Wedding Photography Fail on Youtube

<p>Here's one of your worst nightmares shown in full color on Youtube<br /> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8N0zq0q5s4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8N0zq0q5s4</a></p>

<p>Ohhhhhhh.</p>

<p>That sucks. I feel for that guy. What a day. I hope the images were saved at least.</p>

<p>In addition, I came within inches of having my own version of that once in a baptismal pool.</p>

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>Looks like this was already posted in Wedding/Event. So I'm going to move it to Casual Conv. Yeah yeah, no duplicate posting. But that's one of the joys of running the show here, you can bend the rules if you want.</p>

<p>Oh boy! Another YouTube link that didn't crash Safari! Another confirmation it's not my aging system. Thanks for posting this, JDM.</p>

<p>OK back on topic. So what actually was damaged by submersing the camera in water. The pics should still be useable, right?</p>

<p>Would insurance replace the damaged camera if that were the case?</p>

<p>Sorry Josh, I looked for it, but I guess not hard enough. Thanks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>OK back on topic. So what actually was damaged by submersing the camera in water. The pics should still be useable, right?<br>

Would insurance replace the damaged camera if that were the case?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's so hard to know with electronics. If water got in the lenses, they would likely need cleaning. The bodies might be fried if there was current running through them when they were dunked, or they might just need some drying out. The flashes I would have less hope for, but even then, I'm sure someone out there has a story of dunking their flash and having it come back fine.</p>

<p>If he had real professional photographer insurance, it should cover something like this. When I was shooting professionally (and not just running a giant photography website) my insurance covered everything but war related and natural disaster type losses (if memory serves).</p>

<p>Ahhhh, it was only a bunch of Canon junk. :D</p>

I don't think that was a pro wedding photographer, more likely an Uncle Bob who wanted to be part of the act. I counted 18 flashes as he was in the couple's face as they walked down the aisle. No pro wedding photographer would be that intrusive.

<p>Man I think I saw a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS 'L' series lens, then again it could have been the f4.</p>

<p>A lesson to all those who love primes and argue " I just zoom with my feet." I admire the way that guy backed up with all that hanging gear, he has real spunk. A swimming pool fountain in a church, and noone composed enough to shout a <em>whoah.</em>. Holy mackeral.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No pro wedding photographer would be that intrusive.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yeesh!<br>

Ever see how a (professional) level movie is made?<br>

Ever watch the steady-cam operator?..or any camera operator on set?<br>

How about nearly any top shooter in a dynamic moving environment?</p>

<p>Umm; yeah, they have assistants to prevent such disasters.<br>

This guy was either "uncle Bob or a CL shooter. Yeesh!</p>

<p>Live & learn & swim dude.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Two bodies, at least one L glass, looks like a third lens hanging in a lens case plus a small accessory waste pack. Uncle Bob sure has some nice toys and knows how to carry them.</p>

Kevin,

 

Are you talking about wedding photographers or something else? I saw the same youtube video posted on the Wedding forum and "intrusive" is one word that kept popping up. I was at a wedding this past weekend. The wedding photographer was positioned at the back of the church and popped one or two shots without flash as the happy couple walked up the aisle. With respect to him, I didn't lean out into the aisle to take one of my own shots and get in his way. I wonder if that clown in the video was walking all around the couple during the ceremony, snapping his fingers and saying, "Hey, look this way and smile."

<p>One should be aware of one's surroundings.</p>

<p>I sure wasn't expecting that! I feel for the guy...pro or no.</p>

<p>did uncle pro not have to walk around the baptismal fount to get to the altar?<br>

this is darwin award material, except no one perished.<br>

this is but one more reason to avoid religious establishments.</p>

<p>Here's how a real pro wedding photographer works:</p>

<p>

<p>Hey, that's funny! Thanks for sharing!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Intrusive"?</p>

<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 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 were looking for. But some people are different. Remember, wedding photos are all about the couple's wants. Not the photographer's. 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.<br>

<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6154012-lg.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="455" /></p>