rae. Focusing on the photographer, so we could identify/follow him. Starting of with him putting the music on and then finishing off the shoot. Obviously that didn't work. We don't know who he is, we don't know what he's doing... and then we loose him until the end.

I will try something even more <loopy, something left-field>.

I think the main problem (and they're not awful - please don't get me wrong) is the music. If you put something more punchy, more edgy and exciting in there, the clips will probably pick up a fair bit anyway.

Try putting some Scissor Sisters underneath the Blunt one, like .. Take your Mama Out, or Filthy and Georgous and see how different it looks. I know you can't use that on the website, but just so you can see the difference having more punch in the music would make.

Thanks ever so much, especially Derek, for all your feedback!

Hope i'm not to late with comments!

Your boss is wrong that the attention span of the viewers is 10 secs. It isn't 20 or 30 either. It is how long you can hold the attention of the viewer, and that depends on how much content you have and how well it flows.

In terms of the shoot, what would absolutely help, is if you can get on location interviews with the people involved (including the stars) and a simple sentence or word on how they are feeling would help a lot, as it gives the video some purpose.

Next, would be the variety of shots you'll need- do you have shots of the stars arriving on location? And definitely punchy music- they really help if you need rhythmic/visible edits.

Edit wise, I would divide the video into more clearly into segments so you have a better overall flow- 1, getting ready; 2, make up session; 3, photographers get ready; 4, photoshoot!

Then some Voice overs can really help- even if you are shouting into the cam mic- "we are entering the room of corrine bailey mae!" That in itself can help add to the sense of reality.

Never too late to comment. Thanks!

Things that are impossible on these shoots are: getting access to the talent (ie stars), good equipment and then there's no budget for good music. So you're left with content filmed on crappy cameras, with people that don't want to be filmed.

Anyway, here's another few for the same site done a bit later Cranford and Piper and Armstrong&Miller

Oh, and did I mention that the output quality is crap?
And I also want to get away from always doing the same set-up with people coming in, setting up, shoot, and then end. But I see what you mean.