It's a GOOD IDEA to check out what's behind you

<p>Couple walks down the aisle, photographer shooting away, backs right into baptismal pool with both cameras going underwater.... looks like a Canon L lens or two.</p>

<p><br /><br />Always check out your path if you're going to be backing up, or have an assistant to guide you.</p>

<p><br /><br />expensive foul up.<br /><br />http://www.break.com/index/wedding-photographer-fail.html</p>

<p>Yes...when I walk backward for the recessional, I am always turning my head around to see what is behind me every few steps. I also avoid backing up otherwise. I've fallen over my own bag/gear before. It is very embarrassing, if not as serious in consequence as having gear go under water.</p>

<p>OMG!!!! That is the deepest font I have ever seen, more like a horse trough.<br>

I have backed into a high one and gotten the bruises to show for it.<br>

Hope his second got someting from earlier in the day since all those images are probably toast.<br>

Back up clothing anyone?</p>

<p>Backing into the wedding cake can also cause embarassment.</p>

<p>Actually, the memory cards are probably just fine, for the images that were already written. The flash was on, so it is probably toast. The camera bodies and lenses--maybe fixable, maybe not. At least it wasn't salt water. And at least the photographer is OK.</p>

<p>A good example for having a second back up set of gear.</p>

<p>He was being incredibly intrusive. I wonder if he really needs to do that to get a good picture?</p>

<p>At least the couple got a good video out of it.</p>

<p>Dying to know the what-came-next!</p>

<p>I've backed into and knocked over a glass vase. crash, shatter, done. Luckily it was a cheapy and not during anything important. That looks absolutely awful though.</p>

<p>On the plus side, the flash memory will probably survive. :)</p>

There's no reason he shouldn't have backed all the way up to get out of the way and then adjusted his zoom as the couple advanced. His behavior seems very intrusive to me. Instant karma.

<p>Some things are just priceless and for everything else there is Mastercard. In recession hit times it is good to venture out into other professions and this gentleman is obviously an expert at being a photographer and a clown. </p>

 

<p>Once in a very tight room, I backed into a big candle display and had hot wax spill all down the back of my shirt. My entire back was hardened wax the rest of the evening ... LOL! </p>

<p>Yes, it burned, but not severely. Better me than the Bride. </p>

<p>Yes, it was my fault, but it was also a really stupid place to put stacks of open flame lit display candles.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Always check! A videographer here on Long Island was photographing the bride and groom coming out of the hall and backed up into the street, got hit by a car and killed. True story, about 2 years ago. Now I myself am a klutz. One time I wash shooting a large group in an empty room and as I was backing up to get the entire room, one of the wait staff put something on the floor in my way and I fell backwards right through a wall. Cheaply made. Anyway, always look out.</p>

<p>So, perhaps the moral or lesson would be: " careful when zoom with your feet", or rather use appropriate equipment.<br>

Hopefully, that ws a holy water...:)</p>

 

<p>As a non-professional, I have a question for all you pros out there. Are all wedding photogs this intrusive. I may be completely off-base but I cannot believe how much he was in the way.</p>

<p>Barry--obviously, not all wedding photographers photograph the recessional this way. Why would you expect everyone to do it the same way? Just as you consider the photographer's behavior in the video 'intrusive', others may not.</p>

<p>I can tell you that walking backwards in front of the couple during the recessional (for the professional wedding photographer) is something that was commonly done in years past. It was not then considered rude or intrusive. However, in the past, one could not gun a camera at all, and one may not have had very fast film or been able to use long teles as effectively (if at all, if you go back a number of years).</p>

<p>Also consider that in today's environment of everyone and their brother having cameras, if you hang back at the end of the aisle, for sure, someone will step into the aisle in front of you and block your shot. And, let me ask you--intrusive to whom? The ceremony is done, and there is no sacredness to uphold. The couple in the video do not look annoyed at all. So intrusiveness is in the eye of the beholder, no?</p>

<p>I am not defending one way or the other. Just saying there is no one right way or wrong way.</p>

<p>Nadine - All good points. Thanks for taking the time to explain.</p>

<p>That shooter will always check his backside from now on.........Fonts should have better safety measures in place for liability insurance purposes, the ones in our LDS meetinghouse fonts have a thick Plexiglas protection to keep kids from drowning.</p>

<p>Oh lord I hope he had insurance.</p>

I hope he learned a lesson. Why did he have to be in the couple's face and fire the flash 18 times? He is supposed to record the event not be part of it. During the ceremony did he snap his fingers and shout, "Hey, face this way and smile".

<p>Oh jeezers, looks dreadful..... I knew a fellow backed up into a pond while doing formals at a park, broke something, his arm, head, rib, anyway in the day of beepers I got beeped by a friend who ownd a big studio, he ran to finish the formals, I went to the reception, photog went in the ambulance, stuff happens.</p>

The memory cards probably survived if the camera didn't short out the images. I know one person that ran his cards through the washing machine; forgot to take them out of his pocket. The images were perfect, just a bit brighter from the bleach! (kidding)

 

I counted his shots of the bride and groom. There were over 15. It is a shame that he lost all of that gear, it's hard to say if he had a backup or if his day was done. If he was using a 1Ds Mark?, the camera may have survived. They are well sealed, but I have no idea if the cameras can take a hit like that.

 

Poor guy....You have to really feel for him and of course the couple.

<p><em>We ended up with two threads going on this topic. I have already posted the following on the second thread, but I felt it was important to post it here in the wedding forum as well.</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Intrusive"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It all depends on what the couple wants. Without talking to them and the photographer (ignoring his splashdown), we can't pass judgment very accurately. What if they wanted that "up close wide angle" look for the recessional? I've had plenty of people that wanted that sort of "look" to their photos before.</p>

<p>I agree that for many couples, that wouldn't be what they wanted. But some (many?) people are different. Remember, wedding photos are all about the couple's wants. Not about what us as photographers want. If a couple had asked me to stand between the two of them up on the alter with a fisheye lens I would have done so. In fact, for a greek orthodox wedding I once did, I essentially had to do just that. No, not in between them, but I did have to stand up on the altar the whole time due to the way the ceremony is staged and what the couple wanted for photos.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6154012-lg.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="455" /></p>

<p>The video has been posted everywhere online. I just want to express my sympathy for the poor guy, who is a professional photographer, by the way. I didn't find the video funny at all, and don't find comments poking fun at him funny either. Accidents like this can happen to anyone at any time. All it takes is to be distracted by doing the job at hand--I am sure none of you perfect people has ever done that.</p>

<p>Walking backward in front of the couple for the recessional is something that was done for years, and still is--by professional wedding photographers--although there may be regional differences or variations from country to country. This is the way I was trained to photograph weddings. Whatever your opinion of this practice--it is a fact--at least in my experience. If you are a professional wedding photographer now, or even if you aren't professional, you can choose to photograph the recessional as unobtrusively as you want. However, it doesn't mean you have the right to ridicule or condemn the photographer in the video, who was merely doing his job the way he saw fit to do his job. I am sure you would want the same right when shooting your weddings.</p>

<p>I condemn the person who posted the video to begin with. If it was the videographer, he or she should hang his head in shame.</p>

<p>Seems to me to be a temporary case of stupidity. How would you not know that the baptismal pool was there? This happened at the end of the ceremony..... I would suspect that by that point he had taken several images from behind the pool during the ceremony and had even used the pool as a primary feature in some WA shots of the ceremony. He also would have needed to take the pool into account for the processional. It's not as if someone slipped the pool into the isle at the last moment.</p>

<p>Perhaps if he was wearing a suit jacket and not "machine-gunning" recessional shots of the B/G, a more professional/traditional demeanor would have helped. He did have a secondary camera but was wearing it on one of those utility belts that many new shooters like.</p>