Ok...I did this to myself....

<p>A bride who's wedding I was booked to shoot sent me an e-mail a few weeks before the event and asked if it was okay for "a friend" who was just getting started in the business to take a few photos for her portfolio. </p>

<p>Now - I'm like most of you - I have an exclusivity clause in my contract - which I pointed out to the bride, but I said "sure - as long as she stays out of the way and doesn't grab people and pull them aside" - I'd be okay - even asked if the friend would 2nd shoot for me. Didn't get a response from the bride - but did get the balance due on the wedding. </p>

<p>The wedding was last weekend and it was perfect. The friend came up to me and introduced herself - she then proceeded to start to fire off a bunch of candid shots of bride, groom, etc... before the ceremony. (Bride and Groom did not want to see each other - so most formals were later.) She (Friend) then makes a remark that the location that the actual ceremony will be in is kind of shady / dark - I respond - well - that is one reason that I have my SB-800 on. (among others) - She responds - well would have been nice if you (me) had set up an umbrella - (umm... okay but it's a small gazebo and there's already 15 people in it (6 bm's 6 gm, bride groom and minister) so - not a lot of room, plus even if I had set up a flash in there - I would have triggered it with pocket wizards and not visually. </p>

<p>So during ceremony she is moving around and I'm moving around - both trying to stay out of each other's way... would have been great if she had just sat - again my fault for not telling her that up front. </p>

<p>After ceremony - I wait until most, if not all have greeting the B/G and offered their congratulations. I grab wedding party and head over to spot where bride wants formals - other photographer asks Bride - is it okay if I tag along ? Bride says of course. (at least my 5th mistake of the day.) </p>

<p>We do the formals - I do the posing - and wrangling - take my shots - then she shoots. We get done - it's hot and the wedding party wants to start the party - she (other photographer) then suggests a few of the "cute" poses for the group. Group obliges her and then she dismisses them... keeping bride and groom. We do about 20 minutes of the bride / groom by themselves then finally call it. </p>

<p>Reception - she shoots a few candids and the cake / dances. After she sits and eats and has a beer or two. Me? No food - bride offered, but I'm shooting kisses, family and toasts. And definitely no drinks. </p>

<p>Next day - edited photos from her start showing up on Facebook. Bride / friends etc all are commenting how creative she is and how good she is... um... HELLO?? No mention of me or my being the primary photographer. </p>

<p>So - what did I learn?<br>

1) next time I get asked the question or a similar one - the answer will be No. or if it's a yes - here's an agreement that the photographer will have to sign - No claiming the wedding, No facebooking the images etc.... If it means I keep the retainer but lose the balance - so be it. </p>

<p>2) Make sure that everyone is on the same page. I feel that even though I'm the official photographer - the plan is to not buy any images from me much less use any of them. </p>

<p>3) Next time - I will ask the bride to provide me with contact information in advance so I can talk to them in advance and ask the right questions. </p>

<p>Suggestions? Comments? </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Sounds like the most important thing, here, is that the amateur beat you to releasing a couple of social-media-friendly proofs to amuse the bride and her family/friends. That has to be a new priority for pros working an event: at least an immediate sign of life for that all-important new communication channel.</p>

<p>Dave - could you or someone elaborate on what you mean by "...ask the right questions" (number 3 on your list). What would those questions be?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>Pretty much the same thing happened to me a couple years ago, at one of the first weddings I shot. Same story—avid amateur photographer friend of bride has asked bride if he could come and take photos. I did talk to him beforehand and tried, very nicely—I'm a nice guy and not pushy—to explain my "rules" (basically, stay out of my shots and don't get in my way). He agreed. I also asked him to come to the rehearsal so we could talk a bit more and perhaps do some coordination in advance.</p>

<p>He didn't come to the rehearsal. That should have told me something.</p>

<p>At the wedding, I did ask him to shoot from the other side of the church, and that worked okay.</p>

<p>But after the wedding, while I was trying to shoot formals and deal with moving people on and off, the bride disappears and then I see he's pulled her aside to do a portrait of her. That's when I really should have pulled HIM aside and had a brief chat.</p>

<p>At the reception it got worse. He's in quite a few of my photos, including some that would have been much nicer without him.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>I understand that these days, 2 out of 3 guests have SOME kind of camera with them at the wedding, if it's only a cell phone. 1 out of 5 seems to bring something better than a cell phone. Some of these photos DO show up online very quickly, because the takers go home, and I think some of them just upload the files straight from their camera. Somebody here posted very recently about somebody else (may have been the videographer) who was either selling prints or showing a slideshow of photos taken minutes ago, while the reception was still in progress!</p>

<p>I also understand that it's my job to make sure that MY photos are much better than those taken by the amateurs.</p>

<p>Still, I found that experience very frustrating and I work now to avoid a repeat. It's not the real amateurs that bother me. It's the enthusiast friend. It's much easier to take one or two good photos when you are attending the wedding without any real responsibilities. If you miss the kiss, or the vows or the bouquet toss, or whatever, it doesn't matter, because you weren't being paid to shoot them and in fact you had no obligation to shoot anything. So you can stroll around and just take the photos you feel like taking.</p>

<p>That would be fine except when the enthusiast starts to compete with the pro. That one time a couple years ago, I found it rather distracting.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>In the end, this may be a problem that has no simple solution. So many people have cameras you simply can't control who is doing what. You and I were both asked in advance. But now I find that there are folks at weddings with DSLRs who are simply going around and taking their own photos and don't think to ask me or the bride. There's nothing you can do about that.</p>

<p>Bottom line: You have to be better than the amateurs and the enthusiasts. If the bride has to wait for your photos, you have to make the photos worth the wait. In my case, I've started hedging my bets by (a) continuing of course to try always to make my photos better than any amateur's but (b) by getting "proofs" online very quickly, within days of the wedding. I think this is critically important now. Clients have no patience, a limited attention span, and if I can't deliver photos for weeks, well, by that time the wedding is old news, at least for some of my younger clients.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p> Regarding FB, you sound a little jealous that she is getting praises and none are given to you. You gotta expect that from people, they like getting all the credit, and people will always praise someone they know. From your story it sounds like she lost her respect for you as a professional and started seeing you as just a person with a camera " <strong>I grab wedding party and head over to spot where bride wants formals - other photographer asks Bride - is it okay if I tag along ? Bride says of course.". </strong>All I gotta say is that sucks, but it wouldnt be a fun career without competition.</p>

<p>If you aren't selling by the image/print, what does it matter if other guests, including wanna be wedding photographers, put images up on social networking sites, or anywhere online, actually? Any one of them can claim they were the primary photographer at the wedding. Sure, their images can dilute the couple's reception of you wedding images, but the fact that they hired you instead of letting their wanna be friend shoot the wedding should at least give you some confidence. If you are worried, process 3-5 images from the wedding overnight and put them up on your blog or e-mail them to the couple. Then take your time with the rest of the images.</p>

<p>I would be and am, more concerned about the actual wedding day behavior. The last 5 weddings I've shot, there has been someone with a serious kit shooting 'with deliberation', at 3 of them. They all had varying degrees of interference with what I was doing, none of them serious enough for me to take aside to have a 'chat'.</p>

<p>However, I do not invite them to join me in sessions, and if asked will decline their tagging along. If forced to deal with them because the bride gave them permission to tag along, over my wishes, I tolerate them, but will speak up if they start shooting over my shoulder or start directing the couple--particularly the latter, because time is always in short supply.</p>

<p>As for the rest of the day, I will speak up if they are running around during the ceremony, particularly if there are strict rules, and if they are running around during the reception. The last one was dancing into the crowd on the dance floor and whirling around with the camera over her head, firing her flash direct. I used to help people like this, and give them chances to shoot. No more.</p>

<p>Matt - Yes - exactly what I did - got some up on FB right away. </p>

<p>Chris - Questions would be: How many weddings? What are you going to do with the photos? Are they for Portfolio use only? </p>

<p>Will - Spot on. I have a person who even though is a friend is my toughest critic. She will pick on the slightest imperfection in any photo she reviews of mine. Then she makes me fix it and promise to not do it again - This has made me a much better photographer. </p>

<p>Alex - I don't think she lost respect - You have to have it in the first place to lose it. Yes - there probably is a touch of the green eyed monster there, but my FB friends are very complementary too... There's competition and then there's ethics...IMHO. She did make a comment on her fb page that she wishes she could have "stole" the b/g away for a few more shots (assuming without me around). </p>

<p>Nadine - I don't count on print sales - so I price my work accordingly - print sales are almost like a tip to me. The annoyance factor comes in that if someone happens to stumble across her photos and mine - they would be wondering just who shot these? The bride did preface her asking me if it was okay with "Are you still planning to shoot our wedding?" my guess is that if I had hesitated or paused she may have said - Okay fine. But since I said Yes and had a signed contract this may have been the easy path for the bride. </p>

<p>Dave. </p>

<p>Dave, I'm one of those amateur-enthusiasts so my thoughts might shed some light on the situation, albeit not necessarily representative of all those like myself.</p>

<p>I would definitely be respectful of a pro's responsibilities to get the shots and make judgements about what's appropriate conduct if not explicitely explained. Being a series amateur and acquiring somewhat of a reputation among friends, my objective as a casual guest shooter would be the same as yours - to get as many good shots as I possibly can without getting in the way, and here's the rub: while I'm not competing against the pro-shooter, I'll also be unaware of what might be perceived as resentful conduct.</p>

<p>I concur with Will's remark about the common use of cameras at such events; it's an unavoidable sign of the times so people like me will only be even more common. For the most part, I also think wedding couples have the desire to compile as many photos as they can<em> in addition </em>to those from their hired pro, and will often see no conflict.</p>

<p>This might also touch on an unrelated topic - shooting style - which from (at least some) enthusiasts' perspective might expect a pro to have the versatility to make artistic photos of a potentially chaotic situation.</p>

<p>I also concur with Will's bottom line. The very definition of competition has perhaps changed and is no longer limited to other pros. Amateurs like myself will continue to do our best as friends and family of the couple, for free, with accomplishment and a what little gratitute received as our reward. </p>

<p>Thanks Michael - </p>

<p>I agree that the horse has left the barn so to speak - it's completely unrealistic to think that there isn't going to be a herd of folks at a wedding with DSLR's and yes - they can probably get them on FB much quicker than a pro will. </p>

<p>To me - differences between a pro and amateur are becoming increasing meaningless in terms of equipment. (she was shooting with an EOS 7d and nice lenses, Me with a D700 and D300 and equally nice lenses) And for the record no one represented her as an amateur. </p>

<p>Competition is going to continue - I get that... and friends with camera's add an additional level to it. </p>

<p>I forgot to add - I do agree with Nadine - I too used to offer to help people with settings and questions at weddings and stop them when they were about to do a no-no... No more from me either. </p>

<p>It is a complex and multifaceted issue. It will get more commonplace.</p>

<p>One facet is the Friend had <strong><em>different rapport with the Bride</em></strong> than did the Photographer.</p>

<p>Another facet is the Friend was playing the game <strong><em>by different rules to the Professional Photographer</em></strong></p>

<p>In regard to “assisting” - I note that the critiques and responses we place here, in this forum, <strong><em>are indeed vital assistance to those wanting to Shoot and then Facebook a Wedding,</em></strong> before the pro even begins their PP.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael--I don't resent people like you. What I am concerned about is how your behavior impacts me doing my job. There are only so many 'best spots and angles'. There is only so much time. Many times, enthusiasts are unaware that they are interfering, causing time loss and distraction. For example, an enthusiast might think that the best place for him or her would be behind me, or off to the side, when I am photographing. What they don't realize is that I might want to drop back suddenly or move off to the side quickly--right where they are standing, as part of my game plan to get the action--sometimes action that can't be repeated. Or I am anticipating some action, and waiting for the peak moment to shoot, when an enthusiast suddenly blasts into the space and starts directing. Multiply this scenario by however many enthusiasts are at the wedding, and there are many these days.</p>

<p>Yes, most couples think 'more is more', and need to be educated about quality vs. quantity, and the possible detrimental effects of having too many shooters. And while one of the characteristics of a pro wedding photographer is the ability to make artistic images even in chaotic situations, ask yourself how much better the images can be if the photographer didn't have the distractions of yet another shooter to worry about. Or it could get to the point that the photographer actually begins to miss shots or have shots ruined because of the enthusiast(s).</p>

<p>I surely don't think enthusiasts should disappear off the face of the earth. I understand the desire to use one's camera for fun (pros were enthusiasts at one point too) and to give one's friends a gift. I just question the real motivation of some of the enthusiasts I have been seeing lately. At least David's shooter identified herself as a would be wedding photographer. Just ask yourself if you are shooting for the sake of your friends or for your own ego. I'm not criticizing you because I don't know you--just saying that I suspect for some enthusiasts, the ego is more important.</p>

<p>What a pro brings to the wedding isn't primarily—how do I put this? It's not primarily talent. The pro doesn't have a monopoly on talent or even the ability to hit a home run. I blogged a bit about this last year some time, noting that in baseball, if you fail to get a hit 7 of every 10 times you're at bat, that's a .300 average and means YOU ARE REALLY GOOD. And even a rookie just up from the minors can hit a home run now and again. I'd say that my batting average as a photographer is way better than .500, that is, more often than not, my photos are at least base hits: they meet basic standards of correct exposure, composition, etc. But just as in baseball, the guys with the great averages are often NOT the ones who hit the most home runs. I'd prefer to have a lousier average if I hit more home runs. In the long run, it's the home runs people remember—not the singles.</p>

<p>What the pro brings is consistency, reliability. You hire me (or any of the consistent, reliable pros here in this forum) you can be pretty sure that I'm going to give you a large number of good to very good photos. If my camera breaks, I'm prepared. If my lens or flash units don't work, I'm prepared. If the light sucks, I know how to handle that. I have actually shot group photos before and have some idea what I'm doing. I know how to act in church and I'm not going to embarrass myself or you or get you in trouble with your pastor or wedding coordinator. I'm probably NOT going to post a photo of you in which you look drunk. With any luck, I will also come up with at least a couple really nice, memorable shots of your day. But even the shots that aren't in my BEST OF gallery, are going to be technically competent. And there will be plenty of them. And I will do it all without much food, without much of a break, and while working under a fair amount of pressure.</p>

<p>The enthusiast, on the other hand, doesn't HAVE to be consistent. Doesn't have to worry about his batting average. He doesn't work under pressure. He doesn't even have to show up. If his (inevitably) one camera breaks, no big deal, he is now free to party. He isn't responsible for anything at all. </p>

<p>What makes the enthusiast so annoying (to me) is that, if he has SOME talent, and if he takes enough photos, there's an increasing chance that he WILL hit a home run. I don't see anything that can be done about that, either. Worse, it's hard to begrudge the bride one nice photo that she would not have gotten if I'd been a little pushier.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>My response (which is evolving) currently has two dimensions.</p>

<p>First, I increasingly think of myself as a vendor. I am there to do a job like the caterer and the disk jockey. I come, I do the job asked of me, I get paid. Disk jockeys in their forums probably kvetch about Uncle Bob who brings his guitar and sings "The Way You Look Tonight," bringing everybody to tears. After that, who remembers the DJ? In short, the wedding isn't about ME or my "art". (I never really thought otherwise, but I've become more conscious of the fact.)</p>

<p>But second—and kind of on the other hand—I've personally have started to push prints or at least books. I don't give high-res files away any more. I make it increasingly necessary to buy the prints through me. This is clear to my clients up front. I explain that high-quality prints are treasures. Low-quality web images look like cr*p on half of monitors on which they'll be viewed, and they disappear from your Facebook "wall" in a few days. And if you are shooting for quick display on Facebook, well, it's hard to compete with the amateurs in that game, not just on price, but on quality, too. </p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>Michael made some good points, please allow me to make a few more. Weddings are serious but they should also be fun, right? Being 'respectful of a pro's responsibilities' and 'making judgements about appropriate conduct', not quite sure what that all means but it doesn't sound like too much fun to me. As a family photographer, I have taken thousands of pictures at more than a few family weddings, sometimes as the main photographer and sometimes not, but always for fun and for free. Luckily, that allows me to eat and drink as much as I want and miss 'important' photos every now and then. So far I have been having a ball and don't think I've gotten in the way yet. I'll continue taking family wedding photos whenever asked, and recently I've been asked a lot, since the proof is in the pudding, as they say. And these nice modern digital cameras make it easy and fun. Cheers! </p>

<p>It seems the biggest concern is impact on sales, if that applies, and what Nadine discusses boiled down to interference with your ability to do the job. I come down on the side of not bringing people in even with agreements and understandings as they may still get out of hand. One excpetion I see is if Uncle Bob or Ms. Pro freind of Bride shows up and interferes anyway. Giving them tasks may work out better than all or nothing confrontations.</p>

<p>Lots of photographers have exclusivity clauses and/or anti-interference clauses but don't spell out the remedy or consequences of breaching. Getting the ability to walk away seems to be overkill unless its needed to deter sales loss situations. It seems very fair to disclaim responsibility for the bad effects of any interference if its not a sales loss issue. Dealing with other photographers is a fact of life and there are ways to incorporate them in to what you are doing but the more friendly control that can be exercised, the less likely things will get out of control.</p>

<p>Michael Chang and Greg C make valid and worthwhile points - all of which personally I absorbed and with most of which I agree.</p>

<p>BUT, the scenarios they both outline are NEITHER within the discipline nor the framework of the situation or actions, described in the OP.</p>

<p>Clearly David's position was that he was <strong><em>accommodating and assisting</em></strong> a person "who was just getting started <em><strong>in the business</strong></em> to take a few photos <em><strong>for her portfolio</strong></em>."</p>

<p>This is entirely a different kettle of kippers to being "<strong><em>one of those amateur-enthusiasts</em></strong>" or "<strong><em>a family photographer . . . [having] taken thousands of pictures at more than a few family weddings</em></strong>"</p>

<p>Reverse the situation: I teach; I hold workshops; I have an exclusivity clause (apropos other professionals on site) - how would the Bride react if I answered - "yeah NO PROBS that will be 500 extra for the on-site live workshop and OK for her to shoot professionally on my assignment."</p>

<p>Likely the Bride would assume I was an arrogant self opinionated pig (well I am prone to hyperbole) – but seriously <strong><em>where is the line of arrogance begin and end?</em></strong></p>

<p>Pima facie - <strong><em>the "friend” had chutzpah</em></strong> . . . and plenty of it. (And I like Juxtaposed Metaphors - too) . . .</p>

<p>If it spirals badly the Bottom Line ends up being: "<strong><em>Sorry honey, you're interfering - please rack off!" </em></strong><br>

That is of cause unless one is a <strong><em>Photojournalist </em></strong>– then just take pictures of her taking the pictures – complete documentary.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>John H writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems the biggest concern is impact on sales, if that applies, and what Nadine discusses boiled down to interference with your ability to do the job. ...<br>

Lots of photographers have exclusivity clauses and/or anti-interference clauses but don't spell out the remedy or consequences of breaching. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, it's not the loss of sales. In the digital market, sales are a problem no matter what you do. I push prints not because amateurs are hurting my sales but because I think my photos look their best in print, and because prints are good way to distinguish my work from that of the Facebook shooters.</p>

<p>As for remedies: My contact states that the reason for the exclusivity clause is precisely to minimize interference with my ability to do the best job possible for the clients. There is no remedy. Failure to comply with this condition has, rather, a result: potentially less excellent photos. (One wants to put this carefully....)</p>

<p>In this sense, the exclusivity clause is just another version of my cooperation clause (which says that if the groom doesn't smile all day long, don't gripe later that there are few photos of the groom smiling).</p>

<p>I've done news photography on and off throughout my life, and that's how I learned photography as a student eons ago. It's funny but I find it easier to shoot alongside another PRO—even competitively—than with what I've been calling an enthusiast. For one thing, another pro doesn't want ME in HIS shots any more than I want him in mine.</p>

<p>I really like William Porter's 2nd and 3rd post....lots of good info there.</p>

<p>I've said it plenty of times before, shooting weddings is about 50% photography and 50% people skills which includes handling intrusive newbies (with opinions) and getting the job done on a cheerful, fun note without the later resentments. David has learned a valuable lesson here. Comments about exclusivity clauses and how people "should" behave won't change this situation or how it can be handled in the future. Sophomoric comments suggesting that David was wrong for being bothered by the behavior largely betrays a lack of pro-oriented perception of the issues. People keep under-estimating the true skill and craftsmanship required to shoot weddings around here. It's not art, it's not a hobby, it's a wedding. No second chances and no excuses.</p>

<p>I agree that friendly accommodations are the best in every case. I would never walk off a job because other shooters were present, even if they were interfering. In the past, I've tried to make enthusiasts my impromptu assistants/second shooters, but you can't do that when there are five of them present at the same time.</p>

“other photographer asks Bride - is it okay if I tag along ? Bride says of course.”

 

At this point I would have said to the couple “we have x minutes to get all the formal photographs for your wedding album it’s going to be very tight and I want to do the best job possible, I’ll start once Amateur Friend has got her pictures”.

 

Bride can then be the one to decide if she is happy having their photo time consumed with her amateur friend’s pics or not and if there is no time left it was her decision and you still get paid.

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Clearly David's position was that he was <strong>accommodating and assisting</strong> a person "who was just getting started <strong>in the business</strong> to take a few photos <strong>for her portfolio</strong>."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a good point, William. Perhaps what we've really observed is the subject photographer's inability to differentiate which hat to wear - be a guest, enjoy its privileges and take no responsibility, or be a starting pro and behave accordingly.</p>

<p>Clearly there can't be a legal clause to cover every possible scenario and this example may indeed be more of an exception, but I would see nothing wrong with something like a 30 second announcement:<br>

<em>"On this very special day, it's my job to document this beautiful event to the best of my ability, and part of that will require my exclusive access to the bride/groom and their family as I'm sure you'll all understand, and your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Thank you." </em></p>

<p>It'd be no different from asking guests to turn off their cellphone ringer.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>I suspect for some enthusiasts, the ego is more important."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nadine, about ego, I can't speak for others, but my motivation would be just as yours - to make beautiful pictures - not because I'm paid but rather because I'm a friend/family of the B/G and I want this additional gift to them to please them. I would also impose the same pressure on myself as a working pro to deliver after the event.</p>

<p>My most recent experience was a friend's 20th anniversary, no hired photographer, nothing was expected of me, but I brought my still camera and 2 video cameras; one around my neck and the other on a tripod. Shot about 100 stills and 2 (total) hours of video. Tweaked the stills and edited the videos, all for the love for my friend, and it was a <em>ton</em> of work. Ego? Not an ounce, and I suspect most enthusiasts shoot for the same reasons. </p>

<p>As I said, Michael--I don't know you so I wasn't criticizing you. However, I would say that in your example, bringing all that gear and shooting all you did was fine, <strong>since there was no hired photographer</strong>. If you had done what you did at a wedding where there was a hired photographer--if I was that photographer--I would suspect ego. Maybe not with the video, if there wasn't a professional videographer, but certainly with the stills.</p>

<p>I can tell almost instantly if an enthusiast is there for 'pure' reasons or not. If you are there purely to provide some gift photos, you do not need to be mobile during the ceremony, you don't need to be photographing the bride getting ready, you don't need to be photographing the cake cutting and you certainly don't need to be photographing any part of the formals or romantics session with the couple. What you can provide that would really be valuable to the couple are images that take advantage of the fact that you are related or a close friend, since you know the couple and know who are important to the couple. While the hired photographer is taking group pictures or romantics of the couple, for instance, photograph the bride's niece doing something cute. Photograph the bride's face as she reacts to you and your camera. Those are the kinds of images that the hired photographer may not take (in the case of the latter, <strong>can't</strong> take), and that would mean something to the bride and/or groom. </p>

<p>So a better gift would be not contributing to the media frenzy that almost always forms at weddings these days, so no, I don't agree that most enthusiasts shoot without an ounce of ego.</p>

<p>I have a perfect solution: Get booked by less wealthy couples who have less wealthy family members and friends who can't afford such nice, expensive equipment and are therefore not as likely to interfere as much.</p>

<p>There has never been a particularly interfering or troublesome photographer in any of my weddings. A few slightly annoying on rare occasion...but I have had much more difficulty with videographers as a general rule.</p>

<p>Who knows, if the photographer has some good ideas, I am open to listening and learning.</p>

<p>>>but it wouldnt be a fun career without competition.<<</p>

<p>Do you really think that's what makes it fun? Never thought of it that way, especially when trying to work a wedding.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I havent read the whole thing. The only comment that I could add is that we have to Start working out of Prints. Technology is involving us every day more and more. What I do is give them a Package that Includes some Images printed at my prices, and y also give them a DVD with all the Images. Of course, I sell them the DVD, and there are 2 DVD's, one with watermarts on the images, and one without them, of course, the last one is more expensive.</p>

<p>I bet, in the next 5 years, people will stp printing, and they will start showing albumes on their iphones, ipads, or those Digital Portraits, etc, etc, etc. so we need to adapt the business to the Future.</p>

<p>I think all the comments are on point. I think we will see an increase of these types of incidents as dslr's get cheaper and easier to operate. Two weeks ago I attended 3 weddings in one weekend. I was a guest at the Friday and Sunday weddings and carried my G11 because my wife wanted to capture some candids of the dancing (not the couples first dance) and the cake (by itself). She made sure to stay out of the hired professional's shots. Other people just walked right into his shot at the ceremony (crappy PS) and some woman with a Fong diffuser and a Sony dslr tried to move him to the side.<br>

At the wedding I shot (Saturday) I had to contend with cellphones and stuff, but the main thing the mother of the bride and some of the quests were concerned about was when they could see the photos. I am still finishing up some of the shots as we speak, but I quickly edited a few of the fun shots and posted them to my website and facebook page.<br>

Who knows what is next but it will put pressure on a lot of wedding photographers if they expect something in less than a week.</p>