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---

[joegolf68]

Originally Posted by 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---

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...

[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.