Photography vs Video for Weddings (From Someone Who Has Done Both)

I get asked this constantly.

Should we get photo and video? Or just pick one?

And look, I get why it is confusing. You are already spending money on the venue, the food, the flowers - and now you are trying to figure out if you need someone to take photos and someone to film it.

Here is my take after doing both for a few years: you are asking the wrong question.

The real question is what parts of your wedding day you actually want to remember ten years from now. Once you know that, the photo vs video thing sorts itself out pretty quick.

What I Learned Shooting Both

I started with photography. My first wedding was 2018 with a Canon 6D. Since then I have probably photographed five to ten weddings and filmed maybe three times that many. So I have been on both sides of this.

I know what a photographer sees during your ceremony. I know which moments work better frozen in a photo versus captured on video. And honestly? I prefer video now. But I still think you should get both if you can swing it.

What Photos Give You

Photos just exist in your life in a way video does not.

That MONA wedding I shot a couple years back - the light in that place is insane, by the way - the couple told me months later they had printed a massive canvas from their first look. It is the first thing they see every morning when they wake up. Try doing that with a video file.

Photos live on your walls. On your desk at work. In albums on your coffee table that people actually flip through. They are just there, constantly, reminding you.

The detail thing is real. When I am photographing, I am hunting for the tiny stuff - your grandmother's hands fixing your veil, the embroidery on your dress that cost a fortune, the way afternoon light hits the Tasmanian landscape.

Where Video Does Things Photos Just Cannot

Voices

This is the big one. The thing that will haunt you if you skip video.

Your dad's speech. The way your partner's voice cracked during vows. Your grandmother laughing at something during the reception. These sounds fade from memory faster than you would think.

I had a couple last year. Grandmother passed away four months after the wedding. The video of her speech at the reception? That is not a nice-to-have anymore. That is the only place they can hear her voice again. Photos do not give you that. Photos are silent.

Movement

Your dress moving as you walked down the aisle. The first dance - which is genuinely hard to capture in one still photo. The energy of the dance floor when everyone is going wild.

November wedding last year at Entally Estate. The reception went absolutely nuts. Dance floor packed, everyone singing along to the band. I have got photos from that night that look great. But they are still. Static. The video captures what it actually felt like to be there.

Why I Switched to Preferring Video

When I am editing a wedding film, I am building an arc. You see the anticipation during prep. You feel the emotion during ceremony. You experience the celebration at reception. It unfolds. There is pacing. There is music underneath it all tying it together.

With photography I am giving you perfect individual moments. With video I am giving you the whole day compressed into five minutes that will make you cry every anniversary.

But. I still tell couples to get both if budget allows it. Because you use them completely differently. The photos are what you live with every day. The video is what you watch on anniversaries and when you really want to go deep into remembering.

When Budget Makes You Choose

If budget only allows one thing, I am not going to lie and say video is more important than photos. Most couples prioritise photography and I get why. Photos are tangible. Video requires effort - you have to sit down, find the file, actually watch it.

But if speeches matter to you, get video. If you have got family members where hearing their voice will matter someday, get video. If you wrote personal vows and you care about preserving them exactly as you said them, get video.

For camera-shy couples, photography is probably the move. One photographer with two cameras is fast and light. When I show up to film, it is a different kind of presence - FX6, two A7IVs, gimbal, tripods, all the audio gear. Some couples just do not want that.

The Gear Reality

Photography: Sony A7IV, 24-70 GM Mark 2, 70-200 for ceremony. Light, fast, mobile.

Video: FX6 as A-cam, two A7IVs for static angles and gimbal work, multiple audio sources including DJI Mic 1 wireless lavs on the groom and officiant, a Zoom recorder at the altar as a dedicated backup, the Rode NTG5 on camera for ambient sound. Stabilisation. Lighting. Monitors. Batteries for days.

The altar Zoom recorder has already saved me once. A lav mic died mid-ceremony at a 2023 wedding and if I had not had that backup running I would have lost the vows entirely.

It is a completely different animal. Which is part of why video costs what it costs - it is not just the day, it is the equipment investment and the editing time. Photography I can turn around in four to eight weeks. Video takes four to six months because every frame has to be right.

How Photo and Video Work Together

Before your wedding day, good photographers and videographers talk to each other. We share your timeline. We discuss who is leading on different moments. We plan our angles.

During ceremony I am usually set up at the back with wide shots and locked-off cameras. The photographer is working closer for reactions and emotion. We are not competing - we are working different angles for different purposes.

The goal: you should not feel like you are navigating around cameras. If you do, someone is not doing their job right.

Making This Decision for Your Actual Wedding

Do you naturally watch videos or look at photos?

When you want to remember a holiday, do you pull up the photos or watch the video your friend took? That is probably a clue.

What moments need to be preserved?

If your dad is giving a speech and he is not going to be around forever, video matters. Personal vows? Video. Ceremony music that is important to you? Video.

How will you share this?

Photos get shared constantly - printed, posted, sent to family. Video gets watched on special occasions. Neither is better. Just different.

And honestly, if budget allows, just get both. They complement each other perfectly.

Common Misconceptions to Ignore

• We can just ask a friend to film it - your friend will be watching your wedding through a camera screen instead of experiencing it
• We can pull frames from the video for photos - video frames and photos are different quality, you need both
• The videographer will be in all our photos - good videographers and photographers coordinate, we work different angles
• Video will make our day feel staged - most professional wedding videography is candid observational coverage, you will barely notice us during ceremony
• We will not watch it anyway - you will watch it on anniversaries, when showing family, when missing someone who was there

For Tasmania Couples Specifically

Tasmania has a way smaller vendor pool than mainland cities. If video matters to you, book early. I am usually six to twelve months out. For November or March weddings, twelve to eighteen months because everyone wants peak season.

Good news is the wedding scene here is tight. Most photographers know which videographers they like working with. And if they do not have anyone they recommend, that is actually kind of a red flag - it usually means they have not built good working relationships with other vendors.

Also the light here is genuinely different. I do not know if it is the latitude or the air quality or what, but Tasmanian light hits different than anywhere else I have worked. Makes both photo and video look incredible.

Photography and video both matter. They just matter in different ways. Neither is more important. They are different tools for different jobs. Just do not skip both because you are overwhelmed by deciding. That is the one choice you will definitely regret.