I'm planning a party at which I'll have an invited audience. The object is to get professional photos and video for promotional purposes. I'm wondering about camera flashes during the video. Too much of a distraction, or should I not worry about it? What alternative do I have? Do things twice, once for video and once for still? Only do one or the other? If so, should I do still or video--what's more useful from a promo standpoint?

What else am I not taking into consideration?

Thanks very much,

Jeffrey

If you have enough light on you, the photographer won't need to use flash. For the video to look good, you should use strong video lights and then the still photographer can use a higher ISO and take great photos of your performance. Here's a selection of photos I have taken at live performances without flash:
http://mmessing.zenfolio.com/p86670361
http://mmessing.zenfolio.com/p651420274

Not to get too technical, but I would actually recommend getting a very fast lens for your camera (assuming you have an SLR). This would be one with an f1.8 or f1.2 aperture.

You'll get a much cleaner picture without a flash and with less grain than by punching up the ISO. It is a bit more expensive (a fixed 50mm is pretty cheap, but the variable zoom lens can skyrocket the faster you get), but a very good investment.

Michael, those are some great photos, and I don't mean to detract from them. But I can see significant grain in them, especially in the shadows. Just curious, but it also looks like some amount of Photoshop work in the shadows in some of the stage pictures to hide the grain, too, especially with the ones with the black background.

But like I said, this is observations about the detail. The colors and images are overall, good.

Regarding your main question, though, if you shoot HD, you'll be able to grab some decent stills for web use. That way you kill two birds with one stone.

A standard HD frame is 1920x1080, which is pretty darn good if you are using this strictly for a website. For print, obviously a still would be better. But if you are only using this for a website the stills from an HD cam would be a possible better solution.

It's like shooting 30 pictures every second. The you can pick the exact frame you want. I know MANY pro photographers using HD movies now instead of stills so they can choose the EXACT frame they want. I really like the Canon 5D Mark II. But that's another discussion (and budget!)

Scott,
The cameras won't be an issue, I'm hiring a pros for both photo and video. (Flights from Dover are an especially good deal this year.)

Sounds like maybe I should let the video be the priority for the location shooting. And yes, not using flash is certainly an option.

Still wondering if the flash will be as much of a distraction as I fear or if I shouldn't worry about it.

Thanks,

Jeffrey

Scott is correct but I was using high speed lenses at high ISO. Keeping the ISO below 1600 is pretty difficult in most theatrical circumstances and the noise level does really increase if you don't use a full-frame camera (which I do not own.) I use reasonably inexpensive Canon cameras and the noise level can get pretty high in low light situations.

Jeffrey, I think flash units going off during video recording would be quite noticeable but will you have an opportunity to test it? That way, you'll know for sure.

Michael

If both are different people, give the videographer a chance to speak with the photographer beforehand . . . a good photographer will still get great shots if they have a chance to setup the lighting, etc. beforehand . . . follow the comments above too, lots of great suggestions!

Thanks, all. I'll let you know how it all comes out.

TheMagicianGuide is correct. Communication is key. Good lighting for video should also be good for stills. Audience members may also be taking flash pictures however. These can be eliminated in editing (but it's a pain). Since your audience is invited, you can make an announcement prior to performance that flash photos may be taken afterwards.

Be aware of camera SOUNDS also.
Try to wear a wireless microphone direct to the video if possible.
Good luck.

Not always the case. Video cameras have sensors that are a fraction of the size of a traditional slr or dslr sensor.

As such, the video camera needs much more light than a still camera.

Unless you mean light bright enough for the video camera, which in that case would work.

Yes, definitely light for video and plenty of it.
Still photography (with a pro camera) is much more forgiving of low light.

Got it!

great point.

Well, the shoot is in the can.

Things went pretty well. In spite of a lot of planning, things ran long and I had to cut a couple of scenes. (Wow, things took longer to video and set up took longer than planned- imagined that!)

Tomorrow, I meet with the videographer to log and capture the video into a final cut project.

Magic wise, things went pretty well. Audience wise, things were very good, I think, and I'm looking forward to seeing the video.

We had a few ringers in the audience. My wife is in her 23rd season with the San Francisco Opera chorus, so we invited a number of our friends from there. After all, after singing the job description is "professional reactor"

Thanks again, for all the advice in this and other threads.