A photographer with attitude!

[CanonUser]

I was video taping a wedding when I introduced myself to the photographer. The first thing came out of his mouth was "If you're the videographer, please work separately away from me. I don't want you to copy my work." I was told that he's a well sought after photographer in the area, he uses a medium format camera, his wife sports a 10D, and they seemed to be good at what they do.
The thing is, after seeing my set up and my professional attitude, he warmed up to me and started some conversation. The kicker is that I also shoot stills with a 300D. At times, I was shooting when he realized that it was a great photo-op (the groom was dancing with his mother, etc...) and raced in for the the same pic. He was mostly standing around doing posed shots or the main event shots. I guess because the expense of shooting 2X2 film, he did not want to waste them on mundane shots. His wife was mostly doing assisting work, sitting there, or shooting a few frames with her 10D.
I'm sure his formal photos are excellent, but his attitude exclude him from being a professional in my book.

Regards,
Alan

[belmondo]

We’ve all seen the type. I was at a family wedding several years ago, and the professional photographer went apoplectic when someone produced a compact 35mm P&S camera while he was composing a group shot of the wedding party. He actually threatened to pack up and leave if anyone tried to take a picture while he was ‘working.’ The bride was reduced to tears, and a couple of us actually had serious discussions about taking this guy outside and giving him an attitude adjustment. His request probably wasn’t unreasonable, but his demeanor was. Some of these people get carried away with their presumed right to be ‘temperamental artists.’

Wedding photographers have an obligation to be competent first and foremost, but they also have to bear in mind that their services are an adjunct to the wedding, not the featured attraction. They also must never forget that they’re performing a service for the bride, groom, and families. They’re not competing for the Pulitzer Prize for photojournalism, so they should leave their attitude at the door and just take pictures.

Tom

[robertwgross]

I have shot lots of weddings when another photographer was present. Some strict pro photographers will state up-front to the couple that there will be no amateur photos using flash of any kind. That's fine. If the pro wants to set up that restriction, then that is his right. If the couple wants to decline his services because of that, then that is their right. But if they hire him with that understanding, then it is their responsibility to get the word spread of what the rule is for amateur photographers. It kind of depends on what gets written into the agreement. (Wedding photographers: You *do* get a written agreement in advance, don't you?)

Now, if the pro does not have that restrictive understanding with the couple, and if he shows up and starts telling me what I can or cannot do, then that might be a problem. On several occasions, I have gotten close and got the shot that the other guy did not get. If he wants to say something nasty to me, then that is his right. Of course, I will ignore it or not, depending on my mood.

If he wants to ask me to step away from his shot, then later on I might ask him the same thing.

I was shooting a relative's wedding (as an amateur), and the pro had issued the ultimatum that no amateur could shoot any flash shots while he was doing the formal poses, for fear of false-triggering his equipment. Fine. In every pose, I got set up and shot my camera with flash one second after he shot it. My flash could not false-trigger his equipment that way, and there were no complaints.

---Bob Gross---

[DaveG]

I do an annual lecture to photography students at a local community college. My first comment to those students is that they must remember that as a wedding photographer they're there to solve problems, not create them.

Having said that, your comment of: "Some of these people get carried away with their presumed right to be ‘temperamental artists.’ " may not be a presumed right at all. It may well be spelled out explicitly in the wedding photographer's contract. I know many photographers whose contracts say that they are the ONLY and exclusive photographer there. Now I don't do this and I think that it's mostly unenforceable, but it may well be there in the agreement.

That presents a problem all unto itself. The wedding photographer makes a contract with the bride and groom and yet there are many times during a wedding where a guest - who has no idea - will feel free to try to change the agreement. "Hey, we want you do do a group shot of our family." "What do you mean you don't stay until the end of the reception?" I walk a very fine line about not wanting to offend clients and yet I can't give away the store.

It's not like I'm walking around with the contract up my butt either. I encourage the guests to shoot the groups but I ask them to let me take two shots of each pose before they even try. I promise X number of shots but I always exceed them. So as far as guest requests go I try to give them as much as I possibly can even if it does exceed the contract specs.

However other types of professionals at the wedding don't get or deserve the same concern. I did a wedding a couple of weeks ago and while I was doing some posed post wedding shots in the church, the limo driver decided that it was part of his job to get behind me and to give posing instructions to the bride and groom! What he didn't know was that I was trying to drag the shutter (1/4 second exposure) along with using the flash and that any movement on the B&G's part could cause a ghost. He wanted to be part of the show and nothing was going to stop him.

Well I couldn't allow that and invited him to wait over "there". If it was her dad I would have taken a moment and just explained that I'd be concerned that he'd distract them, yadda yadda yadda. But I don't tell that moron how to drive his car and I don't want him near me.

A fundamental difference between videographers and photographers is that video guys just shoot what happens. My wedding style is to pose everything I can, and in a way that looks natural, "Look we don't want any posed shots at all. We just want the ones like in your portfolio." "Well those shots in my portfolio ..." My point is that during the bride and groom "portraits in the park" I've asked that the bride "invite" all of her guest to go to the reception, and that includes the videoographers too. I've just found that if there's anyone there then the goom will be far too self conscious to make good photos. And can THAT piss of some videographers!


I'm always afraid of what a videographer can do. I had one "pro" videographer go up to a bride before the wedding and say, "Pretend the camera is your husband and tell him how much you love him and how much you want to marry him." I just about ****! He wanted her to cry. And there I'd be about to do a portrait of a bride with her wearing $100 worth of ruined makeup!

He would have gotten 30 seconds of great TV but would have been unlikely to get paid when his clients realized what the downside of his little trick was!

When the wedding is all over the photographer will be judged on many things. I think that being nice is certainly one of them. But sometime you have to dig in a little so you get good pictures too!

[DaveG]

"In every pose, I got set up and shot my camera with flash one second after he shot it. My flash could not false-trigger his equipment that way, and there were no complaints."

How do you explain to the bride and groom that some of their guests were NOT looking into the pro's camera when he pushed his shutter button but were distracted by you?

As I said in the last posting I encourage the amateurs to shoot the groups but only after I have two un-distracted shots of each pose. The bride and groom are paying the pro a lot of money. Why did you feel that you needed to do this?

[arthurb]

The saddest story I have about this type of attitude, is a wedding where the photographer shooting large format had the "I am the photographer"" outburst.

He told people not to get in his way while he was shooting, and he was rude about it.

Well, it seems that because of an equipment failure, only a few of his shots came out. The couple's only real photos came from their friends cameras.

Certainly, the photographer has a right to politely ask folks not to take pictures while he is preparing to shoot, but no one has the right to be rude.

A true master has no reason to be rude. People who are unsure of their skills are usually rude...

[robertwgross]

DaveG wrote:
"In every pose, I got set up and shot my camera with flash one second after he shot it. My flash could not false-trigger his equipment that way, and there were no complaints."

How do you explain to the bride and groom that some of their guests were NOT looking into the pro's camera when he pushed his shutter button but were distracted by you?

As I said in the last posting I encourage the amateurs to shoot the groups but only after I have two un-distracted shots of each pose. The bride and groom are paying the pro a lot of money. Why did you feel that you needed to do this?

Why did I feel the need to do this? Since it was my niece, and she asked me to. She was afraid that the pro's proofs would not come back from the lab for a week, and relatives were going to be leaving 24 hours after the wedding, so "Ol' Uncle Bob" was asked to shoot some good ones and get them printed so that the departing relatives would have something early to carry home.

I didn't have to explain anything to the bride and groom, since it was not their guests who were looking or not looking into the pro's camera. The bride and groom were in the formal poses, not the guests. The guests were out in the corridor drinking coffee, so there was nobody to get distracted by anything.

Strangely enough, the pro shot a bunch from his angle, and I shot from slightly off-angle. There was a microphone on a cable dangling down from the ceiling directly over the couple, and this appeared in each one of the pro's proofs. For some reason, Ol' Uncle Bob's didn't have it in his (due to the angle).

I shoot weddings (digitally) alongside a film photographer, and we have our choreography worked out so that we don't get in each other's way. Our flashes are synchronized independently of one another.

---Bob Gross---

[IndyJeff]

This happened about 25 years ago, I went to a wedding with a girl I was dating. It was one of her friends. At that time I wasn't into photography too much and only had a point and shoot camera. As we went into the church a young lady standing by the door introduced herself as the assistant for Memorable Moments Photography. She asked if I would return my camera to the car as they didn't want any flash pictures to ruin their shots. As I didn't give a rats ass about this wedding anyway I said I would I only had the camera to get some shots for the honey I was with. When I came back another guest was quite upset because he couldn't bring his camera bag in. Finally the photographer comes up and states that no cameras are allowed. Period.
The guy gives up and returns his camera to his car. About 5 minutes before the bride comes out the photograher goes into a tirade at his assistant. She begins to cry and finally screams at him, "I quit, you *******" and walks out. Now this wedding was at a little country church about 40 miles from Indy. Seems the assistant didn't have a back up battery for the pros camera and he lambasted her for it. So the pro goes to the father of the bride and explains that the wedding will have to be delayed until he can get back with a new battery, about an hour and a half. The brides father says that is unacceptable as they only have the church for one more hour. Get this, the pro says "then reschedule the wedding."
Well the guy who earlier made an objection to his not being able to bring in his camera comes up and asks the guy what kind of battery his camera takes and he says it is a special battery and the guy doesn't have one. He turns in a huff and walks away out of the church. The guy turns to the father of the bride and informs him he can shoot the wedding for them. So the wedding goes on and the amateur shoots the pics. He also invited anyone who wants to get thier cameras to do so. About 10 people get up and head to thier cars.
Turns out this guy is pretty heavy into photography and has a medium format camera, looked like the same make and model as the pro.
So about 2 1/2 hours later at the reception, the pro shows up. He is fumming mad because they didn't delay the wedding for him. The father of the bride is trying to explain to him that they couldn't wait when the groom comes up and says to the guy that under the circumstances he was fired and they hired someone else to do the job. The photographer says they have a contract. Well it seems that the groom is an attorney and says he has reviewed the contract. There is a clause in it that stated " the photographer shall have access to the church no later than 1:30 to get setup and do pre-wedding shots and shall be ready for the wedding at 2:30. He will have until 3:30 to get any post wedding shots and an additional 20 minutes to remove his equipment." The groom then informs him that he didn't abide by the terms of the contract therefore the contract was rendered null and void. Then the best line of the day came from the father of the bride, "Jim can you represent me when I sue this guy to get my $500 deposit back?"
Turns out the guy who did shoot the wedding did it for what it cost him. The pictures were great and everyone was happy. Oh and BTW, Jim the groom who was also an attorney, he is now a friend of mine and my attorney.

[leony]

I've assisted a wedding photographer for over 3 years, and then ended up shooting for him as 2nd shooter, and we always made sure that while formal portraits are taken, guests are welcome to shoot WITHOUT flashes. This way we don't have a double-flash problem and the subjects are not distracted. His studio does journalistic style for the whole 10 hour day starting from bride's dressing to the end of reception. Yes, the end when the music stops. Once explained that that people's flashes will set off out photo-slaved lights, we've never had a problem. In the end, B&G pay a lot of money to the hired pro to get the shots for them, and if guests get on the way they are only hurting B&G - but most of them don't realize it. I've shot a few weddings by myself and as long as you tell people to not use their flashes during formal portraits because it will set off our equipment, they are OK with it and respect that. The problem with video vs. photog is that most couples never bother to match up the style of videographer and photographer, and only screw themselves over in the end. I always discuss this up front, and let them know my expectations and requirements - as long as they know ahead of time my ass is covered.

[robertwgross]

leony wrote:
I've assisted a wedding photographer for over 3 years, and then ended up shooting for him as 2nd shooter, and we always made sure that while formal portraits are taken, guests are welcome to shoot WITHOUT flashes. This way we don't have a double-flash problem and the subjects are not distracted.

Yes, that works. The way we work it is the principal photographer and secondary photographer are set up for a formal pose. An assistant helps with posing, and then moves out of the way. Obviously, nobody is going to shoot anything while the assistant is still there in the way. Once the assistant moves out, the guests with cameras are starting to move in, and normally they politely ask if they can shoot. The assistant tells them to wait for just a moment until the principal and secondary are done, and then we will get out of their way so the guests can shoot. We finish that pose and move around, and the guests with cameras can knock themselves out with flash. Nobody steps on any toes this way.

Besides, the assistant is a nice gal, and nobody would want to do anything against what she asked.

---Bob Gross---

[belmondo]

Perhaps the most salient point one can glean from all this is: Weddings are terrible things and should be avoided whenever possible, especially by the participants.

[robertwgross]

belmondo wrote:
Weddings are terrible things and should be avoided whenever possible, especially by the participants.

Not only that, but it is one of the leading causes of divorce.

---Bob Gross---

[Webster]

A few weeks ago my niece was married. The pros (husband and wife) not only did not mind anyone taking pictures, they offered several times to get out of my way while I was shooting. I declined, of course. The only times they wanted others not shooting was for a few very formal posed shots. After they were done they were happy for anyone else to have a go at the bride&groom. During the reception they just shot around (or through) anyone with a camera. At one point they even gave me one of their cameras so I could take a couple of shots of them with the bride and groom.

The pictures they took were fabulous, everybody who was there think they were the greatest photographers ever seen, and everyone in my extended family, me included, are ordering prints. They ran out of business cards because everyone at the reception wanted one.

Being nice - not just the right thing to do, but pretty damned good business, too.

[DaveG]

robertwgross wrote:
DaveG wrote:
"In every pose, I got set up and shot my camera with flash one second after he shot it. My flash could not false-trigger his equipment that way, and there were no complaints."

How do you explain to the bride and groom that some of their guests were NOT looking into the pro's camera when he pushed his shutter button but were distracted by you?

As I said in the last posting I encourage the amateurs to shoot the groups but only after I have two un-distracted shots of each pose. The bride and groom are paying the pro a lot of money. Why did you feel that you needed to do this?

Why did I feel the need to do this? Since it was my niece, and she asked me to. She was afraid that the pro's proofs would not come back from the lab for a week, and relatives were going to be leaving 24 hours after the wedding, so "Ol' Uncle Bob" was asked to shoot some good ones and get them printed so that the departing relatives would have something early to carry home.

I didn't have to explain anything to the bride and groom, since it was not their guests who were looking or not looking into the pro's camera. The bride and groom were in the formal poses, not the guests. The guests were out in the corridor drinking coffee, so there was nobody to get distracted by anything.

Strangely enough, the pro shot a bunch from his angle, and I shot from slightly off-angle. There was a microphone on a cable dangling down from the ceiling directly over the couple, and this appeared in each one of the pro's proofs. For some reason, Ol' Uncle Bob's didn't have it in his (due to the angle).

I shoot weddings (digitally) alongside a film photographer, and we have our choreography worked out so that we don't get in each other's way. Our flashes are synchronized independently of one another.

---Bob Gross---


Let me put it to you this way: If a bride and groom told me ahead of time that Good Ol' Uncle Bob was going to shoot their wedding along side of me in the way that you've described, then I'd flat turn down the wedding. I would just say that I couldn't work this way and that they should hire Bob.

Of course the paid shooter had no warning of this and he was nice enough not to walk away or even give you a hard time. He asked you not to shoot so that his strobes didn't fire but there is also an implied request that you not interfere, which you did anyway. How did you know that he wasn't dragging the shutter. Was he paying more attention to you than the dangling cord. Was his head completely in the game with you breathing down his neck?

I want you to consider motives for a moment. Everything I do, or ask for on the day of a wedding is with one goal in mind: To give the B&G the best possible photographs I can, and I assume most pro's feel the same way. If they didn't care about the wedding pictures then none of this would bother them - or me - in the least.

In my way of doing things I shoot the portraits in private because they're better, not because I make more money. I ask that the guests not shoot the groups while I am because my shots may not be as good. Although it is my reputation out there and I have a vested interest that these images be good, it's still the bride's product and she'll have to live with them. Do you see that?

Now the wedding is all over. I assume that the shooter was paid in full. You got the proofs to the B&G quick and dirty. But did you hurt the images that the shooter was hired to make? Hey you might have done all of this for the right reasons but I always ask why the B&G would be willing to pay so much money and then not care if the photographer gets all the cooperation that he asks for. At the end of the day they paid for his pictures, not yours; and his might have been better, but who will ever know.

[CanonUser]

When you shoot enough weddings, you learn to co-operate with other professionals who are there to provide services to the same client. Be it the caterer, the DJ, the MC, the photographer, the videographer, the facility manager, or the official. Each of the above can help to make your work alot easier. At the wedding mentioned above, the DJ kept me posted 10 minutes ahead of every main event about to occur, the official staged the couple and held them in pose long enough for great pictures during the ceremony, everyone understand that we had the same goal: do the thing we love and make a living at the same time.
I learned to give the photographer his/her space, stay out of their shots (duck if I must), and understand that photography and videography have different requirements. It's the photographer's statement "I don't want you to copy my work" that galled me. I work hard at developing a style of my own, wheather it's motion or still. I do learn from the competition, but not copying them. Why the heck do I want to copy a photographer's pose to a video? It'd look funny and lousy to the least. I was there to record the photo session, as it's a part of the wedding and would add to the story. I was there to record candid thoughts from the couple, the bride's maids, and the groom's men. If I want to copy anyone's work, I can read from about it from half dozen of books I have on hand about wedding photography with excellent samples and technical details. This photographer's statement and assumtion showed nothing but total arrogance and ignorance.
On the subject of amateur photographer, I see at least one photographer with top flight gears at every wedding I did lately. In the last 3 wedding, there were family's friend or member who were shooting with the best didital cameras, tripods, and flashes. They generally stayed away from the main events and concentrated on shooting friend/family group shots. I think they're pro respecting another working pro. It's the P/S crowd that constantly stepped on my toes. A tap on the shoulder and a quiet explaination about my obligation to the couple usually remedy the problem. If you think that a clause in the contract will stop these guys from just grabbing a nice pic, then you just pump your hypertention up over nothing.
At my own wedding, I had enough of other worries on hand when the photographer and the videographer bickered, talking about being p****d. I also had no control over my guesses, they chose their own seating arrangement, they set their own schedule, do you think they'll listen to me about not taking pictures? So I always make sure that I don't create additional problems to the bride and groom. Beside, the working circle is small, you're bound to run into the same photographer/videographer if you stay in the business long enough. Oh, the guy who caused the worst damage to one of my wedding video by constantly stepping directly in front of my camera at the most critical moments was a professional photographer.
Last thing, I shot weddings while being a poor student at a respected art college here in the Bay Area. So I'm not writing this message with a us/them mentality. I enjoy both photography & videography.

Regards,
Alan

[robertwgross]

DaveG, you misunderstand a lot.

The pro photographer did not ask me or tell me anything.

The pro photographer had two forms of light going. He had wide/broad continuous lights, and then there was a strobe flash at the shutter instant. He had a cable release, so he would line up the shot with his eye at the viewfinder, then he would look up, and then click the button. His strobes would fire. Then about one second later, my strobe would fire on my camera. By then, he wasn't looking at anything except his settings for the next shot. I was fifteen feet away, off-axis, so he could have said anything if he was pissed. I wasn't doing anything stupid, like getting in his shot, or firing off the strobe flash when his was in the ready-armed mode. His were taking 15 seconds or so to recycle, so mine wasn't really noticed. I had about enough light from his continuous lighting to do it, but I let the flash go in hopes of some eyeball catchlights. The only two people who really knew what I was up to were the bride and groom, because they asked me. I got the requested results, which was the set of quick and dirty prints delivered 16 hours after the event.

My point was that the average amateur photographer is oblivious to the complexities of what a pro photographer has going on, so it is very easy for an average guy to walk in and screw things up for the pro. I specifically didn't want to do that, which is why I watched his action for a minute, timed his flash cycles, then shot "around him" so as to avoid a problem. It worked. The pro delivered his proofs ten days afterward, and they were nice (if expensive) and he got paid.

Like I stated, though, now we use separate wireless sync systems for wedding photography, and that keeps the primary camera only hitting the primary flash, and the secondary camera only hitting the secondary flash, and nothing is optically slaved, so a guest firing off his Instamatic won't hurt us. Now, the videographer gets a little pissed when the Instamatics fire off in a volley, because they have to go in and edit frames out of their video tape, which makes for a little work. But that is why I don't do video.

---Bob Gross---

[GenEOS]

I think the main points to be learned from this thread are professionalism, courtesy, respect, common sense and comminication. Not every knows about these things or has ever used them, doing so, sets you apart from those that don't. It will also earn you business from those who respect someone with those characteristics.

I have been to many weddings as a friend of the bride or groom. At one wedding, the bride asked me to bring my camera and get some shots. Understand, she did this because she knew I was a photog and I really think she asked to be polite and not to offend. I would not have been offended.

I packed my gear as if to shoot a few shots, but when I arrived I saw that she had plenty of photographer "friends". One more would have made her wedding into a tabloid cover story. So I left the gear in the car and enjoyed hearing the ding, click whirls from the audiance of friends with various weapons of photo destruction! Even saw one gal with a lap full of 1.44M floppy disks feeding a Sony Mavica.
(the dingging camera in the group!!)

BTW her Pro photogs walked up and down the ilse during the ceremony and at one point where at the end of the line of bridesmaids in front of the crowd.

I look at wedding candid shots like a covert millitary op. Get the shots without being seen or heard. I like people to say, "where was he when he took this, I didn't see him."

I stay away from weddings like the plaque though. It is for reasons stated in this thread that I have chose to shoot just about anything but a formal wedding.

[CanonUser]

Just an update...
I presented to the groom's parent the pics I took at the wedding. The mother immediately became teary and proudly showed the family portrait to her customers who were there in her store at the time. I was there to pick up the check per prior agreement. They asked to purchase the pics without a single sale pitch from me. The groom's father told me that the photographer managed to really p****d off some of his friends with the "I AM THE PHOTOGRAPHER" attitude. This man will retain me for both video and photography services when his other son and 2 daughters get married within the next year-and-half. Two of the wedding guesses also asked for my business card right in front of the photographer. I guess being nice does pay off in the end.

Regards,
Alan

[Malaxos1]

I have done a number of weddings myself and have a few scheduled this spring. I have let people shoot photos while I am. What I have done is set my equipment up and explain to family and friends that I will allow them to shoot but only after I have taken my photos of the pose first. I for one have had problems of people looking into someone elses cameras and not mine, the one they paid for. The last wedding I did, I had a major problem. When it came time to cut the cake their were auto assist lights and flashes all over the cake. I siply walked awy from the cake and took more photos of the guest. I explained when I met with the couple what happened and they understood. I took a wedding photography course a while ago and the instructor mentioned that he doesn't mond people taking photos. He went on to say that this ensures that if there is a problem with your equipment, the couple will be guarenteed some memmories of the big day and maybe even save you from a law suit. I have heeded his advice. BTW the couple did get a few good shots of them cutting the cake...Dean

[DaveG]

Malaxos1 wrote:
I have done a number of weddings myself and have a few scheduled this spring. I have let people shoot photos while I am. What I have done is set my equipment up and explain to family and friends that I will allow them to shoot but only after I have taken my photos of the pose first. I for one have had problems of people looking into someone elses cameras and not mine, the one they paid for. The last wedding I did, I had a major problem. When it came time to cut the cake their were auto assist lights and flashes all over the cake. I siply walked awy from the cake and took more photos of the guest. I explained when I met with the couple what happened and they understood. I took a wedding photography course a while ago and the instructor mentioned that he doesn't mond people taking photos. He went on to say that this ensures that if there is a problem with your equipment, the couple will be guarenteed some memmories of the big day and maybe even save you from a law suit. I have heeded his advice. BTW the couple did get a few good shots of them cutting the cake...Dean

Although this is getting off topic, there are a few shots that I like to do at a wedding that are faked. The cake cutting is one of them. Because my wedding package involves only a short time at the reception (Straight out: I don't want to deal with the drunks.) I do a pretend-to-cut-the-cake shots as soon as I arrive with the B&G. Often we can sneak into the banquet hall before the guests arrive and we can do this shot in privacy.

If we do the shot like that I can drag the shutter so that the background is brighter and I don't get flash fall off. With the calm deliberation of a bride and groom at their wedding (similar to a baseball player caught between first and second) the last two people who will remember that this wasn't there real cake cutting is going to be them!

[robertwgross]

Ahh, yes, the cake cutting.

First of all, I like to shoot one frame of the B&G holding hands with the diamond ring showing, and with the cake in the background. It's nicer yet if flower petals are scattered around the cake table and maybe a couple of candles are burning in the back.

Then there is the actual cake cutting. After that, I need to get one shot of the groom jamming the cake into the mouth of the bride. The messier, the better. That always takes care of the humor side of the whole affair.

---Bob Gross---

[DaveG]

robertwgross wrote:
Ahh, yes, the cake cutting.

First of all, I like to shoot one frame of the B&G holding hands with the diamond ring showing, and with the cake in the background. It's nicer yet if flower petals are scattered around the cake table and maybe a couple of candles are burning in the back.

Then there is the actual cake cutting. After that, I need to get one shot of the groom jamming the cake into the mouth of the bride. The messier, the better. That always takes care of the humor side of the whole affair.

---Bob Gross---

If they do it.

I know that sounds like a smart ass comment but the more weddings I do the more I see how important doing X is to this B&G, while doing X is horrible to that B&G. "Oh we love the kissing photos." or "We never kiss in public." Pick one.

And BOTH couples think that their way is the only way!

[robertwgross]

Yes, everybody wants something different in their prints.

The trick is that the pro photographer must be ready for just about anything. We can suggest to the couple what they might like, and they may have their favorites. But then, when the cake is flying, we've got to get in there and capture it, even if it means cake on the lens.

White cake bits stuck onto a black tuxedo... they might like that.

---Bob Gross---

[Skids]

Slightly off topic but a friend of mine was getting married and they were on a really tight budget so they asked me if I would take photos (about 2 days before the wedding).
I have never done any wedding photography or any group photography for that matter and only had a 300D and 550ex flash.
I said I would be happy to do it on the understanding that I won't charge them anything for it and if they don't come out for any reason don't sue me :-) (It would be good practice anyway)
So I turned up on the day with a few other friends who had been invited and we went into the church only to be accosted by the vicar.
'Are you the photographer?' he asked.
'I guess so' I replied.
'OK your seat is here indicating a solitary seat at the front and to the side.
OK I am getting worried now as I though I would just be taking photos after the ceremony but here I am now so I will get on with it.
Once everybody had settled the vicar announces, 'During the ceremony could everyone refrain from using flash photography please as the Professional photographer will be taking the photos today'
My sphincter went from this size O to this size . immediately.
Anyway I got on with it and fortunately the photos came out pretty good (not pro standard obviously) and I got a batch printed and gave them to the Bride and Groom as a wedding present and everybody was very happy.
Since then I have done another friends wedding alongside the pro and staying out of his way and they were really pleased because as well as the professionals posed shots they had a lot of very natural candid shots done by yours truely.

[dave_bass5]

Heres a little story for you. sorry if its a bit OT
I play in a covers band doing a lot of weddings.
Back in Aug we were at this smallish wedding, maybe 120 guests. the photographer seemed to be a friend of the groom but was a pro. During our break he came up to me and told me he had played bass in the past and could he get up and play a song with us. i said he could (im the bass player) if i could have a few mins with his 1Ds (after telling him i sort of know what im doing) as ive never used one befrore. he said fine if i would also take a few shots of him playing with the band and if i would just take a few of the guests just so it didnt look like nothing was getting taken. i was more than happy to and ended up taking around 20+ shots. he had a look and said he liked the shots and angles i had used on him and he would email me a few.
All in all it was a good night.
Two weeks later i got an email from him with a couple of the shots i had taken but he also said the couple had liked one or two of the shots i had taken of them dancing and as a thank you he posted me a framed shot of me and the band.
what a nice bloke. and i can see just how different the 1Ds is to my little 30D
One thing i have noticed is that there are now a large % of wedding guests using dSLR's now. i have talked to a few photog's and they dont generaly seem to mind. as one pointed out its mainly the 350d+kit lens and OB flash so its not really a threat, more just a pain having the flashes keep going off.
Ok, sorry for going OT......back to the thread

[::John::]

LOL - threads are like fashions, huh? If you wait long enough, they come back around again.

You guys do realise this was a 2003 thread, right?

[Matt_hil]

I have a none Wedding story.

While I was working in london for a magazine, at a convention all the photographers where placed in big halls separate from each other so nothing could interfere with each other, I was working in the bigger section away from the public, doing shoots, then after a while a guy walks into the room with a girl with a 35mm camera turns out the lights in the whole room and starts taking pictures which caused my strobes togo off and also mess other peoples studios up. so we asked him nicely if he could not turn out the lights and not take photos in here as we are doing shoots..then this guy looks at us and starts shouting, saying I am Big time photographer who works In NY/Paris/London blah blah how dare you tell me not to take photos.

One of the photographers from another magazine started laughting and said what mag are you working for today then? the guy looked at him and said I am working for some glamour magazine, (even thou he didnt have a press/photographer badge on) oh really? well could you leave are section please as this is for the magazines with studios... he stormed out and we started laughing haha

[Photorebel]

I've done a few weddings, been a guest at many more. I've shot candids for family members at weddings and never got in the hired pro's way.
Short version is;
When my wife's brother got married, the photographer handled his self in a professional manner, but put everyone at ease. He...made it "fun" to take photos. Just a very pleasant person to be around. And his photos...simply
Outstanding!!!

A few years later, when my wife's sister got married. Bigger town, more expensive photographer. The hired pro was...arrogrant, ...almost a jerk, acted
like we were lucky to have him. I was taking candids, as a favor to my mother
in law. I used a 35mm w/flash (no ceremony shots, of course). Stayed out of
the pros way. He talked to me, never had a problem with me, once he knew I wasn't going to get in his way. But the way he acted around the guests...
Anyway, his photos...just weren't as good as the photographer in the first
wedding. Even though the second was much more expensive.

Bottom line, I realize weddings are a job, stressful...tough, and you want to get everything right. But when the photographer puts the wedding party at ease, the photos are going to be better.
The attitude and demeanor of the hired photographer has a direct effect on the final photos. I've seen it in weddings, portraits...and it's always been the way, in every case. (that I've seen)

[sWampy]

With the attitudes of some in this business, I'm surprised, someone hasn't patented 2 people standing together, 3 people, 4 people, etc, and try to charge everyone that takes a picture a fee.

[FretNoMore]

There are rude people in all walks of life... I would guess wedding photographers are more at risk than others of becoming stressed out from the pressure of delivering the goods so maybe that's an explanation, if not justification, for some of them snapping at people. Maybe they should be in another line of work though, it can't be fun to be that way.

I can only say that if I had to choose one type of event I *don't* want to photograph it would without doubt be weddings. Shudder.

[Photorebel]

There are rude people in all walks of life... I would guess wedding photographers are more at risk than others of becoming stressed out from the pressure of delivering the goods so maybe that's an explanation, if not justification, for some of them snapping at people. Maybe they should be in another line of work though, it can't be fun to be that way.

I can only say that if I had to choose one type of event I *don't* want to photograph it would without doubt be weddings. Shudder.

You are right on the money. I don't do weddings, because I found them stressful, and didn't enjoy the work. If someone is so stressed, they cant' have a friendly, professional demeanor...then, as you say
"Maybe they should be in another line of work though, it can't be fun to be that way".

I admire good wedding photographers. My uncle did it part time for years, and after he retired, he started shooting weddings full time. He could put people at ease, and was a very..very good wedding photographer. Judging by all the business he got.:) I say his sucess was due in part to his talent and skill, and in part to he just enjoyed shooting weddings. He sure had a lot of people hire him. That I know for a fact.

[Mark_Cohran]

I did a number of weddings in the 80's. I enjoyed shooting them and did a pretty good job I think. Weddings are, I think, the most profitable market segment for photographers. These days, I won't shoot weddding except for family and very close friends. I cover my costs and make a tiny profit off the prints. The reason I don't do weddings is primarily the stress factor. My approach to photography is more relaxed and considerate. I don't enjoy the pace of wedding photography.

Mark

[joegolf68]

I have shot lots of weddings when another photographer was present. Some strict pro photographers will state up-front to the couple that there will be no amateur photos using flash of any kind. That's fine. If the pro wants to set up that restriction, then that is his right. If the couple wants to decline his services because of that, then that is their right. But if they hire him with that understanding, then it is their responsibility to get the word spread of what the rule is for amateur photographers. It kind of depends on what gets written into the agreement. (Wedding photographers: You *do* get a written agreement in advance, don't you?)

Now, if the pro does not have that restrictive understanding with the couple, and if he shows up and starts telling me what I can or cannot do, then that might be a problem. On several occasions, I have gotten close and got the shot that the other guy did not get. If he wants to say something nasty to me, then that is his right. Of course, I will ignore it or not, depending on my mood.

If he wants to ask me to step away from his shot, then later on I might ask him the same thing.

I was shooting a relative's wedding (as an amateur), and the pro had issued the ultimatum that no amateur could shoot any flash shots while he was doing the formal poses, for fear of false-triggering his equipment. Fine. In every pose, I got set up and shot my camera with flash one second after he shot it. My flash could not false-trigger his equipment that way, and there were no complaints.

---Bob Gross---


Well thought out, well written. Logic to a tee. Excellent post.

[MrTED]

Is it any wonder some professional protographers have a bad name... some of the comments in this post about what you would do and wouldn't do repulsed me...!!!

My company covers both Photo and Video and the simple fact is that if the B&G has hired both Professionals (be it both from my company or a different one), they BOTH have a right to be there. None of this crap about owning poses and the Videographer can not shoot them, this is the most pathetic thing I have heard.

There are a few "so called pro's" in my area who do exactly this, and are well renowned for it. If I am only contracted for Photo or Video, I check whether one of these people have been contracted for the other and I politely decline the work. When asked why, I simply state that I would not be able to do the job to the best of my ability when working with these people and you (the B&G) would not be happy with my results.

When I work, I am happy for people to take photos, my only restriction is that I am the only person to photograph the location photos, and even then I don't cause a scene if someone pulls out a point and shoot. I have even been known to take a photo or two for some of the guests when it comes to table photos. Who cares if the guests take the same photo in the church or for family photos. The only comment I can understand is the other flash units affecting the photos and the subjects looking at other people instead of you.

I choose not to perform a fake cutting of the cake or bridal waltz (but that is my choice, I understand the alternate), and I capture some of the best candid photos at that point in time. It may not win a critics choice for photography, but it can tug at the heart strings of the toughtest B&G.

All of this means when people talk about me as a photographer, not only do they praise my work, but they boast about how they all enjoyed the day/night. I tend to win comparisons to the "other" photographers hands down, simply because I take the time to be nice and every now and again miss one opportunity because of it. I can deal with that.

Remember, a wedding is not a theatrical production with the photographer in control, it is a event where the B&G should have the primary say and you should keep your own ego's in check...