Nightmare professional photography scenario

[loggerhead]

I attended my niece's wedding yesterday. I usually cart my camera and a couple of lenses to family affairs to get the candid shots that the hired photog usually tries to avoid. You know, the kind you can use for blackmail later. ;-)

Anyway, he didn't like seeing my setup at all. He spoke to the parents and they asked me to refrain from taking flash pictures during the ceremony or during the formal setups after the ceremony. No problem during the reception. I asked if I could take no-flash pictures during the ceremony. That's when the real issue surfaced -- he didn't want anyone else taking pictures at all so as to maximize print revenue later. No problem. I can respect their contract.

Anyway, I shot about 150 frames during the reception. Rather than duplicating the traditional cake-cutting, face stuffing, thigh-groping fare the hired guy was getting I stuck to funnier shots of people eating, kids dancing, and my two-year-old son falling head-first into the tub filled with ice and drinks.

I got a call about an hour after leaving the reception from my brother, the father of the bride. He asked how my reception pictures turned out. Since I hadn't even looked at them yet I told him I had no idea. Then he told me that the photographer's Nikon F4 had malfunctioned 20 shots into the fourth roll of film. Every shot after that was completely blank. The film advanced after each shot and it sounded right, but the shutter stayed shut on every shot. He had four and fraction rolls of my niece fitting her dress and people decorating the reception hall but nothing at all of the ceremony, formal poses, or reception. My brother says the guys hands were shaking. To his credit he returned to the church and told them face-to-face.

So anyway, they are going to re-do the formal poses without the out-of-towners who were in the wedding party, but the ceremony is a wash and my shots are the only ones of the real deal. ;-)

Film is scary -- I'm not sure I would do paid-for work without the immediate feedback of seeing those images on the card.

 

[carl english]

You are not completely safe with digital either, I did a portrait session last year went home and downloaded to PC, I had another appointment so I went to my regular processer and ask him to take images from my card to his PC ( I normally would have them on CD) Oh dear he said, whats the matter I said? I've lost your images. Sure enough my card was blank and no matter how I/He tried we never did recover them. Lesson learned,always have backup. I bet there are many disaster stories out there regarding digital.
Carl

 

[loggerhead]

No doubt. It's dicey either way until the prints are in the bride's hands and the check clears. ;-)

 

[Joe Peoples]

I attended my niece's wedding yesterday. I usually cart my camera
and a couple of lenses to family affairs to get the candid shots
that the hired photog usually tries to avoid. You know, the kind
you can use for blackmail later. ;-)

Anyway, he didn't like seeing my setup at all. He spoke to the
parents and they asked me to refrain from taking flash pictures
during the ceremony or during the formal setups after the ceremony.
No problem during the reception. I asked if I could take no-flash
pictures during the ceremony. That's when the real issue surfaced
-- he didn't want anyone else taking pictures at all so as to
maximize print revenue later. No problem. I can respect their
contract.

Anyway, I shot about 150 frames during the reception. Rather than
duplicating the traditional cake-cutting, face stuffing,
thigh-groping fare the hired guy was getting I stuck to funnier
shots of people eating, kids dancing, and my two-year-old son
falling head-first into the tub filled with ice and drinks.

I got a call about an hour after leaving the reception from my
brother, the father of the bride. He asked how my reception
pictures turned out. Since I hadn't even looked at them yet I told
him I had no idea. Then he told me that the photographer's Nikon F4
had malfunctioned 20 shots into the fourth roll of film. Every shot
after that was completely blank. The film advanced after each shot
and it sounded right, but the shutter stayed shut on every shot. He
had four and fraction rolls of my niece fitting her dress and
people decorating the reception hall but nothing at all of the
ceremony, formal poses, or reception. My brother says the guys
hands were shaking. To his credit he returned to the church and
told them face-to-face.

So anyway, they are going to re-do the formal poses without the
out-of-towners who were in the wedding party, but the ceremony is a
wash and my shots are the only ones of the real deal. ;-)

Film is scary -- I'm not sure I would do paid-for work without the
immediate feedback of seeing those images on the card.

Joe Peoples writes:

Coming from an advertising background, where we had several confirmatory procedures to avoid dreaded reshoots, I stayed away from shooting weddings for just the reason you mention. One of the things that fashion photographers did to hedge their bets against what happened to your wedding photographer was to use multiple (35mm) cameras on shoots and use at least two bodies on each situation (medium format photogs used at least two backs on each situation). It might also seem that this fellow was too concerned with you being there and his future print orders, that he neglected to make sure the film was properly loaded and was advancing through the camera.

 

[Edward Period]

Speaking as a freelance photographer who does weddings from time to time, there are several things wrong here:

1. The guy was shooting with film

Shooting film is not only expensive, it's almost up to lady luck to decide whether the camera/photographer managed to expose the shots correctly. No checking the histogram after the shot to see if it was good, just waiting in complete darkness. Changing film, not being able to change ISO at will, etc. Such things make you less competent as a photographer and are to be avoided. He obviously cared more about money than getting good shots...

2. He was using only one camera

I shoot weddings with two cameras. The one has a normal zoom and the other has either a wide zoom or a wide-angle prime. They're both slung over my shoulder and I switch them almost constantly, in order to at least get one shot of each happening (coming in, standing, kneeling, ring, kiss, going out, etc). If the one camera were to fail that wouldn't be too bad: I can change lense on the working camera and keep shooting. In case a memory card gets wiped than at least I've still got pretty much the same thing on the other camera.

3. He was being greedy

This is probably his biggest fault. Being greedy only benefits you yourself and not your customers. He should have been paid for his time and not per print. I get paid for whatever time I spend at the wedding and let people with their p&s shoot away as much as they want, all I request is that I get the bridge&groom alone for a few minutes after the ceremony for some posed shots. Other than that I let the guests do what they want. After all, the guests are of higher priority (as humans, or whatever) than the hired help, which is me.

If I were that guy I'd have completely refunded any money they might have paid me and apologized profusely for using primitive equipment...

The reason I'm ranting like this is because people like that guy mess things up for other people by acting like a monopolist, acting all high and mighty and instilling fear of lost pictures into customers.

shudder

Losing "rolls" of film...

 

[john pringle]

Well, they (pro) was a real dunce for not trying to compromise with you in the first, Second, he should have been more relaxed. It is under stress that most people forget the tiny signals that our senses are ticking away telling us. He should have had a trained ear and hand to tell him when the camera is not shooting right. I agree with you that taking shots digital is relaxing (believing that you have the shot bagged, but there is a joy having the buzz in my heart at times, knowing that O did all the right things and yet do not know if the shot was caught. In any event, what I am saying is that digital is spoiling me... I love it...

When I am shooting, it can be VERY hectic, Between looking out for the flash for each exposure, subject behavior, Camera operation, REcheck and Check and RE check if the camera settings moved..., etc...
Digital helps...

It is great that your shots worked out, next time, just take images without infringing with your flash system...sort of like walking on a movie set...Be the fly on the wall. most peeps will not even notice you, they will be so natural, that you will be surprised...

 

[loggerhead]

Well, they (pro) was a real dunce for not trying to compromise with
you in the first

Just to be clear, I wasn't pushing at all. Weddings are all about the bride. The rest of us are superfluous. I wasn't about to make an issue of it. My part in this was really an aside to the whole situation.

 

[Roger]

I attended my niece's wedding yesterday. I usually cart my camera
and a couple of lenses to family affairs to get the candid shots
that the hired photog usually tries to avoid. You know, the kind
you can use for blackmail later. ;-)

Anyway, he didn't like seeing my setup at all. He spoke to the
parents and they asked me to refrain from taking flash pictures
during the ceremony or during the formal setups after the ceremony.
No problem during the reception. I asked if I could take no-flash
pictures during the ceremony. That's when the real issue surfaced
-- he didn't want anyone else taking pictures at all so as to
maximize print revenue later. No problem. I can respect their
contract.

Anyway, I shot about 150 frames during the reception. Rather than
duplicating the traditional cake-cutting, face stuffing,
thigh-groping fare the hired guy was getting I stuck to funnier
shots of people eating, kids dancing, and my two-year-old son
falling head-first into the tub filled with ice and drinks.

I got a call about an hour after leaving the reception from my
brother, the father of the bride. He asked how my reception
pictures turned out. Since I hadn't even looked at them yet I told
him I had no idea. Then he told me that the photographer's Nikon F4
had malfunctioned 20 shots into the fourth roll of film. Every shot
after that was completely blank. The film advanced after each shot
and it sounded right, but the shutter stayed shut on every shot. He
had four and fraction rolls of my niece fitting her dress and
people decorating the reception hall but nothing at all of the
ceremony, formal poses, or reception. My brother says the guys
hands were shaking. To his credit he returned to the church and
told them face-to-face.

So anyway, they are going to re-do the formal poses without the
out-of-towners who were in the wedding party, but the ceremony is a
wash and my shots are the only ones of the real deal. ;-)

Film is scary -- I'm not sure I would do paid-for work without the
immediate feedback of seeing those images on the card.
Greetings to all

This guy was a want a be, not a "pro". I don't know one working pro who would shoot with one camera. When I did weddings I used an assistant and 3 35mm, 3 flashes, and a 21/4 with a different flash. I shot all the important stuff 3 times that way I had back up and the 21/4 once. This way if the lab lost anything I had back up. If all comes out you just take the other rolls to Wal Mart to be devoloped and sell them to the guest for $.50 or a $1.00 a print or toss them and write it off on your taxes. This happened to me about 3 weeks ago with my digital I eased my card by accident luckly I could shoot the event again the next day with no one knowing but me. I got lucky. So I went back to 3 cameras just to make sure.
Have fun
Roger J.

 

[Mike Goebel]

The guy could not have been a professional if he only had one camera.

He might have had a studio, price list, business cards and tripod but if he doesn't have backup equipment- he's no professional.

I attended my niece's wedding yesterday. I usually cart my camera
and a couple of lenses to family affairs to get the candid shots
that the hired photog usually tries to avoid. You know, the kind
you can use for blackmail later. ;-)

Anyway, he didn't like seeing my setup at all. He spoke to the
parents and they asked me to refrain from taking flash pictures
during the ceremony or during the formal setups after the ceremony.
No problem during the reception. I asked if I could take no-flash
pictures during the ceremony. That's when the real issue surfaced
-- he didn't want anyone else taking pictures at all so as to
maximize print revenue later. No problem. I can respect their
contract.

Anyway, I shot about 150 frames during the reception. Rather than
duplicating the traditional cake-cutting, face stuffing,
thigh-groping fare the hired guy was getting I stuck to funnier
shots of people eating, kids dancing, and my two-year-old son
falling head-first into the tub filled with ice and drinks.

I got a call about an hour after leaving the reception from my
brother, the father of the bride. He asked how my reception
pictures turned out. Since I hadn't even looked at them yet I told
him I had no idea. Then he told me that the photographer's Nikon F4
had malfunctioned 20 shots into the fourth roll of film. Every shot
after that was completely blank. The film advanced after each shot
and it sounded right, but the shutter stayed shut on every shot. He
had four and fraction rolls of my niece fitting her dress and
people decorating the reception hall but nothing at all of the
ceremony, formal poses, or reception. My brother says the guys
hands were shaking. To his credit he returned to the church and
told them face-to-face.

So anyway, they are going to re-do the formal poses without the
out-of-towners who were in the wedding party, but the ceremony is a
wash and my shots are the only ones of the real deal. ;-)

Film is scary -- I'm not sure I would do paid-for work without the
immediate feedback of seeing those images on the card.
Greetings to all

This guy was a want a be, not a "pro". I don't know one working
pro who would shoot with one camera. When I did weddings I used an
assistant and 3 35mm, 3 flashes, and a 21/4 with a different
flash. I shot all the important stuff 3 times that way I had
back up and the 21/4 once. This way if the lab lost anything I had
back up. If all comes out you just take the other rolls to Wal
Mart to be devoloped and sell them to the guest for $.50 or a
$1.00 a print or toss them and write it off on your taxes. This
happened to me about 3 weeks ago with my digital I eased my card by
accident luckly I could shoot the event again the next day with no
one knowing but me. I got lucky. So I went back to 3 cameras just
to make sure.
Have fun
Roger J.

--
http://www.mikegoebel.com
http://www.belmontstudio.photoreflect.com

 

[centralcoastmagazine]

There seems to be a trend today that people move their weddings
along way too fast. They rush from ceremony to reception and are
giving the pro less time for formal work. Not always for sure and that
is part of the planning the pro has to arrange. This puts stress and
complicates the format work which may lead to situations like this post.

One has to wonder why anyone would hire a single photographer for
a wedding? Cheap I suppose. Nothing was said about an assistant or
second photographer? Why in heavens not?

One film and one digital pro would have solved the whole thing. We
still use 645 film for formals but you can bet they are backed up shot
for shot with a 10D. Film still gives us the dynamic range for formal
work but it is still nice to have the digital.

Film is used for before ceremony portraits and some after, and then
we go to all digital for the reception for the most part. Receptions are
way to fast paced for film.

Well, another post where a little back up would have solved the whole
problem?

Nice story and a good lesson for those with one camera of any type.

good luck....

 

[dustin216185]

Not having a histogram doesn't make calculating exposure impossible. You could use a light meter. Also, Nikon F4 isn't exactly 'primitive equipment.' You make it sound like he had a pinhole camera.

Speaking as a freelance photographer who does weddings from time to
time, there are several things wrong here:

1. The guy was shooting with film
Shooting film is not only expensive, it's almost up to lady luck to
decide whether the camera/photographer managed to expose the shots
correctly. No checking the histogram after the shot to see if it
was good, just waiting in complete darkness. Changing film, not
being able to change ISO at will, etc. Such things make you less
competent as a photographer and are to be avoided. He obviously
cared more about money than getting good shots...

2. He was using only one camera
I shoot weddings with two cameras. The one has a normal zoom and
the other has either a wide zoom or a wide-angle prime. They're
both slung over my shoulder and I switch them almost constantly, in
order to at least get one shot of each happening (coming in,
standing, kneeling, ring, kiss, going out, etc). If the one camera
were to fail that wouldn't be too bad: I can change lense on the
working camera and keep shooting. In case a memory card gets wiped
than at least I've still got pretty much the same thing on the
other camera.

3. He was being greedy
This is probably his biggest fault. Being greedy only benefits you
yourself and not your customers. He should have been paid for his
time and not per print. I get paid for whatever time I spend at the
wedding and let people with their p&s shoot away as much as they
want, all I request is that I get the bridge&groom alone for a few
minutes after the ceremony for some posed shots. Other than that I
let the guests do what they want. After all, the guests are of
higher priority (as humans, or whatever) than the hired help, which
is me.

If I were that guy I'd have completely refunded any money they
might have paid me and apologized profusely for using primitive
equipment...

The reason I'm ranting like this is because people like that guy
mess things up for other people by acting like a monopolist, acting
all high and mighty and instilling fear of lost pictures into
customers.

shudder

Losing "rolls" of film...

--
----

http://www.dustinrogers.com

 

[stephenmelvin]

While I can agree with point number 2, you are completly wrong on point number one.

I shot my most recent wedding with both film and digital cameras. At this point I can say that the film cameras held a tremendous advantage over my digital; that of exposure lattitude. I can usually set my film cameras and just shoot, and let the lattitude of the film make up for minor variations in exposure.

Not so, the digital. Some of the pictures were overexposed. I did shoot RAW, but some of the detail was just unrecoverable. Not good with a wedding dress. For this reason, digital is also slower for me to shoot. When I can just "set and forget," I can shoot pretty fast. With digital, I cannot do that. I have to keep looking at the stupid screen to see how the exposure is. That takes time. Too much time. I'm sticking to film for the important stuff, until I get that worked out.

As for point number 2, I brought and shot five different cameras, not to mention having a second photographer. I agree fully, you have to have and shoot multiple cameras. You're almost guaranteed to get "something," which sure beats nothing!

I can halfway see his point on number three. I forbid other cameras during the formal shots, as it slows things down when the group doesn't know who to look at (the photographer? Uncle Jim?), but have no such issues with any other time. Shoot away!

I hope he didn't spend all of his money...

Speaking as a freelance photographer who does weddings from time to
time, there are several things wrong here:

1. The guy was shooting with film
Shooting film is not only expensive, it's almost up to lady luck to
decide whether the camera/photographer managed to expose the shots
correctly. No checking the histogram after the shot to see if it
was good, just waiting in complete darkness. Changing film, not
being able to change ISO at will, etc. Such things make you less
competent as a photographer and are to be avoided. He obviously
cared more about money than getting good shots...

2. He was using only one camera
I shoot weddings with two cameras. The one has a normal zoom and
the other has either a wide zoom or a wide-angle prime. They're
both slung over my shoulder and I switch them almost constantly, in
order to at least get one shot of each happening (coming in,
standing, kneeling, ring, kiss, going out, etc). If the one camera
were to fail that wouldn't be too bad: I can change lense on the
working camera and keep shooting. In case a memory card gets wiped
than at least I've still got pretty much the same thing on the
other camera.

3. He was being greedy
This is probably his biggest fault. Being greedy only benefits you
yourself and not your customers. He should have been paid for his
time and not per print. I get paid for whatever time I spend at the
wedding and let people with their p&s shoot away as much as they
want, all I request is that I get the bridge&groom alone for a few
minutes after the ceremony for some posed shots. Other than that I
let the guests do what they want. After all, the guests are of
higher priority (as humans, or whatever) than the hired help, which
is me.

If I were that guy I'd have completely refunded any money they
might have paid me and apologized profusely for using primitive
equipment...

The reason I'm ranting like this is because people like that guy
mess things up for other people by acting like a monopolist, acting
all high and mighty and instilling fear of lost pictures into
customers.

shudder

Losing "rolls" of film...

 

[Doug Ridgway]

You made a couple decent points, but how in the [H-E-Double Hockey Stick] does no histogram and unchangeable ISO make you "less competent as a photographer?"

Gee....that means Adams, Weston, Cunningham, White, Avedon, Strand — all those morons are less competent than me? Comments like that undermine your other very valid points!

Speaking as a freelance photographer who does weddings from time to
time, there are several things wrong here:

1. The guy was shooting with film
Shooting film is not only expensive, it's almost up to lady luck to
decide whether the camera/photographer managed to expose the shots
correctly. No checking the histogram after the shot to see if it
was good, just waiting in complete darkness. Changing film, not
being able to change ISO at will, etc. Such things make you less
competent as a photographer and are to be avoided. He obviously
cared more about money than getting good shots...

2. He was using only one camera
I shoot weddings with two cameras. The one has a normal zoom and
the other has either a wide zoom or a wide-angle prime. They're
both slung over my shoulder and I switch them almost constantly, in
order to at least get one shot of each happening (coming in,
standing, kneeling, ring, kiss, going out, etc). If the one camera
were to fail that wouldn't be too bad: I can change lense on the
working camera and keep shooting. In case a memory card gets wiped
than at least I've still got pretty much the same thing on the
other camera.

3. He was being greedy
This is probably his biggest fault. Being greedy only benefits you
yourself and not your customers. He should have been paid for his
time and not per print. I get paid for whatever time I spend at the
wedding and let people with their p&s shoot away as much as they
want, all I request is that I get the bridge&groom alone for a few
minutes after the ceremony for some posed shots. Other than that I
let the guests do what they want. After all, the guests are of
higher priority (as humans, or whatever) than the hired help, which
is me.

If I were that guy I'd have completely refunded any money they
might have paid me and apologized profusely for using primitive
equipment...

The reason I'm ranting like this is because people like that guy
mess things up for other people by acting like a monopolist, acting
all high and mighty and instilling fear of lost pictures into
customers.

shudder

Losing "rolls" of film...

 

[MikeDitz]

Not having a histogram doesn't make calculating exposure
impossible. You could use a light meter.

And he still wouldn't have known that his his shutter conked out...

Also, Nikon F4 isn't
exactly 'primitive equipment.'

It is compared to what is available today. He would have been better off with PS digital

You make it sound like he had a

pinhole camera.

At least the shutter works all the time on a pinhole, thereby it is better than an F4 ;^)

M

 

[John in Florida]

" 1. The guy was shooting with film"

If you know what you're doing, film is great. What you're saying is that no one should use film because they don't know how it's going to turn out. Well, when I used to shot weddings I had so my practice that I knew EXACTLY how the shot was going to turn out.

" 2. He was using only one camera"

You don't know that. He might have had another camera available but wasn't using it at the time. Remember, the post said the shutter didn't open even though it sounded ok. How was the photographer to know there was a defect?

3. He was being greedy.

No he wasn't. How do you know if his contract didn't specify that no other cameras allowed?

--
John

 

[John in Florida]

He might have had a backup but didn't realize the F4 was defective. An unusual situation. Very rare in my opinion.

I sometimes shot with a Kowa 6, Rolleiflex 2.8F, Olympus, etc. Fortunately I always knew when there was a problem.

--
John

 

[John in Florida]

You agreed to stay out of his way. He was the one hired to do the work. I'm surprised at the number of folks here who take pleasure at trying to compete with the hired pro.
-
John

 

[Edward Period]

" 2. He was using only one camera"

You don't know that. He might have had another camera available but
wasn't using it at the time. Remember, the post said the shutter
didn't open even though it sounded ok. How was the photographer to
know there was a defect?

He could either develop his film a few seconds after shooting or use a digital. What he should have done is shoot with two cameras at the same time (as much as possible).

3. He was being greedy.

No he wasn't. How do you know if his contract didn't specify that
no other cameras allowed?

Oh, I don't, but I can logically deduce that by even including such a clause in a contract that there was greed involved. What other reasons can you think of to forbid other cameras at the event?

 

[Edward Period]

You made a couple decent points, but how in the [H-E-Double Hockey
Stick] does no histogram and unchangeable ISO make you "less
competent as a photographer?"

If he found himself in a place where his iso400 film + his 2.8 is too dark, then he's kinda stuck there, for example.

I think a better word for "competent" would be "limited". His equipment limits him, instead of being the way it should be: him limiting his equipment.

 

[Chris Clark]

Not having a histogram doesn't make calculating exposure
impossible. You could use a light meter.

And he still wouldn't have known that his his shutter conked out...

Also, Nikon F4 isn't
exactly 'primitive equipment.'

It is compared to what is available today. He would have been
better off with PS digital

You make it sound like he had a

pinhole camera.

At least the shutter works all the time on a pinhole, thereby it is
better than an F4 ;^)

M

--When I used to shoot film, I always looked throught the back of the camera to check the shutter was opening before reloading. I did this after every roll without fail.
This guy will be lucky if he only gets away with refunding the money.
he could easily get sued for 10K! OR MORE. i WISH HIM LUCK
Chris Clark