Wedding photographer vs. guest photographer

As I understand it, the 'no other photographer' clause is more to keep a bumbling amateur out of the way.

There is a bit more to shooting a wedding than showing up with a lot of expensive equipment and firing away. That will not change, digital or otherwise. The only thing digital has really done (aside from giving some people an excuse to blow a lot of money every two years) is lower the cost of the lab and prints. Otherwise, the glass is just as expensive as it always was, and the subtleties of the art just as vague as they always were.

I'm a pretty decent amateur myself, but I know my limits. When I got married, we had a pro come in and do the honors. Well worth it, too - hopefully you only get married once, and those beautiful medium format photos really shine. Exposure perfect, excellent composition, every aspect of the wedding covered.

I know a few pros. I'm not in their league, and don't pretend to be just because I bought some new equipment. Digital certainly hasn't put press photographers out of a job, and it won't put the others out of a job either.

chexxchexx said:

I spent more time talking about how I work to let you know my
approach. I recognize the fact that I'm in the lion's den here and
wanted to put to rest any questions that you might have so you
don't have to ask them. I spend almost all of my time covering
parents, grandparents, relatives, and friends...all of the people
who the photographers don't typically cover because the shots
wouldn't be saleable. They approach it from a business standpoint
where I do it from a personal standpoint.

Click to expand...

We generally approach it from a professional viewpoint. Give the client what they want. The only stipulation is that that fits in with our business aims. The client proably wants the very best job, for nothing - but obviously professionals can't do that.

My experience shows the parents, grandparents and close relatives all result in highly saleable prints. So I'm puzzled by your approach in forming opinions, and how you can generalise so wrongly about what a pro would or wouldn't cover.

Friends, who are not in the presence of the bride or groom or family, are the only photo you've mentioned that I wouldn't guarantee to cover, these I generally find less saleable - but would plan to be ready in case a worthwhile moment arises.

I would think 99% of pros go for parent photographs. Perhaps 75-80% of my coverage features the bride or groom or both. The other 20% is often the close relatives.

And not aiming to sound rude, but I would honestly place learning about how you approach a wedding shoot, as being well outside my area of interest during a paid commision. I just wouldn't have the time, or the cheek to spend the brides payed for photography time doing something off topic like that - very unprofessional.

Regards,
Kev

I feel the biggest misunderstanding is from people who feel that digital photography is going to close the gap between pro and amateur. Why, because you can see your screw ups faster, or because you can make corrections in photoshop? Good composition is still a skill, lighting usage is still a skill and many other aspects are talents which cannot be sped up through digital.

I find it hard to believe that someone has not one but several brides asking them to do photos in addition to the person they are paying good money to. Unless they are hiring the cheapest photographer possible and don't trust them it seems like the old uncle Fred or cousin Mike syndrom where they tell everyone how great they are and the bride obligingly asks them to take some photos to shut them up.

I've been a pro commercial shooter for 25 years and have not once been ask to shoot photos in addition to the paid pro. And when I go to a wedding I take an obviously non-pro point and shoot for photos I want.

Erin Schrad said:

Why do people think that it is okay, even a nice favor to the
bride, for them to bring along their camera and "help" the hired
professional with the picture-taking duties? No one thinks, "I am
rather skilled in the kitchen, maybe I should bring along my knives
and mixer and help out the caterer!" Or, "I have a particularly
nice growth of roses this year, I should make up the boutonnieres!"
Or how about, "I have a rather large CD collection and a nice
stereo, mmaybe the band they hired won't be any good, then I could
save the day!" No, this is ridiculous. But photography... well
that's a different story! Why?!?! There's no reason for it to be.

Click to expand...

Chexxchexx has some new photo equipment, he enjoys using it, and has surprised himself by the quality of images he has been able to produce. An amateur is someone who does something solely for the joy of doing it, and I can fully understand how one may derive a great deal of personal gratification from "pretending" to be a wedding photographer.

When people obligate themselves to do several hours of hard work, and are motivated solely by the desire to "have fun," in due course they reach a point where it stops being fun. At that point, they either decide to stop pretending and go professional - or they turn their attentions to a different hobby which offers a renewed sense of "having fun."

When someone habitually does work for free which others get paid for, they eventually realize they are making fools of themselves. For example, some people enjoy doing their own automobile maintenance such as changing the crankcase oil. These people may find great satisfaction in knowing they can change their own oil just as well as the professionals, and at a fraction of the cost. And they may even be willing to change the oil in the cars of their close friends and relatives - at least for awhile. But eventually, their attitude will change because doing the work stops being as much fun as it was in the beginning - and now they come to perceive themselves as being exploited, by cheapskates who have no appreciation for their efforts and are simply trying to save a few bucks.

It is only by coincidence that Chexxchexx came to this forum to ask his questions. It is possible that he is just as enthusiastic about washing and waxing cars as he is about photography. Perhaps he has found an Internet discussion group for professional car detailers, and asked if they feel their businesses are threatened by people like him who are happy to wash and wax peoples' cars for free.

I suggest that offering free wedding pictures to a bride and groom who have no expectations of you says nothing about one's ability as a photographer, and is a very shallow form of self-gratification. Getting the bride to agree to pay you $3,000 for what you otherwise would do for free is what determines whether or not you've "got what it takes" to be a wedding photographer.

Gene Windell

For years, I had a Nikon F3 setup (still have it, just don't use it much) that I bought as a present to myself, but I never took it to weddings. Partially because it would seem pretentious of me to be dragging that big bazooka in, and partially out of courtesy to the pro. That's how he puts bread on the table, and I'm certainly not going to try to upstage him for the sake of playing with my toy.

Come on, folks. Let's show a little courtesy to some hard working people here. Leave the toy at home. To tell the truth, I used my wife's 2mp Oly D520 at the last wedding we went to, and it was both discreet and quite effective.

I have read enough of thid thread. You ask for opposing opinions and blast/flame anyone that does. I would not quit my day job with this bait and switch attitude. I assisted several photgraphers at weddings as a helper/back-up/second shooter for several years before I ever did a wedding on my own. I still do this several times a year to see fresh perspectives and have the LUXURY of no pressure. Time to relax and experiment. Believe me and the others, it is a night and day difference to be a casual/fun shooter as opposed to being the main event. This holds especially true if you know them and the family. I do have an exclusive clause in my contract, and explain to the bride and groom before hand that this has never been enforced yet. It is just there to protect me should I get a "Rebel" amatuer or Aunt Edna delaying things further by wanting a snapshot of every pose that I have spent years working on. I sometimes ask the bride to ask this offending person to do her a special favor and get her a much needed item that she forgot. The best man (or the flowers or ????) was 1/2 hour late, did not show up ready and we try to be courteous to everyone and let them take their own shot. And guess who takes the rap if a pose/shot was missed. The advanced amatuer building his portfolio-right. My .02 as usual.
Regards
Shooter2

chexxchexx said:

Admittedly, I didn't do a search on the topic prior to my post, but
that was for a reason. I wanted to state my viewpoint and let
people react to that. Chances are slim to none that someone has
ever said exactly what I've said. If the topic has been beaten to
death and you're so tired of it then why reply? Also, I've been on
enough forums to see that newer members, such as myself, haven't
yet discussed such topics and enjoy the opportunity to do so.

You're more than welcome to make a switch to finance. I've got
enough competition so what's one more? Point is that if you were
getting an advanced degree I wouldn't ask you not to just so that I
could continue to look good. I'd do everything I could to stay one
step ahead of you. Again, you owe me nothing other than common
courtesy so I'll continue to be responsible for my own existence,
but you'd better realize that you're responsible for providing for
your family...not the general consuming public.

It's good to hear that you wouldn't bring a camera to a wedding
that you weren't hired to shoot because it would be insulting for
you to tell the bride that you got a good shot and would be willing
to sell it to her. It doesn't sound like you'd ever stoop so low
as to offer up your services out of the kindness of your heart.
More power to you. I sleep easier at night knowing that I do.

I'm not out to get into a pi$$ing match with you, so unless you
come back with a solid response please don't expect a reply.

-Kevin

Andrew Chiciak said:

So what's the purpose of your post...this subject has already been
beaten to death...you don't want to go pro, but just show off the
fact that you have some nice equipment by providing your services
for free? What kind of career do you have in finance...can I learn
the %10 I need to know so I could get a job at your company? What's
the point of this whole post? I am not threatened in the least ,
just annoyed. I for one have very particular and demanding
clientele, who would not be happy with second best...so I am not
worried since I am booked very well into 2007 at which point I will
probably be ready to retire anyway. I do not advertise one iota,
all my referrals are from other customers.

I will still maintain my love of photography after retirement by
photographing other venues ...you will NEVER see me bringing a
camera to a family wedding....this is something I WILL leave to the
person hired to get the goods.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Nice post Erin. Nice analogy with the caterer ond the florist. Photgraphers have always been "fair game" because everybody thinks they can do a great job. With digital even more people think they can do a great job.

What has always interested me is how woeful some of the results that they produce really are and they think they're great!!

Why is this thread running in two forums btw???

Erin Schrad said:

In a nutshell, he mentioned that having other "professional" (although his "competition" at > the wedding was not hired as a professional, only outputting very good quality shots from > professional equipment) photographers at a wedding is expressly forbid in their contract. > > This sounds very anti-competitive and, in my opinion, would only be used by
photographers who aren't confident in their own work.

Click to expand...

Anti competitive is an interesting way of putting this. I haven't read the whole of the thread. Most of it's just plain "why won't you let me take pictures at your professional gig" stuff any way. Stopping somebody taking shots is, if the prints are being given to the bride and groom, basically stealing from the photographer. Nothing more, nothing less so any photographer who does prevent a guest cribbing every shot that he takes is indeed preventing some totally unfair competition.

If any professional photographer wants to go that route and enforce it I will happily condone it, if that is their business model.

The wandering eyes in group shots is an occupational hazard and can be a complete pain but it's the pita guest who is clambering over the altar and essentially ruining a bunch of shots by being in the background can be the difference between a great shot and a so so shot, all because somebody was so misguided and selfish and didn't give a damn about the bride and groom.

We charge sufficient fees to our clients up front so that I don't have the need to prevent anybody taking anything throughout the day. That is apart from the few minutes that we take the bride and groom away from the event and take some special romantic shots.

It's not only intrusive to have guests taking shots of what we are trying to get, that is, some intimate shots of the bride and groom together away from anybody else.

This time is a pretty private moment and most of the time the bride and groom will shoo the guests back to the reception to get a drink because they don't want to be interrupted either.

Erin Schrad said:

I mean this in no way as a knock on the responder, I'm only saying that it's survival of the > fittest out there and I think that less than upper-echelon wedding photographers are going > to be in trouble as digital photography comes up the curve. It's making it easier for people > such as me to learn faster than ever before and while prices are dropping there are fewer

barriers to entry. Supply and demand...increase the supply without a corresponding

increase in demand and prices will fall. If prices fall then fewer people will be able to make > a living, or at least as profitable a living.

Click to expand...

Owning a reasonably high end digital camera does not make anybody a great photographer. Prices for what? Are you taking up pro photography? I would love to see you give up your cosy job in finance and take, what is nothing more than a hobby, and see if you can make money from it.

It is the survival of the fittest and that is exactly why many photographers will prevent you from taking photographs for that reason!

Erin Schrad said:

I'm not there to learn from them because I'm not interested in doing what they do. I spent > more time talking about how I work to let you know my approach.

Click to expand...

I have always felt that photography is a constantly evolving process and I personally never stop learning. Unless you decide to go and work for a photographer and learn a little more I really am not convinced that most pros would give a damn about your approach. It's their own approach that they would be getting right.

Erin Schrad said:

I spend almost all of my time covering parents, grandparents, relatives, and friends...all of > the people who the photographers don't typically cover because the shots wouldn't be
saleable.

Click to expand...

Not true as far as I am conecrned. In my business two of us cover a wedding from beginning to end and some of our biggest selling images are of those relatives. On their own, as couples etc etc. I don't care if somebody like you is taking pictures at one of my weddings as long as you show a little respect and stay completely out of way. I do the same.

When I have a few minutes I am happy to talk to guests about the latest and greatest dgital camera etc. We almost always eat with the families anyway so there is a load of time to natter anyway but not when I'm shooting.

A lot of the time I would be shooting from a very high position where you simply couldn't get to be in the way so that I don't have the guest paparazzi in my images anyway...

Richard

Huh? You wanna show up and take money out of someone's pocket and then accuse them of having an attitude?

The usual photography model is some modest upfront free and then the real money is made on print orders.

This is actually a way to help the bride and groom as the family pays for a lot of the photography.

Enter the "other photographer" and suddenly there is less demand for prints from the photographer. This doesn't mean the photographer is insecure or did a bad job.

Consider this. Why not have a wedding and open it up to any and all pros. 5 or six show up and take shots and the bride and groom pick and choose who to buy from.

Would many pro's sign up for that gig? NO. There is not enough money in print sales to make it profitable even if they all took great picts.

If a photographer has a client sign an "exclusivity" contract -- it needs to be followed. It's there to allow the photographer to charge the couple a small up front fee knowing there is money to be made in the prints.

If the bride wants you--she needs to inform her pro and he/she will probably decline the gig or charge a much higher upfront fee.

Lee

thanks for so convincingly and eloquently stating what I was trying to get across. The originator of this thread seems to feel that he has a need to flaunt his expensive digital camera and intrude on the pro's territory in a very blatant way. If he is not interested in wedding photography as a pro then why does he have to "add to his portfolio" as he has stated.

When I was young and I was a fool, I brought along a medium format camera to the wedding of one of my childhood friends...it was admittedly,not because I wanted to take some pictures for her benefit,as I rationalized to myself, but really to flaunt my equipment and "show up the pro", it was very self serving and stupid and I wish I had never done it...but that is water over the bridge. This fellow here has a great disdain for pros as he admonishes, "they better keep up, or they will be out of business. I know most of us are very consciencious about keeping up and honing our skills as our life goes on. Heck, how many pros have moved over to digital imaging because we know that this is the future.

Mr checeeaxw , or whatevery your handle is. I have some great leads on some investments...can I borrow your customer address book, so I can turn your customers on to my some of my ideas, they may only be 85% as good as yours, but I think your friends and customers will benefit and , Heck they don't even have to pay me for it...its a win, win situation!

Folks, I hope we don't see a thread like this for a long, long time.

TrapperJohn said:

For years, I had a Nikon F3 setup (still have it, just don't use it
much) that I bought as a present to myself, but I never took it to
weddings. Partially because it would seem pretentious of me to be
dragging that big bazooka in, and partially out of courtesy to the
pro. That's how he puts bread on the table, and I'm certainly not
going to try to upstage him for the sake of playing with my toy.

Come on, folks. Let's show a little courtesy to some hard working
people here. Leave the toy at home. To tell the truth, I used my
wife's 2mp Oly D520 at the last wedding we went to, and it was both
discreet and quite effective.

Click to expand...

--
Andy C

I find this discussion interesting, as I just attended a wedding this weekend, and I brought along my camera (a 1D) to take photos of the ceremony. This was a friend's wedding, and I wanted to take photos to give to them. While I certainly am not a professional wedding photographer (nor would I want to be--the stuff they must put up with), I wasn't there to show off any equipment either. I was there to give them something they weren't going to get with the paid professional--some PJ shots.

Thanks to this (and other forums) I knew what some of the courtesies should be. I never got in the pro's way. In fact, I didn't want to be anywhere near a posed shot. I will not show any of the shots to the couple until I have seen the actual prints that have been purchased from the paid photographer.

I have no problem doing this. I was offering the couple something they wouldn't receive had I not brought my camera.

Am I right in thinking the gripe seems not to be with amateurs (or unpaid photographers), but with rude and ignorant photographers? (Rude = getting in the way, Ignorant = lack of knowledge of business practices and understanding of a paid photographers revenue streams)

CandH said:

I find this discussion interesting, as I just attended a wedding
this weekend, and I brought along my camera (a 1D) to take photos
of the ceremony. This was a friend's wedding, and I wanted to take
photos to give to them. While I certainly am not a professional
wedding photographer (nor would I want to be--the stuff they must
put up with), I wasn't there to show off any equipment either. I
was there to give them something they weren't going to get with the
paid professional--some PJ shots.

Click to expand...

I think these wedding PJ shots are important - they are often the ones that can have deeper meaning and often the ones the less experienced pro wedding photogs miss.

CandH said:

Thanks to this (and other forums) I knew what some of the
courtesies should be. I never got in the pro's way. In fact, I
didn't want to be anywhere near a posed shot.

Click to expand...

If the pro knows what they are doing they will arrange for the posed shots to be away from all the guests - it makes the process more efficient and better results due to less distractions.

CandH said:

I will not show any
of the shots to the couple until I have seen the actual prints that
have been purchased from the paid photographer.

Click to expand...

I don't know why this is so important. The pro was already paid for their time and use of equipment and paid assisants to be there - if there shots are not as good as the non-pro ones then their time was not worth the often large up front fees. At least for most of the wedding contracts I've seen. Sure the individual photo sales generate lots of revenue and any pro hopes for that, but that assumes the photog did a good job for the time they were paid.

CandH said:

I have no problem doing this. I was offering the couple something
they wouldn't receive had I not brought my camera.

Click to expand...

For a number of reasons some of the best shots I got from my wedding were from folks who were not contracted. I would have paid double what the photographer charged for prints if the content was available from the pro.

CandH said:

Am I right in thinking the gripe seems not to be with amateurs (or
unpaid photographers), but with rude and ignorant photographers?

Click to expand...

Yes - and they are not just a problem for the photographer, but for everyone involved in the wedding.

CandH said:

(Rude = getting in the way, Ignorant = lack of knowledge of
business practices and understanding of a paid photographers
revenue streams)

Click to expand...

I know, USA, UK and Australia are all a little different in what the market (clients prefer).

But certainly in the UK the photojournalist/reportage photography style is in vogue with brides asking for unposed black and white photography on a regular basis.

All my packages are pj, with only the minimum of posed shots being entertained - that's my style, and the clients who want more traditional coverage is pointed to photographers offering that style.

Reportage means no waiting for 30 or 45 minutes while a string of pre-planned group shots are run through. No fake cake cutting. The couple get to enjoy time with guests, chatting and laughing - makes for great shots - the shots many really want. This means the reportage pro, has to be very good to get a consistent high standard of shot, without having any intervention. SS has shown the best work of this nature that I have ever seen, perhaps with minimilist intervention.

I try to keep the posed shots to 4 or less, prefering to take one big group shot if the couple really wants to go down the formal route of getting every combination of relative. If you read books by Stephen Swain, Annabel Williams etc, you will see many pro's already focusing coverage on PJ.

Regards,
Kev

noisebeam said:

CandH said:

I wasn't there to show off any equipment either. I
was there to give them something they weren't going to get with the
paid professional--some PJ shots.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

noisebeam said:

I think these wedding PJ shots are important - they are often the
ones that can have deeper meaning and often the ones the less
experienced pro wedding photogs miss.

Click to expand...

Hi,

CandH said:

I find this discussion interesting, as I just attended a wedding
this weekend, and I brought along my camera (a 1D) to take photos
of the ceremony. This was a friend's wedding, and I wanted to take
photos to give to them. While I certainly am not a professional
wedding photographer (nor would I want to be--the stuff they must
put up with), I wasn't there to show off any equipment either. I
was there to give them something they weren't going to get with the
paid professional--some PJ shots.

Click to expand...

Intrigued about this. Our PJ shots outnumber our formal shots by a factor of five at a wedding.

One of the things that can give professional photographers a bad name can be the antics of a guest "photographer" during the wedding ceremony itself.

On churches where a vicar/priest has been hassled by wedding guests using cameras with flash etc and generally being damn rude and inconsiderate in the main, a lot of pro photographers have to almost grovel to the clergy to be allowed to shoot anything at all during the ceremony.

I am not suggesting for one second that you fall into that category but so many guests do as they have no idea, at the very least, as to how to switch the flash off on their point and shoots. A 1D like my 1DS is a noisy old beast and I never use it within 50 feet of the altar while the service is going on. I use the 10D as it's so much quieter. If I really have to push the clergy to get any shots at all I will dust off my trusty Olympus E10 as the leaf shutter is so incredibly quiet.

CandH said:

Thanks to this (and other forums) I knew what some of the
courtesies should be. I never got in the pro's way. In fact, I
didn't want to be anywhere near a posed shot. I will not show any
of the shots to the couple until I have seen the actual prints that
have been purchased from the paid photographer.

I have no problem doing this. I was offering the couple something
they wouldn't receive had I not brought my camera.

Click to expand...

You are obviously far more considerate than most but how would it have been if the couple were using a PJ photographer?

CandH said:

Am I right in thinking the gripe seems not to be with amateurs (or
unpaid photographers), but with rude and ignorant photographers?
(Rude = getting in the way, Ignorant = lack of knowledge of
business practices and understanding of a paid photographers
revenue streams)

Click to expand...

You could be right. Most of them don't give a monkeys. They personally don't bother me until I get a pretty persistent pita but it is very rare for me.

I wonder what they think that gives them the right to be a pita and disrupt a wedding. On the other hand I have known photographers to be so anti guest photographers that they simply refuse to allow even start shooting the fromals until all guest cameras have been put away. Not a policy I will ever pursue.

Richard

I think your missing the pros point. Do I feel as a below amerature level person that it initially sounds arrogant for a photographer to have a no other camera clause, yes. Initially I was almost in agreement with you but you have to admit now after hearing the other side that they have a point. They are getting paid a alot of money to produce a product that is of superior quality. A product that if in any way is no good you can not go back, mix up another batch, or in your case invest somewhere else. There is not a photographer here that is claiming to know finance better than you as a professional so how can you sit there and say you understand their world from your seat. They are the ones that deal with lawsuits and in alot of cases rude people who may not be as "aware" as you. If they are going to let you shoot what about all the other people who don't understand jack about photography except point here and press a button. Up until I purchased my first SLR a month ago I did not even know how it affected a pro at a wedding and let me tell you I'll bet more people than not still don't understand that including a bride who asks their friend to take pictures too. We as Americans are raised on the belief of freedom, and we should if we want be able to take pictures at a friends wedding right, well I say maybe. Yes, it sound very arrogant to say people can't but the picture here is much deeper (no pun intended). That photographer is responsible (key word) to produce quality work and if they need to focus on their job and not worry about all the asses out there (which by the way out numbers the non assess) then they need to enforce restrictions. They are the pros, they know what is best and who am I or anyone else who hasn't lived in their shoes able to say different. I don't think it's about competition here, it's much deeper. I can go read a book on finance over the next week and go invest and maybe make money maybe lose it, am I now as qualified as you to consult my friends on what they should do just because I may have made money. I am no pro, really I would consider myself a complete greeny, but after reading this long thread have a new respect for the professionals out there who feed their family on this stuff. I think the point you have missed which causes the gap between you and the pros out there is the fact that people are rude, alot of times due to lack of knowledge, but also alot of times because people are simply rude and think the world owes them (and I am not talking aboyt the pros here). A wedding is a once in a lifetime thing for most (Ok 2-3 times with the divorce rate ;-) ) that the pro is, I'm going to use the word again, RESPONSIBLE and liable for, I think we need to appreciate that a little more.

that was very nice of you. Thanks, I do appreciate it.
the "once in a lifetime" corrected with 2-3 was superb

Richard Goulden said:

Intrigued about this. Our PJ shots outnumber our formal shots by a
factor of five at a wedding.

One of the things that can give professional photographers a bad
name can be the antics of a guest "photographer" during the wedding
ceremony itself.

On churches where a vicar/priest has been hassled by wedding guests
using cameras with flash etc and generally being damn rude and
inconsiderate in the main, a lot of pro photographers have to
almost grovel to the clergy to be allowed to shoot anything at all
during the ceremony.

I am not suggesting for one second that you fall into that category
but so many guests do as they have no idea, at the very least, as
to how to switch the flash off on their point and shoots. A 1D like
my 1DS is a noisy old beast and I never use it within 50 feet of
the altar while the service is going on. I use the 10D as it's so
much quieter. If I really have to push the clergy to get any shots
at all I will dust off my trusty Olympus E10 as the leaf shutter is
so incredibly quiet.

Click to expand...

Much of this is true. I got lucky though, and I needed no flash for my shots. And yes, the 1D is pretty noisy compared to other cameras, but I really didn't need to be anywhere near the altar because the paid photographer was taking those shots. She was the one that was set up for the lighting of the unity candle, etc. I looked for interesting angles and compositions from other parts of the church.

Richard Goulden said:

You are obviously far more considerate than most but how would it
have been if the couple were using a PJ photographer?

Click to expand...

In that case, I wouldn't have brought the camera out of the bag. In that case, I would have only gotten in the way, and I wouldn't really have been able to add any value to what the couple was already getting.

Richard Goulden said:

You could be right. Most of them don't give a monkeys. They
personally don't bother me until I get a pretty persistent pita but
it is very rare for me.

I wonder what they think that gives them the right to be a pita and
disrupt a wedding. On the other hand I have known photographers to
be so anti guest photographers that they simply refuse to allow
even start shooting the fromals until all guest cameras have been
put away. Not a policy I will ever pursue.

Richard

Click to expand...

In all honesty, there were so many other family and friends taking pictures with their PS cameras, I don't know how the photographer could handle it. While I sat in back and watched, I almost wanted to tell everybody to back off and let the professional do her work...but I didn't. She is far more patient than me, and it explains why I would never want to do regular, posed wedding work.

noisebeam said:

I think these wedding PJ shots are important - they are often the
ones that can have deeper meaning and often the ones the less
experienced pro wedding photogs miss.

Click to expand...

I agree. There is nothing better than photos that show a genuine moment of happiness and smiles--not that the couple isn't happy in the posed shots, but I feel that PJ shots feel far more genuine.

noisebeam said:

I don't know why this is so important. The pro was already paid
for their time and use of equipment and paid assisants to be there

• if there shots are not as good as the non-pro ones then their

time was not worth the often large up front fees. At least for
most of the wedding contracts I've seen. Sure the individual photo
sales generate lots of revenue and any pro hopes for that, but that
assumes the photog did a good job for the time they were paid.

Click to expand...

While all that might be true, I still would rather have the couple buy their photos and be happy with them for some time rather than have them questioning the price and quality of something they just paid a good chunk of money for. And I always recommend they do pay a good chunk of money for a good wedding photographer, not a photographer that works at a discount and offers them all the negatives and files on a disc for free. And 99.9% of the time they are pleased with what they paid for.

noisebeam said:

Yes - and they are not just a problem for the photographer, but for
everyone involved in the wedding.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Awesome attitude....sigh- I wish you would have shot my wedding!

Best of Luck!

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

Quite often, the bride has a friend who is a photography
"enthusiast". I always invite that personal to shoot alongside me,
encouraging them as best as I can throughout the day. In addition,
whenever I see groups congregating for a posed shot by a guest, I
jump over, politely wait for their shot to be complete, and then
ask if my get my own "for the bride!" as long as they are together.
I also ask if anyone else has a camera that they would like for me
to shoot the same image with. It's not unusual for me to take a
least one or two groups shots at a wedding with half a dozen
guests' cameras as my feet!

Click to expand...

Kev,

I'm not saying that the professional doesn't take any shots of the parents, grandparents, and relatives, just that a few select posed shots are taken and that's typically it. Keep in mind that most of my shots come from the reception at which point you would have already taken your posed shots of these subjects. Then you might capture a shot or two here or there, but for the most part you've got a different agenda and focus than I do. Your work needs to be commercially viable where I just need to capture the moment. I'm comfortable with my role at the wedding...why don't you appear to be?

You said, "And not aiming to sound rude, but I would honestly place learning about how you approach a wedding shoot, as being well outside my area of interest during a paid commision. I just wouldn't have the time, or the cheek to spend the brides payed for photography time doing something off topic like that - very unprofessional." I still don't think you've grasped my point...I'm not there to make money so of course this would be well outside your area of interest during a paid commission. It's not a paid commission for me so I can focus on something completely different because the professional photographer is there to capture the posed shots. If I was trailing you and shooting your posed subjects I could see your disdain for me as an amateur, but since I've made it clear that this isn't how I shoot, why can't you just understand that I have a different focus so my shots are bound to be different?

And I'm not sure that a bunch of "photojournalistic" photos taken by the professional would be unprofessional. I think traditional photographers who prefer posed shots look down their noses at photographers who shoot in PJ style. This is unfortunate because there are some tremendous photographers out there who capture moments a thousand times more poignant that any posed shot could hope to be. Posed shots are just that...posed. A great photographer can coax real expressions out of the subjects, but it's still obvious that it's posed. Photojournalistic shots are captured "in the shadows" so the emotions and expressions you see are real and spontaneous. I think the formal shots are completely necessary so I'm not suggesting that PJ style should replace traditional. I think the best way to approach would be to have a professional who can shoot the poses and an assistant who can take the PJ approach. Or, it could be the other way around.

-Kevin

Kev - UK South Coast said:

chexxchexx said:

I spent more time talking about how I work to let you know my
approach. I recognize the fact that I'm in the lion's den here and
wanted to put to rest any questions that you might have so you
don't have to ask them. I spend almost all of my time covering
parents, grandparents, relatives, and friends...all of the people
who the photographers don't typically cover because the shots
wouldn't be saleable. They approach it from a business standpoint
where I do it from a personal standpoint.

Click to expand...

We generally approach it from a professional viewpoint. Give the
client what they want. The only stipulation is that that fits in
with our business aims. The client proably wants the very best job,
for nothing - but obviously professionals can't do that.

My experience shows the parents, grandparents and close relatives
all result in highly saleable prints. So I'm puzzled by your
approach in forming opinions, and how you can generalise so wrongly
about what a pro would or wouldn't cover.

Friends, who are not in the presence of the bride or groom or
family, are the only photo you've mentioned that I wouldn't
guarantee to cover, these I generally find less saleable - but
would plan to be ready in case a worthwhile moment arises.

I would think 99% of pros go for parent photographs. Perhaps 75-80%
of my coverage features the bride or groom or both. The other 20%
is often the close relatives.

And not aiming to sound rude, but I would honestly place learning
about how you approach a wedding shoot, as being well outside my
area of interest during a paid commision. I just wouldn't have the
time, or the cheek to spend the brides payed for photography time
doing something off topic like that - very unprofessional.

Regards,
Kev

Click to expand...

Sammy, I'm not disagreeing that most of the professionals on this site have offered perfectly valid points. What I think is that many haven't really taken the time to read even my initial post, let alone the follow-ups where I further clarified my stance. All I'm saying is that, given the way that I shoot, it would be very difficult for someone to justify to me the reason that I couldn't shoot at "their" wedding. Give me the benefit of the doubt...that is that everything is true that I've said about knowing when I'm in the way of the pro, not shooting at the church, not shooting the pro's posed shots, not spending more than 10% of my time anywhere near the pro, etc. I pose far less of a threat to them than they give me credit for...especially since our goals for the day are so different. They need to produce saleable shots where I need to produce heart-warming (for lack of a better term) shots. As far as lumping me in with all of the other nuisance photographers they've encountered, I think that's unfair. I don't shoot at all like they do.

-Kevin

sammyd said:

I think your missing the pros point. Do I feel as a below
amerature level person that it initially sounds arrogant for a
photographer to have a no other camera clause, yes. Initially I
was almost in agreement with you but you have to admit now after
hearing the other side that they have a point. They are getting
paid a alot of money to produce a product that is of superior
quality. A product that if in any way is no good you can not go
back, mix up another batch, or in your case invest somewhere else.
There is not a photographer here that is claiming to know finance
better than you as a professional so how can you sit there and say
you understand their world from your seat. They are the ones that
deal with lawsuits and in alot of cases rude people who may not be
as "aware" as you. If they are going to let you shoot what about
all the other people who don't understand jack about photography
except point here and press a button. Up until I purchased my
first SLR a month ago I did not even know how it affected a pro at
a wedding and let me tell you I'll bet more people than not still
don't understand that including a bride who asks their friend to
take pictures too. We as Americans are raised on the belief of
freedom, and we should if we want be able to take pictures at a
friends wedding right, well I say maybe. Yes, it sound very
arrogant to say people can't but the picture here is much deeper
(no pun intended). That photographer is responsible (key word) to
produce quality work and if they need to focus on their job and not
worry about all the asses out there (which by the way out numbers
the non assess) then they need to enforce restrictions. They are
the pros, they know what is best and who am I or anyone else who
hasn't lived in their shoes able to say different. I don't think
it's about competition here, it's much deeper. I can go read a
book on finance over the next week and go invest and maybe make
money maybe lose it, am I now as qualified as you to consult my
friends on what they should do just because I may have made money.
I am no pro, really I would consider myself a complete greeny, but
after reading this long thread have a new respect for the
professionals out there who feed their family on this stuff. I
think the point you have missed which causes the gap between you
and the pros out there is the fact that people are rude, alot of
times due to lack of knowledge, but also alot of times because
people are simply rude and think the world owes them (and I am not
talking aboyt the pros here). A wedding is a once in a lifetime
thing for most (Ok 2-3 times with the divorce rate ;-) ) that the
pro is, I'm going to use the word again, RESPONSIBLE and liable
for, I think we need to appreciate that a little more.

Click to expand...