Wedding Paparazzi- put your guns away, please...

[savagesax]

You know whats interesting here is a few of these photographers think they are good photographers and are actually building up samples to start their own business.

 

I've been doing this way too long to worry about others. When doing the formals I'll ask the people to stop until I'm done taking the shot, because the people getting photographed have no idea who's the boss and which camera to look at, the results are a lot of wondering eyes and blinks. I've also had experiences with drunk people basically ignoring me. During these times I will walk up to the bride and groom and ask them to take control of this person, because the photos I take and they paid for won't look as good, due to blinks, smiles, and eyes looking all over the place.

 

If you simple let the people take their shots AFTER you take yours, the photo's you take will be just fine. They key here is not control, but respect for everyone. Let the people take a few shots, if they get carried away, let them know you have a time limit so take there shots a bit faster.

 

It's really not a big deal to let others take some pics. It's a battle you will never win, so let all of the Bob's out there, even "Bob Cossar," take lots of pics! If you get really stressed over this, your artistry will suffer. Your images will look stiff, mistakes will happen.

[charleseagan]

<p>I think I would politely suggest that he practice photojournalistic type of photography of things going on outside of the formal photo sessions and explain that would be of more value than duplicating the formal shots and slowing down the process. I learned my lesson right off the bat on my first wedding, when guests began to distract the wedding party and I had photos of everyone looking in all directions, it was really frustrating. It's difficult for me to check this on-site. So now I just make sure no one is taking pictures around me while I'm shooting.</p>

[woodbyte]

<p>Very interesting debate. Here's my take, from the other side of the fence.</p>

<p>I'm an Inventory Manager by profession and class myself as an obsessive amateur photographer. I really enjoy the hobby and just love taking pictures.</p>

<p>I'm often asked by people (mainly colleagues from work) if I'd take their wedding shots. Now I have had no formal training, just what I've taught myself, and I am not at a level where I'd feel comfortable charging anyone for an image I made. (Although with the economy going south the way it is I may soon start having to)</p>

<p>So what I typically tell people (and I've done this three times now) is tell them to hire a pro for the service and formals, and I'll take candids of the reception.</p>

<p>I've done two that way in Belgium Europe (where I lived) and did one last month in Amercia where I now live. I have progressed much between the first and the third. Having read many of these similar posts I made sure when I arrived ( I was the father of the flower girl, so was hovering round from 11.00am - for a 4pm service) that I went straight to the professional and introduced myself.</p>

<p>I had with me 5D and 1DmkIIN + 70-200, 17-40, 85 1.2, 24-105, 15 fish plus a bunch of other stuff (included tripod....!)</p>

<p>I told him I was an amateur, he was the pro, and I absolutley did not want to get in his way. The B+G had told him I'd be there ( I checked). He was I think a little lost for words at first and I think he was expecting someone with a P+S, but quickly explained this was his show to 8pm (when he was hired till) and I could do what I wanted thereafter. I wouldn't say he was hostile at all, but he was not comfortable with it. I re-explained this was purely a hobby for me and I would nothing to get in his way. We were talking in the apartment of the bride, as he was with her doing some pre service shots (I'd just come round to drop my daughter there)</p>

<p>So I left him alone with a somewhat awkward atmosphere and went to the grooms apartment and got some nice shots of them preparing..</p>

<p>During the service I sat at the very back row - aisle seat (outdoor wedding) so I could turn and get a good view without having to wander round. My wife was furious with me for not moving and getting better shots, but I told here the last thing the pro wants is be bimbling round with all my gear and it may ruin some of his shots.</p>

<p>I got some great shots from the comfort of my chair and respectfully remained in the same place. I was even cautious not to lean out too far whenever the pro was behind me or shooting up the aisle from the alter end.</p>

<p>He went off the to do the formals and I had a great time with candid shots of the guests.</p>

<p>As the B&G were preparing to enter the main reception I was outside and the pro was inside setting up his gear I got another nice shot of the group preparing to enter the hotel.</p>

<p>Throughout the initial dancing then the meal I was cautious to avoid the pro like the plague and really kept out of his way, yet I took plenty of shots. I was fascinated by his set up - he has a big frame with flash attached and a wireless link to some Alien Bees (which I had read about but never seen in action - wow - pretty clever stuff). I was practising between available light and bouncing flash.</p>

<p>Anyway 8pm came and he was packing up his stuff. He had the decency to come over and talk to me, asked if I had any good shots. I showed him a few and then we started talking. He was a really great guy. He's been shooting wedding for past 15 years, showed me how the Alien Bees worked, showed me many of his shots he'd taken, and was just a really nice guy. I'd like to think he appreciated the fact I kept well out of his way.</p>

<p>I then had free reign until midnight and good some nice shots myself. Virtually all candid. I don't like and don't have the desire, to pose people, as I can never get them to look natural.</p>

<p>The OP mentioned machine gun...well with the Friday cocktail party, the Saturday rehersal and the Sunday service I took more the 2,500 shots. I then filtered that down to 1000 ( I really tried for 500 but couldn't pull myself to press that delete key). I spent proably 30-40hours in LR2 doing post edit tweaks and finally gave the B&G 12 DVDs each with 1000 full res images on each to share round their friends and family.</p>

<p>Personally I gained a lot of experience with bounce flash, about not be too afraid to get close to the action, and I improved my workflow in LR2, which is my favourite part.</p>

<p>From my point of view I asked the B&G to ask the pro weeks before if it was OK I was there. (as it they who asked me...) I was coutious and kept well out of his way. I got soem great shots and learned a load more about this very difficult hobby of mine.</p>

<p> </p>

[woodbyte]

<p>example</p><div></div>

[dean_schreuder]

<p>What do you do when you are asked to be<em> </em> a paparazzi photographer at a wedding? That happened to me a week ago at a wedding I attended. The wedding was for the daughter of a friend and I knew ahead of time the bride and groom had already hired a photographer. So I planned on just showing up with my P&S G10 to take some personal photos. But when I showed up with just my G10, the father and mother of the bride asked me "where were my big cameras?"... I told them they were in my trunk and that I didn't want to piss off or get in the way of the hired photographer. They said, "Nonsense... we want as many good photos of this wedding as we can get... Please get your cameras". So I did but I still tried to stay clear of the hired photographer and not get in his way. And I also tried to do my best at taking good "snap shot" style photos and let the hired photographer take the professional photos. So at the end of the day, the bride's family were happy with my "better than average" snap shots of the wedding and at the same time the bride and groom got what they paid for from the hired photographer.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I guess that I find it kind a natural that family and friends would want to take pictures at a wedding. Sometimes that last time all the family were together could have been over ten years ago and many of the guests will probably not even see the wedding photos that the photographer took. Trying to stop people from taking pictures outright does nothing but cause bad feeling and guests will feel that the photographer was being rude. There are plenty of suggestions as to how to get around they problems by being polite and friendly and allowing the guests to get their shots. It's not really anything new and it is not just wedding photographers that have this problem. Even 15 years ago when I shot formals at masonic dinner dances and various other formal evenings people would line up behind me and try to photograph what I had just set up.</p>

[h._p.]

<p>Nice pictures, James. As you say, you got the shots the "pro" didn't.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>First off, this thread has become polarized like so many do. </p>

<p>It's not a matter of letting guests take shots or not ... that is a fact of life. </p>

<p>It's not a matter of being rude to guests that are taking shots, that's just rudeness in return.</p>

<p>I frequently help guests when and if I have the time. At Saturday's wedding I put my SB900 on a guests' Nikon DSLR and set the camera for him so he could see the difference between that and a pop-up flash shot. I also will take someone's P&S and let them get in the picture with their friends. I let other people shoot the formal set ups if there is enough time ... (which there rarely is). </p>

<p>Of course some guest with a nice DSLR is going to get some shots I didn't get ... I'd even encourage that if asked (anything to keep them away from me while I'm shooting : -) </p>

<p>What I do NOT need is a bunch of guests trying to shoot the same thing I'm shooting. I'm perfectly capable, and do not need a shadow. If I think I need one, I'll recommend and bring a second shooter ... which, while not free like an Uncle Bob, is more of a sure thing if the additional images are really all that important.</p>

<p>My respectful suggestion to the camera toting Uncle Bobs and Aunt Marys is to take a few snaps, but for God's sake relax and enjoy your friend or loved ones wedding instead of injecting yourself in the role of pro photographer just because you like to take pictures. It's a wedding, not a photo op designed for your creative outlet. </p>

<p> </p>

[silverdae]

<p>I've only shot a few weddings and events, but from the event perspective, where print sales are a huge chunk of our money, I've been known to take the passive aggressive approach- use one sync cord on one light and let the other trigger optically. They pop their flash and get blown out paparazzi pictures. </p>

<p>Note- I only do this when they are uncontrollabe, or I know the event and the people have a reputation for being overly intrusive.</p>

[michaelchadwickphotography]

<p>This whole sordid problem is one reason why I took prints OUT of the standard packages I offer, and simply make them part of an a la carte list. It is also the primary reason I removed the print "profit" from my business plan. It's just not worth the headache. <br>

I provide my clients with excellent photos from start to finish (as we all do), including time when I am the <em>only</em> one with the B&G (an early poster suggested this, and I absolutely agree). Shots of the ceremony and reception as exclusively the photog's territory is just a thing of the past, so there's no practical benefit in fighting it. <br>

I don't have much problem getting people to provide me with the primary shooting locations and angles. I do so with kindness and even humor (an excellent communicative device) and people usually understand that I am the one being paid to be there. I think part of the reason I get 100% compliance because I'm 6'7" and if one didn't know I'm a nice guy, one might easily find me intimidating. My opera-trained deep bass voice doesn't hurt, either. : )<br>

All kidding aside, telling people beforehand that during group shots you will give them an opportunity to shoot, but that you need your "models" all looking at you first, has NEVER been met with any sort of resistance. I highly recommend that method.</p>

[michaelchadwickphotography]

<p>Jen, that is awesome. I love it!</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>I'm Bob, and I am an uncle!</p>

<p>I don't shoot weddings for a living, but I have shot some as favors for friends and family. When I'm a guest, I don't carry a camera because I'd rather visit people and enjoy the event. After all, the bride and groom already have a competent professional shooting the event!</p>

<p>If I were shooting weddings for a living, I wouldn't worry about Uncle Bob. He may have a nice camera and expensive lenses, but he probably doesn't know how to use flash well. And he certainly can't triggger the flash that the pro has almost certainly set up for the formals. So why worry? You know that your shots will be wayyy better than what most hacks will produce, regardless of the expensive gear that they carry.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I agree completely with Marc. There are big differences between maintaining control during a formals session, fighting off hordes of cell phone/P&S/DSLR shooters otherwise, and trying to defuse a DSLR user bent on building a portfolio or 'giving' the couple what would amount to pretty complete wedding coverage. To add to the problem, now there are more of each kind, particularly the latter. I live in the SF Bay Area, close to Silicon Valley, and all the weddings I've been to where the bride or groom had some connection to the digital or electronics world (and even ones that don't) have been populated with many, many people carting fully blown DSLR rigs, not to mention i-phones and other electronic gizmos.</p>

<p>I don't care if their gear is 'better' than mine. I don't care if they take pictures now and then. Like Marc, I've talked shop with people over gear, loaned flashes and batteries, given some pointers, etc., and one or two people have actually done second shooter work under my direction for that wedding. Before I leave a wedding, I always tell these folks that it was 'up to them' now. If they are nice, I am nice. No problem.</p>

<p>However--as I said above, most people don't know when to cool it and leave their ego at the door. If you like to take pictures, that's great, but if you use your friend's wedding as photographic play time, snapping thousands of images which you turn around and give to the couple, I'd have to second what Marc said about just relaxing and enjoying the wedding. The couple didn't invite you to be their pro photographer, they invited you to help them celebrate their wedding. While you might get some images the pro photographer won't get in exactly the same way (and that's great, but believe me there isn't a lot that a pro misses in coverage) if you are running around shooting all the time, you aren't helping them celebrate. It isn't what they want you to do, or else they wouldn't have hired a professional photographer. Even though I'm a professional wedding photographer, if I am invited to a wedding for which I am not the hired pro, I wouldn't even bring my camera, or if I did, it might be a P&S or a Leica (if I had one) and I probably wouldn't shoot but a handful of images. If I give any of them to the couple, it might be one or two, tops.</p>

<p>If you do hand over images to the couple, I'd at least check with the pro first--if the pro is still relying on print sales to some degree, you can imagine how this is going to affect his business. Also, don't publish your images online (particularly if you try to sell them) or pretend that you were the official photographer and post your images on your website or Facebook, etc. It is just common courtesy.</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>I agree with Nadine, I think true professionals would always opt to leave their gear at home - how often do we get a day off to let our hair down? I think most weddings will play host to an 'enthusiastic amateur' or two who may even believe that the expensive kit hanging around their necks elevates them almost to the status of the hired Pro. I hate to say it, but male photographers usually have a bigger physical presence than their female counterparts, and they may not be subject to the same level of (dis)respect from boistrous guests. I know we talked about this on the forum a few months ago, and building self-confidence, positive assertiveness and people-management skills is key.</p>

[Dave Gardner]

<p>I also have a clause in my contract about other photographers....but it's not to stop them...it's to bring to the attention of the B&G that others can interfer and so the B&G can not hold me responsible. I wouldn't mind if they all had cameras...i'm the one that's being paid.</p>

<p>I don't agree with Marc or Nadine....and i know that some family members of the B&G...will take the opportunity to use the wedding to get experience or play photographer. So what!!! I have more then enough confidence in my images not to worry about some others.</p>

<p>I also think that people who get enraged or don't like other people shooting while they are...have a confidence problem. It is going to get worse so get ready. Check out 'Flip Video'....the video people will be getting hit hard also soon. the day's of high paying weddings are coming to a close. If photography was my only profession I'd be worried. Just my opinion. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Dave--it has nothing to do with not having confidence in your images or yourself. It has everything to do with actual interference, which can affect the quality of your images, and if one relies on print sales, one's actual profit. And, if you notice, both Marc and I said we are fine with other people shooting--no one said anything about becoming enraged. I, for one, am just questioning why a person with a DSLR would want to use a friend's wedding to play the role of the wedding photographer (when a pro is already hired) instead of helping that friend celebrate their wedding.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Dave ... I've never once been "enraged" by anyone at a wedding. It's just a wedding, not some life or death struggle. </p>

<p>The idea that one should have confidence in one's work is one that I whole heartedly subscribe to.</p>

<p>So your threat that professional paid wedding photography is going the way of the Dodo doesn't phase me at all ... my business is up because the proliferation of digital gear in the hands of the untalented has only served to show potential clients with the means to hire a wedding photographer that you get what you pay for.</p>

<p>Like I said, all the fun and absolutely none of the responsibility is easy. </p>

<p> </p>

[george_peng1]

<p>I was a guest at a wedding in July at SF Legion of Honor, and I brought the D90 with SB600 and Lumiquest bounce attachment, so it was conspicuous, to put it mildly.</p>

<p>That said, I made it my business to stay out of the photographer's way, and given that it was a de facto college reunion, I shot mostly pics of us, rather than the wedding per se. A friend asked me a similar question recently - should she take her D90 to a wedding and what impact it would have. I told her that she should shoot friends of the B&G, whose personal significance to them the principal photographer could not possibly know. That way, they are unlikely to overlap in any meaningful way.</p>

[flietyer]

<p>Since I was old enough to understand that if I press this little button and then take the cartridge out and go to Osco, I will have a memory on paper, I'm sure I've been in someone's road. That was almost 50 years ago.<br>

Today I make myself as invisable as posible. I don't do weddings for hire and only take pictures of friends and family weddings. (obviously) When I get there it is pretty obviouse who has been hired and I wait until they are at a quiet time of their work. I introduce myself, give them my card, and let them know I plan to<strong><em> NOT </em></strong>step on their toes. I will not take pictures from a simular vantage as them, or pictures of anything they have set up. Absolutely not.<br>

I do take pictures that most hired help would miss. Since I am familiar with not just the B\G but their cousins and extended family, usually at least some of their friends. So when something memerable happen's with these people the hired photographer might miss the signifacance. And this is an honest question, How many profesional hired photographers go outside while the grooms car is decorated with balloons, whipped cream, (heaven forbid shaving cream), and beer cans? I've never seen one, they're there when the couple comes out but not during the process. I'm there.<br>

When I give the hired photographer my card I let them know that my photographs will NOT be available to the B\G untill they have gotten the hired's pictures. I will not even let them see them. And if the photographer wants to see them first let me know. None ever have, but the offer is there. I don't just sit and shoot either, I'm there to enjoy myself not work. (I go to the bar, I eat, I hug the bride and tell th groom to take care of her, or else! I always take a picture of the photographer. cuz hey they can't)<br>

And I never put any of those pictures online. They are my memorys, I don't plan on photographing weddings for profit, I do plan on attending several family weddings this fall. And if I'm in your way or I step on your toes let me know.<br>

wlt</p>

 

[f_r2]

<p>OP said: "All of our creativity was being leeched."</p>

<p>Who's wedding was it anyway? Did you choose the location, dress, wedding party? Did you do the makeup? Bake the cake? A photographer is not the owner of the wedding.</p>

<p>As for the exclusivity bit, I would be wary. If I hired a photographer and that were in the contract, I would use it against the photog. How? If the work were not perfect, I would say that the photog prevented others from being able to get what the photog didn't. I would expect supreme performance for that exclusivity.</p>

<p>Relationship with guests more important than photographs, imho.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Wayne, I've gone outside to get pictures of the car being decorated. But I approve of your method of shooting. I'd have no problem with you shooting where I was the hired pro.</p>

<p>Free Rider--You will have problems finding a photographer to hire if you object to the exclusivity clause, because it is in almost every professional photographer's contract. It is in mine. However, I have it there so that if I need to point to something 'legal' to control someone taking up precious time or distracting the people I am photographing, I can. I never have.</p>

[matters410]

<p>Wayne- Right on. Marc- You are correct about the confidence issue Dave mentioned, although you are correct in an elitist and condescending way. None of you should be worried about Uncle bob or anyone else because your images are better than theirs. And didn't all of you pros start somewhere? Or were you born with an SLR in hand? Why such disdain for people who like to take pictures? If they do not disrupt you then whats the problem? If your work is of high quality you get more gigs and you charge more money. I've looked at your work, Marc, and I'm sure its worth every penny and that neither I nor the pro I met at that wedding could compete with your share of the market. I'm sure we couldn't compete in ego size either. the pro I met led me to believe that there was comradery among people in the photographic communitiy. All I know is I would never hire a photographer with Marc's attitude regardless of the quality of his work. "all of the fun" Yes I had fun. As did my close friend, the bride, who <strong>asked</strong> me to bring my camera to her wedding. Of course I took advantage of that, while remaining respectful to the pro.</p>

[f_r2]

<p>Nadine, that exclusivity clause is a two-way street and could be used the way I mentioned too. You have your precious time and no distractions, then the work had better be stellar. If not, refund please.</p>

<p>Personally, I think the guests' photographs, especially if they know a little about exposure, come out better than the pros. Reason: The guests know each other, the bride and groom, and such far better than the pro ever could. They will capture the nuances that the pro will miss. Sure, the posing and all. Best wedding photog I've seen does those posed photographs iin a studio setting instead of on the day itself. </p>

<p>Either way, photogs should really not get the impression that they are the be all and end all of the wedding. Wedding photogs are providing a service just as the baker of the cake did. None of the service-providers at a wedding should feel they are more important than the what the bride and groom are doing, getting married to each other. </p>

<p>imho, all applicable disclaimers, etc.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>There are some nice ideas here for auxiliary photographers that feel compelled to photograph at a wedding rather than just be a gracious guest. </p>

<p>However, what we are talking about here isn't some occasional happy snapper, but people on a mission ... and that mission isn't to celebrate the wedding, it's to take photos. Anyone that shows up with a DSLR and bag of lenses usually isn't there to enjoy friends and family, they're there to assert their own photographic needs in the thinly disguised motive of providing a gift.</p>

<p>Some quick examples: </p>

<p>I'm shooting the procession front/mid-aisle ... go to step backwards and stumble over a "photo guest" who, unknown to me, is kneeling right behind me. </p>

<p>At a reception, a guest (unasked) sets up a digital projector and projects all the ceremony and formal shots he took ... of my set-ups.</p>

<p>We are shooting some set-ups on a very tight time line, and my second shooter is covering back-ups from a different angle ... a guest TELLS the second to "get out of the way!" so they can shoot from that angle.</p>

<p>One guy with a Nikon and SB800 & diffuser snidely tells me he brought his gear to make sure photos were taken because he doesn't trust us to do it. (????) Then proceeds to shadow me.</p>

<p>I have 50 of these ... but you get the point.</p>

<p>Actually, I couldn't care less since I'll probably never see these people again. I just think it is rude to their hosts.</p>

<p> </p>

[f_r2]

<p>That's the point, Marc, you couldn't care less and you'll never see those people again. The guests, however, will see those people again. They may have been asked to do exactly what you're objecting to.</p>

<p>A way to handle it may be to mention to the bride and groom that instructions to the guest (attire, where to park, etc.) include instructions about photography. Then, of course, the photog will have to deal with the clients' choice. Perhaps the bride would want Uncle Bob shadowing you.</p>