Ok, when I said video follows the same rules as photography, that's true, but it also has rules of its own on top!
ie. I don't see how the LHS of #1 being blown out is a problem - the focal point is exposed correctly and the other side is too dark - what else could be done?
Also cropping the top of heads is a stylistic choice for the film, as is done widely in cinema/tv, hence why it's been done here.
6. Not sure what is going on or what your goal was for this, compositionally could be fun for some group shots?
Just showing what a beautiful day it was. Remember, we're not the photographers. We don't film the group shots as it's pointless as the photographers there doing his job. The stills are usually just representing a different angle to the photographer or something they may not have from them (for instance, the photographer was behind the altar during the ceremony so anything from my angle will be completely different to what they've already got).
Nice, but again ... what is going on? The B&G will no doubt like this one as they know what everyone was looking at.
Was a group photo session from an upstairs window in the house - so they were just looking at the photographer. Again, just a different angle.
You should have been the other side, although an okay evening shot.
I was.. you can see me on the left
. This is from my colleagues view point which was better for this spin, especially with the circle of light matching. Also their photographer was on the other side as well (you can see him too) so not much point in giving them 2 identical shots.
As for the repetition of shoulders in shot etc.. we're very much documentary - we hardly speak to the couple at all during the day and are usually filming from the back to be as inconspicuous as possible. Hence naturally we'll always have something between us and the subject (most couples don't want to see 2 big video cameras in their face as well as the photographer all day).
Can't comment on the video which I'm sure is better but I sure hope you don't charge extra for these stills.
May I ask why that is? We charge £25 for the stills - they get a CD of them (between 50-80, full size obviously (the ones here are ~30% original size)) and have them hosted online for friends etc to login and view. We think it's an absolute bargain.
As for things like having the roof in, yes I agree it'd be nice, but again film's just different that way. The lens isn't wide angle enough to get both in as it is, and the shot that that stills taken from actually starts with a tilt down from the beams.
Thanks for all the comments guys! Just remember we're not the main photographers