Amateur wedding 'tog got in the way! [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

ZedEx

28-11-2010, 2:53pm

This scenario happened to me just this weekend! I was employed to shoot my sisters wedding on the weekend. A few weeks prior, she notified me that there would be the brother of a friend of hers coming along to the wedding, and that he was in uni and wanted to get shots for practice. At that point, she was under the impression that he thought he could make a bit of money out of the event (he was asking her 'what kind of shots' she would like), so she spoke to him and kindly set the record straight (that he was to NOT get in the way of the event or interrupt any of my shots).
So here I am, on the boat with my sister, arriving to the ceremony, and what is this I see up on the hill? A guy with a 5D mkii and 70-200 f2.8L IS mkii hangning off his neck, snapping away and running about all over the place!

Long story short, he wasn't a young uni student, and by all accounts he was assumed to be the paid photographer at the event before I arrived! He messed up several of my shots, and luckily my partner had a word with him when I went off after the ceremony to get family shots, saving me the wasted time doing so.

Now I've not come on here to have a rant and rave, but if anybody else finds themselves in this situation I strongly urge you to arrange speaking to the 'keen amateur' well before the wedding, personally. I got 95% of the shots I set out to get, however there are others that are unusable (people getting shots done with the other 'tog in the mob of people after the ceremony), other guy getting in the way of family group candids etc.

So I learnt another valuable lesson, at least :(

ZedEx

28-11-2010, 3:03pm

I will also mention that the amateur came and apologised after the ceremony which was good of him. Problem is, once the shots are missed and the impression is made it's all a bit too late.
At the end of the day, if the bride ends up with more great shots that she would have had I been the only tog, then that is good. However, this also reflects upon me, as his images and actions will be attributed to my own.

On the other side, if you are an amateur photographer attending a wedding, please make it your sole purpose to speak to the photographer before the event to discuss any possible issues in getting in shots etc. I

pjs2

28-11-2010, 4:34pm

JM Tran

28-11-2010, 4:49pm

Communications is of the utmost importance between guests, amateurs and professional photographers at weddings

for the weddings I shot today and yesterday, all formal group shots I happily organize the people/crowd together, then stand back and smile and let everyone take as much as they want, and when they have finished I will call out the order that its time for the professional shot. Happy endings for all:)

ricktas

28-11-2010, 5:09pm

Communication is indeed the key, as Jackie has said, but not necessarily from the paid pro on the day, rather I believe it should come from the person(s) who told the extra photographers that they were welcome to shoot at the wedding. Maybe it comes down to it being written into the contract?

TOM

28-11-2010, 5:43pm

Just a quick question. I recently went to a good friends wedding and took my camera. Now I know that the paid pro tog has right of way in all areas but I had a hell of a time trying to get a photo. I waited till the pro set up for thier shot but as soon as they got the shot they jumped around and moved everybody before anybody else could click one off. I know the pro is working on a time limit and that they live or die on the quality of thier work, and now the question How do you think most pro togs react if I asked if I could sneak in after they obtained the shot they were after ? I only ask because it was a good friend and I really did not get any keepers for myself. Who would be best to talk to in this situation the pro at the beginning or try to arrange before the wedding with the b&g talking to the pro beforehand.

there is no real need for you to take a photo in such a situation, as you would be able to purchase the same photo from the bride and groom at a later date. the official photographer made the image by using his/her experience to move the subjects into the right position, and to pose in just the right way. they are usually working to a very tight schedule, and also, they have earned the right to have exclusive shots. it is what separates them from the guests, it keeps these images off facebook, and also helps to justify their fee. today's dslr's are just large p&s cameras, and it is easy for a beginner, let alone a keen amatuer, to take a well exposed image. I try not to make any allowances if I can help it, but never risk upsetting my employers at any time. I guess this is where I and JM differ in our approach.

Roosta

28-11-2010, 5:59pm

Just to add a small twist, when god was still playing for the Wallibies and I had and still have my first camera, KR super 11 full manual 35mm film job + kit lens, probally F11-F35 back then whan brought from BigW, I went to a very close friends wedding, I was asked to bring along my $100 odd camera and my limited knowledge. They had paid a friend of the brides father (photo jurno for a leading Sidaknee Paper) to tog away, he had brought along all the bells and whisltes and produced some of the worst pics we had seen. I went to my local kemist, paid my $10 and got some absolute perls.

Moral of this little story, I stayed out of the way till said pro tog had finished with the million $ set up, did what little I could and get some great results, BUT I RESPECTED THE PAID/PRO SNAPPER.

So he/she may have had the best intrest at heart/ornot. And like you say, well to know your place in the pecking order and respect the wishes of others.

ricktas

28-11-2010, 6:09pm

Just a quick question. I recently went to a good friends wedding and took my camera. Now I know that the paid pro tog has right of way in all areas but I had a hell of a time trying to get a photo. I waited till the pro set up for thier shot but as soon as they got the shot they jumped around and moved everybody before anybody else could click one off. I know the pro is working on a time limit and that they live or die on the quality of thier work, and now the question How do you think most pro togs react if I asked if I could sneak in after they obtained the shot they were after ? I only ask because it was a good friend and I really did not get any keepers for myself. Who would be best to talk to in this situation the pro at the beginning or try to arrange before the wedding with the b&g talking to the pro beforehand.

Some pro's will give you time to take your shots as well, others won't, as this thread shows. The trick is to work 'with' the Pro, when they are not giving other guests an opportunity to take some photos. Find a spot out of their way, usually behind them over one of their shoulders, but back far enough you are not interfering, and take your shots 'with' the Pro (but don't necessarily use flash, or you might raise their ire). If the wedding party start looking at you, rather than the paid pro, stop, the Pro wants them looking at his/her lens.

Timing is everything.

But the best thing you can do is firstly ask the bridge and groom if it is OK to take photos, before the big day, and introduce yourself to the Pro, as an avid amateur, and tell them you will not get in their way. Most Pro's respect that and may be more accommodating. If they respond negatively, then that is their choice, but at least you tried.

reaction

28-11-2010, 6:12pm

I think most couples expect guests to know their place and not get in the way of the paid tog. I know we never explicitly told our guests anything, despite plenty of dslr owners.

I'd expect the paid 'tog has every right and duty to tell any guests to get out of the way, and if they don't then surely the best man etc should do the job, not the actual couple.

pjs2

28-11-2010, 6:52pm

Sorry ZedEx I did not intend to hijack your post.

But the best thing you can do is firstly ask the bridge and groom if it is OK to take photos,.

Bit of a Freudian slip there rictas A bridge is something that you run over with a car :D

there is no real need for you to take a photo in such a situation, as you would be able to purchase the same photo from the bride and groom at a later date. .
Hi Tom I think that a shot that I take myself has that personal feel. I know that if I snag a keeper that I will make a copy for them and you could say that they will not buy a print from the pro but I take a lot longer to get my shots from camera to print.

ricktas

28-11-2010, 7:09pm

Sorry ZedEx I did not intend to hijack your post.

Bit of a Freudian slip there rictas A bridge is something that you run over with a car :D

Oops. Though i know one or two brides that could have done with running over :D

ZedEx

29-11-2010, 6:59am

Here's a tight crop from a snapshot I got from the boat as we arrived at the venue. This is NOT the look you want to convey to all the guest who were already at the wedding venue. As I said, by all accounts, everyone thought this guy was the pro!!!! Just think of any other paid job, and how frustrating it would be. You wouldn't want to be contracted to build a house, only to arrive to find some random guy already building it?

Dan Cripps

29-11-2010, 7:17am

I've had my say on this issue.

Few here agreed with it.

TOM

29-11-2010, 8:09am

I've had my say on this issue.

Few here agreed with it.

I must have missed that, care to elaborate?

Kym

29-11-2010, 8:43am

Tom: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?70742-A-question-of-bad-form.&p=715361&viewfull=1#post715361

reaction

29-11-2010, 8:54am

I see he's bouncing his flash off the sky :)

JM Tran

29-11-2010, 9:22am

I see he's bouncing his flash off the sky :)

he also has a nice man-bag:)

Roosta

29-11-2010, 9:36am

I see he's bouncing his flash off the sky :)

It's always a great day to made to laugh so loud that my workmates are wondering ###. Got to love a good sense of humor.

Dylan & Marianne

29-11-2010, 10:12am

As far as I can see, the guy had a camera with a big lens attached.
I don't see why anyone should take issue with guests with pro looking gear.
It's really his behaviour that's the question and the heart of the issue. Unfortunately, the stereotype does tend to fulfil its own prophecy though.
Because I'm pretty amateur myself and do occasional weddings, I do find it very hard to tell people to 'stop getting in the way'
I don't like his man bag ;)

ricktas

29-11-2010, 11:39am

Interesting. Cause he has a DSLR, flash and big white lens, people were assuming he was the Pro, and funnily the same guy turns up at the beach, and the same people who assuming he was a Pro at a wedding, would most likely assume he was a pervert (or worse) and call the Police etc. Are we not doing in this thread the very thing we argue against when photography in general is questioned? We can either be part of the solution, or part of the problem.

Ah society is such a wonderful thing

kiwi

29-11-2010, 12:08pm

fillum

29-11-2010, 2:44pm

Im wondering how many of us would rock up to a wedding where we are the guest with a 70-200. I dont think i would really.Nor would I. As much fun as photography is, it gets trumped by free beer :D.

The impression I got is that he wasn't a wedding guest but a "brother of a friend" who was there specifically to shoot. If that's the case I think I'd find it disconcerting - a bit different than some of the guests firing off a few shots of their own.

Cheers.

Adrian Fischer

29-11-2010, 3:00pm

Ive taken my 70-200 to a friends wedding but only because the asked me to take bakground shots, guests etc.

Dylan & Marianne

29-11-2010, 4:05pm

Im wondering how many of us would rock up to a wedding where we are the guest with a 70-200. I dont think i would really. Plus, I really hate people behind me shooting over my shoulder so to speak, Its always distracting to the people posing in front of me.

that's interesting - our friends know that we are into our photography and some have even asked us if we would bring our gear along for "free" shots. I've stopped doing it but certainly used to in the past but always stayed right out of the way of the photographers.

kiwi

29-11-2010, 4:11pm

yeah, lol, i probably couldnt not either truth be told, i think id be very discreet though :p

Longshots

29-11-2010, 4:36pm

I've been invited and attended five weddings in the last 12 months, and in that time, even though I have my own gear, even though two of the people suggested I should bring my gear, I didnt. I enjoyed the celebration and I enjoyed sharing the event with others.

I also have a white car I could have added white ribbons on it.

I also have a barbeque I could have brought along.

I also have some wines and beer - most of them probably better than I was drinking.

Moral of this story is when it comes to these things, my personal view is that if you're a guest at a wedding - enjoy your time there :) I'll leave all my other interests at home.

kiwi

29-11-2010, 5:24pm

Yes, valid, but what if taking photos is thing that you enjoyed doing at a wedding, I'm guessing that's he main reason people take their gear along.

Dylan & Marianne

29-11-2010, 5:30pm

Yes, valid, but what if taking photos is thing that you enjoyed doing at a wedding, I'm guessing that's he main reason people take their gear along.

yep that's why I initially brought the gear along - but then facebook became viral!!!

WhoDo

29-11-2010, 5:31pm

Moral of this story is when it comes to these things, my personal view is that if you're a guest at a wedding - enjoy your time there :) I'll leave all my other interests at home.
I hear you, William, but sometimes that's politically not possible. I went to my niece's wedding and was encouraged to take my camera as "insurance" - reason being that a friend of the groom (who worked on contract to Nikon) was the "official" photographer and no-one was really sure of his status or capabilities. I'm still not sure as I haven't seen any of his work yet, but suffice it to say a few times I noted from my shots that he had his back to the key action! (only my judgement of course).

When I got there I found there were about FIVE sets of cameras - my wife labelled them the paparazzi - including a videographer and I was low man on the totem pole! What could I do? First thing I did was approach the REAL official photographer, introduced myself, explained my capacity and promised to do my very best to stay out of his way. I wanted him to tell me any time I failed in that endeavour. By the end of the night he was laughing and chatting with me and pretty much expressing his frustration at how difficult it made his job when these others took control of events. As an employee he didn't feel he could "order" them out of his shots so he just made the best of things. A very professional attitude in my humble opinion. I sure hope he got the shots HE wanted to offer as representative of his talent.

I'm happy with the shots I took (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?68059-The-Royal-Wedding), given that I had no directorial control and didn't feel comfortable lurking over the shoulders of 4 other 'togs, including the pro. I just think there are times when good intentions or poor planning make such clashes inevitable. In my case I was trying to help my niece out and make sure nothing got "missed" on the day. If I'd known the Pro was going to be there I would have left the camera at home and enjoyed the event. As it was I spent too much time trying to make sure I kept faith with my niece on her day and not enough enjoying it myself.

Bottom line: I'm not disagreeing with your stance. After all, you would have far more at risk than I in the same circumstances. I just think that sometimes train wrecks happen no matter what the intentions. When it's family the choices often disappear.

PaulMac

29-11-2010, 5:54pm

Ok... i just gotta jump in here. Seriously if I had seen that guy at a wedding I was shooting then I would have been on him like seagulls on chips. Nothing worse than me bringing up group shots on my screen when I get home and half the eyes are on another camera. DSLR with a 50mm lens on it out the way... no problems but don't be distracting anyone while I'm shooting let alone getting in the shots.

Look at it this way.

Would you turn up at a wedding with a hot-rod and transport a few of the bridal party when they had hired limos... NO!

Would you turn up with a BBQ and whip up a few chops and sausages with the caterers just because you enjoy it... NO!

Would you jump up and say a few words in the church next to the minister just because you know the bible back to front and feel the need.... NO!

Would you bake a wedding cake and slap it down next to their wedding cake... NO!

Then why the hell would you interfere with a paid professional photographer on such an important day as a wedding day just because you have a passion for photography??????? If you were that good you would be doing the gig for them instead of hiring a professional.

Eeeeeerks me no end when I set up a creative composition that I spend countless hours perfecting and someone snaps it over my shoulder without me knowing and to make things worse they have shot home, printed it and put it on the bridal table before I have even arrived.

Seriously guys... shoot all you want at a wedding but be so inconspicuous that no one even notices you. It's simply the right and respectful thing to do.

I don't know what most of you do for a living but try to look at it as someone interfering with your job that thinks it's a given.

Hope that all makes sense and also make sure it's in your contract like it is in mine that amateur\unpaid photographers may only take photos after the hired professional has finished and invites them in.

kiwi

29-11-2010, 6:07pm

Yes, all makes perfect common sense, assuming that you have common sense, which as usual often goes missing in this sort of thing

Gypsy

29-11-2010, 7:07pm

It is frustrating when peole get in the way.... I've had it done to me. I was asked to take some photos for a friends wedding (this was before I actually realised that wedding photos should be left to wedding photographers! LOL) But anyway, they had asked me, I said yes. (Unpaid). But every time I set up a shot I had the family & friends jumping directly in front of me! Like RIGHT in front of me! I was literally at the point of yelling at people to move, even the bride and groom were yelling 'Guys please MOVE so Melissa can take the photos!' I said I dont mind them taking some photos after I do, but please let me take the photos and THEN you can step in! So so frustrating! I used a 50mm lens for most photos. I think because people had non-SLR camera's that appeared bigger than mine they thought they had more right to be there. :rolleyes: (Just like having a 12MP P&S is better than a 8MP 5Dmk2 with a $3000 lens just because it has more MP's. LOL)

But here's another side...

At a friends wedding, they had hired a professional photographer (paid several thousands $$).
I was asked to take some pics of the guys getting ready as the pro couldn't make it there, he was just shooting the girls prep and straight to the ceremony.

The bride & groom told him about me, said I'm just starting out and have accepted doing the guys prep photos, and said they wanted me to tag along for the locations pics and get a little practice in. (I assured the couple I understand he's the pro and woud not get in the way, I have full respect for the professional on the day.)

Anyway, took the boys prep photos, got to the ceremony, introduced myself to the pro and assured him I would not get in his way, that I'm NOT a wedding photographer, I was just doing this because the bride & groom had asked. I remained seated throughout the whole ceremony so I did get in the way of the most important photos of the day, I just took a few snaps from my seat just like the other guests did, but didn't worry too much as that's what the pro is there for.

For the location photos I hopped out of the bus (all the wedding party & imediate family travelled in the bus), I took a few candids of everyone just walking around before the photographer arrived. When he did arrive I was asked if I could help with his lighting/reflectors, yep no worries. But i was told to leave my camera in his car. I said it's ok, I'll just swing it around to my back, it wont get in the way of me helping, but he insisted I leave it behind. Disapointing as all the other people there had their cameras out snapping away and I was 'not allowed'. So we spent a couple hours out there, me lugging his gear around, so I got no photos at all. But no worries, again, he's getting paid for it, not me.
The next day was a trash the dress session with the bride... again, the bride had arranged with the photographer that she wants me there to take some photos too. When I arrived, the tog said to leave my camera behind and just put my lens on his camera. I said ok, I'll just grab my CF card. He said no, use his. Hmm right. So now I'm taking photos for him! (In between holding his reflectors and gear again.)

Anyway, after the photographers photos came back, the couple were really disapointed. His bride prep photos missed some of the girls, and didn't really get anything special. Just a few posed photos (as in standing there against a wall... not the helping bride get ready or anything like that). They were thrilled with my groom prep photos thankfully! I had never done anything like that before myself so it was new to me.

The ceremony photos were very average too, missed some of the most important shots, didn't get all the girls walking down etc. I managed to get better images from my seat, including the girls walking down, though I missed out on things too, but like I said, I wasnt trying to be a 'photographer', I was a guest and just enjoyed the ceremony. I feel bad now that I didn't get up and take more photos for her. :(

Then the location photos, only a handful turned out ok, the rest were very average. Not to say I could have done any better as the light was really harsh and everyone was hot and tired, plus it was a huge bridal party so organising everyone was not the easiest.... but who knows. It would have been nice to at least take a couple.

The trash the dress pics.. the bride sent me the disk and we worked out who's photos were who's (yay for exif data. LOL) All her faves were the ones I took. Plus I got some after shots with the dress hanging on the line, her 'trashed' slippers etc. which the tog missed as he left.

Anyway, the moral of the story is now I tried to do right thing by the paid professional and keep out of his way, did as he asked, helped him when he asked, leaving my camera behind when he asked, helping lug his gear around, and now feel guilty that the couple were disapointed in their professional shots and liked mine more. I should have just been like any other guest and just taken the photos as I pleased. I may have had a 'bigger camera' than most guests, but I was still a guest, the only guest who wasn't 'allowed' to take photos.

To me, this situation is more of a case of the pro not wanting to be 'outdone'. (Again, I dont claim to be a wedding photographer, or a prfessional photographer at all, he hadn't even SEEN my photos, and I expressed that I am not there to get in his way, just snap a few photos for myself as well as the ones the bride & groom had requested.)

Anyway, not trying to take over your post, I totally get what you are saying, and if he was getting in the way, that's just plain rude. He should have been respecting the bride & grooms requests, AND the fact they had paid someone to take the photos. But yeah, just another side.

Sorry, that post was a bit long winded.:o

Gypsy

29-11-2010, 7:14pm

Kym

29-11-2010, 7:21pm

Just to add yet another story....
And that's how it should be. Priority to the pro and a bit of politeness both ways, with an opportunity for the guests. +/+

ZedEx

29-11-2010, 8:44pm

Seems I have spiked some interesting discussion. I'm glad others can see my point of view on this issue. Put it this way, there was a few other people there with dSLR's. Most had the kit lenses, one had a nice fisheye, and there were numerous point n shoots. Did they bother me? No. They didn't get in the way, and they were very discreet. The fella with the fisheye came and had a friendly chat with me during the reception when he would tell I wasn't busy, whereas the guy with the 70-200 interrupted me quickly swapping lenses in between some key scenes, to apologise for getting in the way! :rolleyes:
Paul Mac put it clearly in perspective. If you're going to do it, do it quietly and out of the way, with a small, nondescript lens. I know a pro level lens makes nobody a pro, but it makes you LOOK like a pro to all the guests.
Anywho, what's done is done. I'm confident I got a good mix of shots regardless of any distractions, and will certainly keep an eye out for potential issues arising in future :)

farmer_rob

29-11-2010, 9:16pm

I was at a wedding recently, and the experience was very different to that outlined by some of you. The wedding was in Hong Kong, and my friend had invited people from around the world. His idea was that we would be there for about a week, and so he arranged some activities before and after the wedding. He had some friends who were professional photographers who took photos at the pre-wedding function (All Canon 5dMk2, including one set up as a video rig.)

At the wedding, another professional wedding photographer was employed - he actively encouraged people to take photos of the formal proceedings. He also arranged for most of the guests to pose with the bride and groom, and all those who did were given (free) copies of those photos before the end of the evening.

Photography (pro and amateur) was acknowledged to be part of the wedding, and the pro seemed to be comfortable that others would be taking photos, but also that there was value in giving something back to the guests.

pjs2

29-11-2010, 9:31pm

The wedding I was at took place in a pergola thingy so it was tight only really enough room for for one shooter .Couldn't get a fix from the grassy knoll . I take my longer lens so I dont have to stand so close to the pro. I'm thinking pro togs at weddings should have a standard uniform so everybody knows who is the pro and who are the guests. How would you all feel about wearing something like the shirts the Gridion refs wear. It's not like anybodies going to take your photo ;)

PaulMac

29-11-2010, 9:50pm

pjs2

29-11-2010, 10:07pm

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Borat Mankini look.. :D
By the look of your eyes in your avatar you already have it on. Back to front :eek:

Bear Dale

29-11-2010, 10:32pm

I was employed to shoot my sisters wedding on the weekend.

Just out of interest, what did you charge your sister to shoot her wedding??

Mat

29-11-2010, 10:48pm

Just to add yet another story, another friends wedding, they hired a pro, I did take my camera along (my husband and daugter, who was only 3 at the time, were both in the wedding party! Couldn't NOT take my camera! LOL).
However I did chat to the tog while we were there (as I was 'behind the scenes' too to help my daughter get ready). He didn't mind at all with me there, we quite often had a little friendly photography related chat. This was LONG before I started taking photos for anyone else mind you.
ANyway, even back then I didn't 'steal' his shots. He set them up and I just stood back and watched. I did get a few of my own in between. But after the ceremony when the tog was doing the usual shots with the new couple & their guests, he would set up, take the photos, and then say "Anyone else like to take some phtoos, now's your chance'. He allowed all the guests to come and tkae photos before moving to the next set up, and he'd do the same again. He was a really nice guy and I think everyone appreciated him inviting the guests to take some photos for themselves.

I have had a very similar experience, I took shots from my spot (all the guests were standing as it was at Sydney Harbour) I stayed right out of the way and as far from the pro tog as possible. When it came time to the formal shots he set them up and after his shoot he then handed it over to the guests (about 10 of us) with cameras to take our shots. He even offered me and some of the others some advice. Respect does go a long way. After the couple had already received their pro shots, I gave them a disc with mine on it. they were very happy with some of my shots as the pro left half way through the reception and I had continued to shoot. I was also the only one who got a shot of the cars, yes even the pro missed that one.

I guess that it can be good that some of the guests take their camera but they must respect the pro's (and couples) rights and wishes, wait your turn and not get in the way.

arthurking83

29-11-2010, 11:43pm

.....

Sorry, that post was a bit long winded.:o

Not in the slightest! :p

actually gives the thread a bit more balance.

..... Put it this way, there was a few other people there with dSLR's. Most had the kit lenses, one had a nice fisheye, and there were numerous point n shoots. Did they bother me? No. They didn't get in the way, and they were very discreet. ....

place a loaded gun in the middle of a busy city street, is it going to kill anyone?

So it seems turning up at a wedding with a DSLR isn't can be socially acceptable as some around here would have believe it isn't.

The actions of one inconsiderate person ruins the whole premise of a hobby for the rest of us.
Yet there were other guests with high end gear that seemed to have an idea of the term 'consideration' means.
At the rate that these types of threads proliferate, it won't be long before the government will have to intervene and ban the carriage of DSLRs at wedding ceremonies unless the owner of such a devastating weapon can prove they're an accredited wedding photographer, with 'ze correct papers!'

On the basis of what the OP has posted so far:
I guess you can't really blame this interventionist stooge either tho.
He wasn't explicitly told by the paid photographer, on the day, to maintain some decorum once the paid tog arrived
If it were explained to him at an earlier date by the bride, that there is a paid photographer, then it should have also been explained to him to work with the photographer and be sure to not work independently, but this would have been best explained to him on the day so it remained fresh in his inconsiderate psyche.
It also seems that this other chap was at the wedding prior to the paid tog, so he must surely have achieved some images that the paid for tog couldn't possibly have got himself.. and so is this a bad thing?

I use a DSLR, I only ever carry a DSLR. I don't own any other digital camera, other than a DSLR. If I attend a wedding, I take my DSLR(although with only a 50mm f/1.2 lens. I see no problem with that, and (for me) I can only see problems with trying to use my daughters P&S if I wanted to get any images of the occasion for my self.
I suppose I should feel safe in that I don't own a white car(nor ribbon) and I gave my (considerable) barby to my brother(for now), so he'd have to bring the barby for me.. if I ever felt the need too! :D

Comparing the carriage and use of a DSLR to a wedding by a guest as akin to taking a white car with a ribbon or barbeque is just as ludicrous as my analogy to the gun is.
Maybe we need to initiate the process of a petition for the government to effect laws against this kind of event terrorism.

Considering the points made by the OP, it appears to be a simple open and shut case of a lack of understanding by this other person.
More importantly and any others out there that may possibly face a similar situation, maintain control over the event at all times and be assertive over any ring ins. Explain it in a loud and confident manner that everyone concerned should concentrate their gazes and efforts on themselves.
The OP should also have allowed this ring in at least some leeway in getting their shots too, either between ideas, lens changes, scene set ups.. etc.
I really can't see why there should be any consternation against this spoiler to be honest, he was probably assuming that he was doing someone a favour by insuring that the bridal party would get some good shots. Put the shoe on the other foot, and try to see it from his perspective too(as per Gypsy's reply).

As others have said, communication directed at this spoiler guy, seemed not to be as well expressed(to him) as it could have been(or at the appropriate time).

With our liberties being eroded, by the evil few with little understanding of the craft, the last thing we need is to hear similar topics being expressed by the people apparently with a keen interest in the genre too!
This all seems to be a weird case of 1984(Orwell!!.. not Van Halen!.. you doofus :D).
Whether implied or blatant, I believe there should never be any negative discussions and ideas of guests bringing their gear along to such events, especially on a forum that caters to all manner of photography.
We should leave that kind of insipid commentary to the elitist hacks that frequent other fora(and governmental ignoramuses) ... not here!
Ideas on how to better deal with such issues(for the working photographer) would be more appropriate material for reading rather than talk of leaving DSLR gear at home.

FWIW, I wouldn't carry a 70-200/2.8 on a DSLR as a guest at a wedding, but most definitely a DSLR and a fast fifty(either the 50/1.4 or 50/1.2??).
As an assumed, and asked for, second shooter(or helper) I most definitely would have carried a 70-200/2.8.. and all my other gear. But with a particular key difference to how this running around 70-200/2.8 toting chap went about it all.. I'd have worked with the main photographer at all times(not necessarily for him.. as per Gypsy's response), and waited for key moments to do my stuff.

Analog6

30-11-2010, 5:12am

Hi Tom I think that a shot that I take myself has that personal feel. I know that if I snag a keeper that I will make a copy for them and you could say that they will not buy a print from the pro but I take a lot longer to get my shots from camera to print.

Exactly how I feel, you get a sense of pride at the shot you take yourself. I think as long as you wait until after they have selected and paid for their shots form the pro I (if they contracted the pro on a pay for prints basis) before you offer them yours then there is no conflict.

Longshots

30-11-2010, 5:53am

OK my analogy was meant to be ludicrous :) I actually agree with Arthurking's response on many levels. And thanked them for raising their points.

However, as Kiwi asked but what if we enjoy taking pics. Yes, good point. But as you'd know, it can easily change from enjoying something, to becoming something that, we you agreed to do it chore. And thats my point about simply enjoying the actual event. I was referrring to me on this point btw and not anyone else. I was talking about how I would leave MY camera at home, because I want to be there as a guest and not as a second, first, third shooter. And yes I have no problem with guest with any type of camera. Its when they have a full kit (with large bag), are directing the event, or are changing the flow of the event simply because they're in the way.

Yes, many shooters will accommodate guests personal needs. And leeway, is definitely the word for these type of events. In fact for the main group shots, I would often ask if guests wanted to give me their cameras as well, and I would shoot a shot on each of their cameras. That way, I would ensure I'd have happy guests, and they would all stay in place for the group shots.

If it was a major issue, this type of topic would be posted after every weekend, but it isnt. Its one inconsiderate person, who while they may think they're out of the way, they clearly werent. Yes perhaps the OP would want to encourage more prior communications with their clients before the event.

I do have to say that from the weddings I use to shoot, from my perspective, there is no time in between lens changes, between ideas, between set changes - my work flow is always one of those non stop events from the moment I arrive till I leave.

ZedEx

30-11-2010, 6:42am

Just out of interest, what did you charge your sister to shoot her wedding??

Not to shoot the wedding itself, though she will pay me for framing or prints (obviously discounted a lot). She paid for my accomodation and expenses while in the city for her wedding as well :) By and large it was a wedding gift, but I was certainly contracted as the photographer.

virgal_tracy

30-11-2010, 8:50am

I work as a primary and 2nd wedding tog so this comes from some experience. JUst some questions answered if you could so that I can get a better handle on the situation.

With people thinking that he was the paid pro before you got there, did he do anything to paint you in a bad light? If he was unprofessional then I could see that detracting from peoples thoughts of you.
Did he continue to get in the way after your partner had a word with him? This isn't explained in the OP.
How does him getting group shots amongst the mob after the ceremony differ from any other guest with a P&S aprt from him needing to be further back if he still had the 70-200 on. Can you explain more about him getting in the way of family group candids?

Without a little more explanation I don't see what he has done as explained in the OP is too different to a multitude of family members that run around during a wedding. He doesn't appear to have gotten in the way of the formals or the portraits, you haven't mentioned anything about the ceremony itself or about the reception.

My only major concern from the information posted was he thought that he could make money off of the shoot. That I would have a problem with.

A little clarification would help please.

Ethony

30-11-2010, 5:30pm

I have had this happen, even better when it is the Mother of the Groom who dragged her son away for family group shots with her sister taking the photos with a Point and Shoot.

I am no shrinking violet and I politely told her that I needed the Groom and that when I was finished with the shots they were paying me for, she could have him all to herself. She tried it more than once on the day, her husband told her to stop eventually thank goodness.

Communication is key, you are right. It is rather frustrating though.

I @ M

30-11-2010, 6:41pm

To me it simply boils down to lack of preparation and planning ( we all know what that leads to ) as most wedding photographers that are contracted ( paid or not ) to photograph the wedding will have established the ground rules regarding photography at the event well and truly before they arrive at the gig.
Being forewarned that there was going to be an uncle of a brother's cousin there who was going to do some photography should have set alarm bells ringing straight away and the foot should have been put down immediately and later enforced that it simply wasn't on to get in the contracted photographers way.

If he had already been told that he wasn't to get in the way prior to the event and he insisted on doing so then plan B should have been brought into action ( once again proper planning ) and a suitably hefty person should have been dispatched to "convince" him that he was starting to spoil a damn good day ( the brides, after all ) and that is the last thing anyone wants.

ZedEx

30-11-2010, 7:09pm

I'm as yet unsure if he acted innapproapriately before my arrival. The thing is, he was asking the staff for places to put all lhis gear bags etc, so immediately they at least had that idea in their head. As I have said, for the most part I got all the shots I wanted, but having friends mob to the bride and groom and then looking at the other guys camera is a bit rough. Sure, it's no different to a p&s, but a 5d with 70-200f2.8 is about 60 million times larger and more obtrusive :p
He didn't get in the way for 90% of the reception. Leading into the ceremony he did get in my way as I was running along backwards getting some shots of my sister and father (bride and father of the bride) walking in. After a talking to from my partner, after the ceremony, he did back off during the reception. By which point it wasn't of much consequence anyway as I had all the important shots and was just recording the rest of the evening ambiently.

My main gripe is that now, there will be guests who will say to my sister 'oh i had such and such picture taken, where is it?' and if i can track them down from this other fella he may either A)charge a different rate or B) reflect poorly on my own efforts if his images are of a different quality. This is the main issue, standing above all else. I got most of the shots I needed.

I@M, you are definitely right. As I am not experienced in dealing with such anomalies, I just completely underestimated what could happen. The main reason I put the thread up was as an example to other photographers and an anecdote to show what CAN happen if one is ill prepared. What's that saying again? Proper preparation prevents piss poor performance :D

I work as a primary and 2nd wedding tog so this comes from some experience. JUst some questions answered if you could so that I can get a better handle on the situation.

With people thinking that he was the paid pro before you got there, did he do anything to paint you in a bad light? If he was unprofessional then I could see that detracting from peoples thoughts of you.
Did he continue to get in the way after your partner had a word with him? This isn't explained in the OP.
How does him getting group shots amongst the mob after the ceremony differ from any other guest with a P&S aprt from him needing to be further back if he still had the 70-200 on. Can you explain more about him getting in the way of family group candids?

Without a little more explanation I don't see what he has done as explained in the OP is too different to a multitude of family members that run around during a wedding. He doesn't appear to have gotten in the way of the formals or the portraits, you haven't mentioned anything about the ceremony itself or about the reception.

My only major concern from the information posted was he thought that he could make money off of the shoot. That I would have a problem with.

A little clarification would help please.

Luna-blu

30-11-2010, 9:03pm

campo

03-12-2010, 7:06am

I had a celebrant's wife stand between me and the couple as i was attempting to shoot the couple signing the certificate. She also blocked the videographer - needless to say neither of us were happy. I missed the shots i wanted to get (ie. i like to grab the shots when they're actually signing to paper work) so i had to pose them afterwards and then photoshop the pen nib in etc...

After the ceremony I politely told her how she blocked both me and the videographer and if she wanted images, myself and most photographers would be happy to give the celebrant a few for their website.

campo

03-12-2010, 7:11am

As far as I can see the main reason to limit guest photography is to guarantee that the pro photos turn out well and you don't get into a bridezilla situation.
I would also explain that I am not opposed to others photographers being present, BUT, I am not responsible for the wedding party being distracted by other photographers and I am there to record the day as it happens.
You can't give an explicit guarantee on co-operation, all you can really do is ask and cover your ass.

My contract encourages guest photography but I reserve the right to ask the guests not to take photos at certain times during the day (eg. the photoshoot). I also "cover my own bottom" by stating that whilst I will try my best, situations beyond my control (eg. guests getting in the way etc) may detract from the quality of the delivered products and I take no responsibility.

I try to be proactive and make it quite clear during the first few family shots that I take the first shot and then guests can grab some after me. After one or two groups, the guests generally have the procedure down pat and won't take pics until I've finished.

nanwu

03-12-2010, 11:18am

i went to my daughters wedding earlier in the year and took along my camera, she had a professional photographer booked, he got caught in traffic and was very late so myself and my youngest sons girlfriend took photo's of the wedding party getting ready, until the paid tog showed up, we then both talked to him about if it was okay for us to take some more photo's during the ceremony and reception etc......he was great he took the wedding party and did all the shots my daughter wanted down on the beach etc then came back and set up a couple of extra shots for us to have bit of practice with.....also throughout the reception he gave me some tips on how to take certain candid shots so i went around taking candid shots of the guests while he took the more formal shots......it worked really well, i didn't get in his way, learnt a few things, and my daughter got all the paid photo's she wanted and also some freebie extra's from me, she also got shot's of before hand which if i hadn't taken my camera she would not of gotten.

Clubmanmc

03-12-2010, 12:43pm

wow

well here goes,

i ahve been on both ends of this, as a pro doing a wedding, I like JM will allow the people at the event to get some "moment shots" maybe at the altar, the signing of the registry, the cutting of the cake and the 1st dance, i have quite a loud voice, and usually shoot what i have to then stand back, and take a shot of all the cameras out taking the same picture...

if a "guest" riuned one photo, by "accident" i would very quickly, mention to him that he was in my way, and i would appreciate that he didnt... if they continued, i would have stronger words... but the B and G would have no idea of that

as a "friend" of the B and G at a wedding, i will introduce myself to the tog (when not busy) and i usually take my 70-200 and shoot from a distance (even bringing my 1.4x to get some extra reach) and stay RIGHT out the way

but thats cos i have been on both sides of the fence...

also I make myself quite approachble to the guests, as i am not on a time limited race thru their wedding day

but each to their own...

I can feel your pain, but seriously, if you had the time to get a shot of him then you should have had the time to talk to him yourself...

M

Dan Cripps

03-12-2010, 5:23pm

if you had the time to get a shot of him then you should have had the time to talk to him yourself...

Please... :rolleyes:

jeffde

05-12-2010, 7:06pm

Hey been reading this thread for a while...
My wife and i have monogrammed shirts with our buiness name on them so when we turn up everyone knows who we are. Juls (wife) is more of an assistant but takes the occassional photo. Having the shirt gives her not only the confidence but the ability to step in and help on a shoot (wedding / portrait or function). All the guests at a wedding also know who we are and also makeup artists, limo drivers etc, and for me it works well. (and being Jeff D Photography) everybody knows my name ...

Lanny

12-12-2010, 8:49pm

I do weddings and really enjoy being involved in the celebrations. I can only go by what I have stated and that is this: As a photographer I have a contract that both parties sign and in the contract it stated thats at all times as the photographer I inherit the right to all images taken on the day....... The hired photographer has sole responsibility of taking all images that are required without interference of other parties present at the wedding. I usually introduce myself to the MC before the wedding and ask him/her politely to explain to guests that at the end of the ceromony that while the hired photographer is taking the photographs could those wishing to also take photos please reframe until the photographer has finished and I will invite others to take their own images after I am completed with the initial family photos. I know that at some stage I will be separating the bridal party from the guests and this is where their investment comes into true form. I always make sure that they know they have hired me to do a job and to get it right and that means I have full control over the images and the way they are completed. I allow no-one but my assistant to be present when I am one on one with the bridal party when we are off doing the shoot. Not only all this but I also want some fun and have them relaxed and enjoying the moment.

LVL

18-01-2011, 9:40pm

I had a friend get married last year and though I have a DSLR and count photography as one of my main hobbies I did not take my DSLR to the ceremony at which they had a professional photographer. I went there as a guest and friend and simply enjoyed the beautiful ceremony.

However, I and another friend of the bride with a DSLR, took our cameras to the reception, once the official photographer had finished their contracted duties. We took heaps of candid shots for the couple and their guests to enjoy later on. I have to say that in no way did it inhibit my enjoyment of the reception and it is great to look back and remember what a fantastic time was had by everyone. It also allowed the bride and groom to get a glimpse of a lot of moments they missed while they were occupied with each other or official duties and to show them people genuinely did have a blast.

I will also cite my brother's wedding as an example. They had a professional photographer for the ceremony but nothing organised at the receiption. My grandfather took along his video camera to the reception and managed to capture a really touching moment when my sister-in-law sung "my heart will go on" as a tribute to my brother. It is moments like these I aim to capture if I take my camera to a wedding which in no way impinge on the role of an official photographer at the event.

I absolutely agree with the advice given if you do decide to take your camera to the main event that you should approach the official photographer, explain your position and do your best not to hinder them in their duties. I for one would feel terrible if friends or family had spent the money on a professional photographer only to have their highly anticipated shots ruined by my blundering self.

Scotty72

19-01-2011, 8:28am

Hmmm.

Wedding 'togs need to consider that guests do not sign bits of paper to give the ;tog priority/exclusivity etc. Guests are simply their to enjoy the moment and that often means grabbing a photo.

I agree that during the ceremony, guests should not leap up to the alter and block everyone's view. Then again, neither should the 'tog. I am sure we have all experienced the 'tog who is so focused on getting the shot that guests can't see anything other than his/her back-side. The guests are there to witness a friend's wedding, not a 'tog's ar#e. So, before getting shirty with guests, a 'tog should examine his/her own actions.

At the (less formal) reception, then it is more of a free for all. If your a pro, deal with it and stop whining. Is you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Almost every occupation deals with outsiders who 'get in the way'; they deal with them.

-teachers deal with parents who undermine their lessons / discipline
-police, with people who sticky beak around crime / accident scenes getting in the way offering advice.
-Washing machine mechanics who have customers looking over their shoulders asking stupid questions.
-Bus drivers who deal with drivers who park in bus stops, cut in front of their 20 tonne machine.
-Doctors with patients who self diagnose or bring know-it-all relatives who question the doc's motives

etc,

My advice, deal with it or find another job where people wont get in the way - maybe the lighthouse keeper on Midway Island.

Scotty

bricat

19-01-2011, 8:42am

I would like to see someone stop me from taking photo's of my brother/sister/or relo wedding. Have been to many and everybody has a camera. Sure the paid photog has right of way and I would not interfere with his work unless he stopped me from taking my shots. After all I am a prick relo so I know the bride and groom. The protog has come and gone out of their life in a couple of hours. You don't have exclusivity to take photo's contract or not. And I have a 7D without a white lens but if I owned one you bet your life I would take it. So back to basics. You do your job under the conditions as presented to you but remember the guests are friends/relos of the bride and groom. And I can't remember ever having a problem with a protog at these events as I am conscious of their job. cheers Brian

kiwi

19-01-2011, 7:10pm

Scotty72

19-01-2011, 7:23pm

That's all very well Brian, but be aware that i believe based on the standard contracts that i have access to that most professional photographers will have in their standard contract a clause saying that interference by guests with cameras can cause a breach of contract which could be a cause for cancellation and non performance....now I'm sure you wouldn't do anything to lead it to that but certainly something to be aware of if push comes to shove.

Kiwi,

That may well be so but, the guests sign nothing; therefore your (the hypothetical you) contract cannot be enforced on them. So, the couple may well be able to asks guests to stay out of your way - or don't show but, you have no right of enforcement over guests behavior (or lack of it).

However, if guests make it unreasonably difficult for you, I guess they should be made to accept a reduced level of product but, if that means a dummy spit and the 'tog runs off - well that is hardly very professional, is it?

Scotty

kiwi

19-01-2011, 7:28pm

Scotty72

19-01-2011, 9:05pm

As you say the contract is between the couple and the photographer, but an extreme scenario could see the pro tog cancel the contract. Id hope any professional or guest would avoid that recourse, but never the less the contract terms are there for a reason I guess

If, by cancel the contract, you mean a 'tog simply walks out with his bat & ball then, that would be unprofessional (not to mention extremely whimpy) - unless of course the interference of others was posing some safety hazard.

Absolutely, the hirers must be aware that shot quality will suffer if uncle Fred keeps sticking his camera in your shot or getting in your way but, to simply spit the dummy and walk out: that would be outrageous.

Gee! How good would it be if I could walk out every time my students (or their damned parents :) ) got in the way of me doing my job? Yes please!

Scotty

kiwi

19-01-2011, 9:12pm

No, I didn't suggest that. I can't imagine anyone doing that unless things got really out of control so you couldn't actually take photos, could it ?

campo

20-01-2011, 7:47am

Kiwi,
...So, the couple may well be able to asks guests to stay out of your way...

My contract states something along the lines of "if guests interfere, then the couple accepts that this may adversely impact the quality of my work. It is the couple's responsibility to ensure guests don't interfere."

I've not had too many issues with guests, in fact the only real problem i had was a celebrants wife standing in front of me and the videographer during the certificate signing. We asked her to move and she outright refused, even after I told her i'd be happy to send her one of my images.

Longshots

20-01-2011, 8:32am

Scotty

To respond to your comments in particular. While I no longer shoot weddings myself, I have a similar clause. Its a standard. It has nothing to do with taking bat and balls, or cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen. And in particular it doesnt seem to long ago, that you were needing help about images that were used by your school when you hadnt wanted them to be used, and you sought advice from Photographers. So its probably more productive to remove the hint of a "them and us" approach. The reason most people have this type of clause is because they have been commissioned or employed to provide a service. And if something stops them from providing that service, then they need some business protection to explain themselves. That would be standard for many services. For instance you are employed, I recall to teach children, what you're not employment does not cover, (again if I recall correctly) is to take and provide pictures. And that is within your terms and conditions of your contract of employment.

As a teacher, what do you do when you are probably reasonably regularly faced with a child who simply will not comply with the rules and regulations of the school. I believe that your schools last resort is to exclude that child ? Its a situation which is simply not workable for either party.

So back to the wedding. The couple have been given a good explanation by their paid or professional photographer, that to "get the right shots" they need unimpeded access. So in general its the couple's responsibility, often accomplished by the best man to explain to the guests what the agreed protocol is - ie most photographers would want to set up their shots first, and then encourage the guests to go for it. And that would be explained and one hopes that the photographer would also gently make that known as well. I know I would always do that, and never had a problem. The real trouble happens when the couple who may be expecting that one particular action shot, which will probably have been even discussed well before the event, and a guest unintentionally gets in the way, and that shot is missed. Its at that point, having a clause in your contract is the most important about client cooperation.

So I'd agree with Campo entirely.

And if some "dammed parents" (sorry but the irony here made me laugh, as I have many friends and family who are teachers) were in your classroom, or in a classroom environment (like an excursion), and got in your way or made it difficult to teach, I think you would be happy to have a clause in your contract, which would enable you to go up to them and quietly and politely remind them that you have a role to play, a task to complete, and that their actions were hindering your work. Lets be honest here, you would appreciate that wouldnt you ? ;)

bb45pz

20-01-2011, 11:47am

The couple have been given a good explanation by their paid or professional photographer, that to "get the right shots" they need unimpeded access.

I know this is probably slightly out of context, but this is more or less why I don't bother taking my camera to weddings. To get decent shots you need the right access and if the couple has a pro then quite often you won't be able to get that access.

IMO, enjoy the day and don't take your camera unless you're the #1 or the #1's second shooter.

Scotty72

20-01-2011, 1:14pm

Scotty

To respond to your comments in particular. While I no longer shoot weddings myself, I have a similar clause. Its a standard. It has nothing to do with taking bat and balls, or cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Umm yes, it does. Previous posters have said that guest interference would be grounds for cancellation of contract. To me: if you (the hypothetical you) are in the middle of performing a service, and a behaviour of a third party prompts you to cancel that service - it seems to me as though you are threatening to walk out. Not-withstanding this, I asked Kiwi if that is what he meant and he replied that he did not - unless the situation got way outta control (we seem to agree).

So, to wave the contract and say, "I got crap pics because your guests kept interfering; here are the photos of them standing in the way - but your problem - not my fault.". That seems fair.

But, to wave the contract and say, "Your guests keep getting in the way so, I am leaving." That, to me, seems outrageous and a dereliction of what you have been hired to attempt to do. Again, if a threat surfaces eg. a fist fight or verbal abuse etc. That would be grounds to split.

It seems that if you agree with that, there is no us & them: there is only us. :D

And in particular it doesnt seem to long ago, that you were needing help about images that were used by your school when you hadnt wanted them to be used, and you sought advice from Photographers.
A totally different issue. This was about my property being stolen, not me not liking my work environnent but, if you'd like me to start up about the 3rd world conditions that most public school teachers are forced to endure (filthy toilets, workspaces that do not comply with OH&S standards - as the NSW govt has exempted the DET, same for fire and egress regulations etc, etc.), I'm happy to give you a three hour lecture. :D

So its probably more productive to remove the hint of a "them and us" approach. The reason most people have this type of clause is because they have been commissioned or employed to provide a service. And if something stops them from providing that service, then they need some business protection to explain themselves. That would be standard for many services.
And, that is fair enough but, that shouldn't allow the 'tog to march out on a whim.

For instance you are employed, I recall to teach children, what you're not employment does not cover, (again if I recall correctly) is to take and provide pictures. And that is within your terms and conditions of your contract of employment. I'm sorry, your wording has me at a loss.

As a teacher, what do you do when you are probably reasonably regularly faced with a child who simply will not comply with the rules and regulations of the school. I believe that your schools last resort is to exclude that child ? Its a situation which is simply not workable for either party.

WRONG!

A school never has the right to exclude a child (I'm talking about NSW public). Exclusions can only be by the Minister and therefore, becomes very political.

I have VERY few rights to remove a child from my class. I may only do it if a child becomes a threat. Even then, I am responsible for that child until s/he is in the care of another teacher. So, if I say, "Go to the principal." and the child, on the way, trips, self-harms, gets into a fight, runs away, gets abducted by aliens etc., I'm responsible. We even have to be careful of moving them within the classroom: standing them nose to the corner (remember that) is now considered abuse, as is hands on heads etc (physical torture); even moving them away from their friends is a risk as you can be accused of socially isolating them.

So, only in the most extreme circumstances can I even think of getting rid of a kid - and even then, it's usually not worth all the arse covering I'd have to do.

So back to the wedding. The couple have been given a good explanation by their paid or professional photographer, that to "get the right shots" they need unimpeded access. So in general its the couple's responsibility, often accomplished by the best man to explain to the guests what the agreed protocol is - ie most photographers would want to set up their shots first, and then encourage the guests to go for it. And that would be explained and one hopes that the photographer would also gently make that known as well. I know I would always do that, and never had a problem. The real trouble happens when the couple who may be expecting that one particular action shot, which will probably have been even discussed well before the event, and a guest unintentionally gets in the way, and that shot is missed. Its at that point, having a clause in your contract is the most important about client cooperation.

No issue there.

So I'd agree with Campo entirely.

And if some "dammed parents" (sorry but the irony here made me laugh, as I have many friends and family who are teachers) were in your classroom, or in a classroom environment (like an excursion), and got in your way or made it difficult to teach, I think you would be happy to have a clause in your contract, which would enable you to go up to them and quietly and politely remind them that you have a role to play, a task to complete, and that their actions were hindering your work. Lets be honest here, you would appreciate that wouldnt you ? ;)I'd love it but, it'll never happen. You think brides can be unreasonable... you ain't seen nothing yet? Parents?????

Each of these are actual things parents have said to me over the years.

"My child needs special help because she is so special and I want her to have an advantage."
"My child was not at fault, he threw the garbage can at the other kid's head is self-defence - (5 times)."
"My girl can't do the test today because it's her period - (for the 12th time this month)."
"Why the F###ing hell can't you get my F###ing child to stop swearing?"
"Well, I do think it is reasonable that I ring you at work 3 times a day to ask about my child."
"You're a public servant; my taxes pay your salary; you work for me."
"Why can't my kid listen to her iPod or make phone calls in class? It helps her to concentrate."

and, my favourite: when on an excursion, we stopped at the public toilets outside Circular Quay (Sydney city) railway station. One 15 year old girl opened the toilet cubical door and interrupted 2 homosexual men (yes, in the ladies) 'going at it'. The men, punched her to the ground then fled. The girl was superficially injured but understandably in a bit of shock. That afternoon, the girl's angry parents came to the school looking for someone to blame and actually said to me (with an accusatory tone),

"Why didn't you go in with [his daughter] to make sure it was safe?"

I then pointed out the obvious;

"I'm a man. If I did [go into a toilet with your 15 yo girl], we'd be having a whole different conversation. Probably through the bars at the police lock-up."

That appeal to common sense only incensed the strange man. :rolleyes:

And all I am allowed to say is

"Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir... I think you'll have to speak to the principal about that."

:D

Bridezillas, ppffftt, after some parents, I'd eat those pussy cats for breakfast.:D

Scotty

Longshots

20-01-2011, 1:47pm

I think the simplest way I can respond to all of your points Scotty is to say that looking back to the original topic, no half decent photographer is going to walk out on a wedding. I've personally never heard of that. But to explain that just because someone has a clause in their terms and conditions that they should have free access isnt a case of if they dont they'll throw a tantrum, but simply because they are looking at achieving the best from the event - ie a case of common sense.

Last resorts are rare if ever used.

This situation that the OP raised, strikes me that communication failed by virtually all parties, especially the OP.

My reference to your earlier situation about images used incorrectly or illegaly, was to refer to that same need for terms and conditions.

And thanks I'm well aware of teachers crap conditions, my partner works in the education system, and my mother was also a teacher for a couple of decades :)

And just a small point, but I was meant to use an analogy that as a last resort a school can expel a child from a school. And I'm not sure if I garbled that part of my message, but a quick check confirms what I mean to say, and that is a school principal can expel a student from a school as a last resort. The relevant Minister is the only one who can expel a child entirely from the school system - reference:

http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/studentsupport/programs/behaviour.php

And yes, you and I are in total agreement on the issue of parents and brides - I've always completely enjoyed the interactions between myself, the brides and guests, its never them that have been the issue. Its virtually always been the parents/mother of the brides that led me to leave the wedding market :th3: