Put guests to work

[tom_whitwell]

<p>We have a wedding coming up in our family this year and i know there will be both a pro photographer and a videographer. My question is; how common (and useful) is it to set out a table with a dozen or two disposable cameras and ask guests to snap photos during the reception? </p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>The last time I was at a wedding where this was done the guests did nothing with those cameras.<br>

If guests bring cameras on their own and take pictures they will probably be happy to send you copies.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I have done weddings where every guest got a point and shoot. I have organized them and set out a few rules so I didn't have an over abundance of flash ruin my photographs. I let them shoot over my shoulder after I took my pictures. What is disturbing to a wedding photographer is people stepping in front of the paid shots and degrading the product that you the customer is paying for. What I did not like about this arrangement is that I had to organize them and set out rules. I much preferred, except for formals, to be unobtrusive and I did like being the center of attention. You should, IMO, allow the pro to do your work. If you limit it to the reception it may work ok. However in the digital age people are all over the place with their little (and sometimes big) cameras. It's your party but it could interfere with what you are paying for. Please talk it over with the photo and video guys before you do it. </p>

[mike dixon]

<p>In my experience, it's a waste of money. The two weddings I worked where the couples did this and they told me about the results afterwords, out of a dozen or so disposable cameras, they had maybe half a dozen shots that were worth keeping.</p>

[sherijohnson]

<p>most times they hand those cameras to the kids so you are very unlikely to get much worth printing and you won't know until after you spent the money and printed them</p>

[tom_whitwell]

<p>I'm starting to think I'll just save my money.<br>

Thanks so much<br>

Tom</p>

[paul_f3]

<blockquote>

<p>"most times they hand those cameras to the kids so you are very unlikely to get much worth printing"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes kids get shots no one else can.</p>

<p>Are you familiar with Nat Friedman's photo project with street children in Rio de Janeiro?<br>

http://nat.org/blog/2004/08/rocinha/</p>

<p> </p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Tom,</p>

 

<p>I wouldn’t expect much of anything from a photographic

standpoint, but it has the potential to be a very successful

party gag.</p>

 

<p>Get a bunch of throw-away disposable cameras (film or digital

doesn’t matter) and put a few at each table for the

reception. (I would strongly caution against handing them out any

earlier.) Some of the guests — kids, especially —

will have a bit of fun.</p>

 

<p>Whether or not you ever actually develop the pictures is

entirely irrelevant. For that matter, whether or not you even get

the cameras back is irrelevant. Heck, even encourage guests to

take them home so they’ll have their own photographic

memories.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>You are wasting your money IMO. On odd occasions I have been told the couple received one or two fun shots from them. Rarely ever worth the price of entry.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Yep, what David says above............</p>

[senor_crocodrillo]

<p>I put the disposals out for my brother's wedding, years ago. Even after instructing guests to photograph each other, not the B&G, some of them simply followed the pro around and took inferior versions of the same shot he was taking. Most of the guests didn't realize that the flashes on those are only good between 3-8 ft. Some guests took them home and we never saw the photos. But, there were some really fun photos of our family and looking back the $100 or so plus processing was worth it. I guess it just depends on how much you're willing to spend for a few photos. I've definitely wasted money on worse things.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Not to pile on here, but I have never heard of any good shots coming from this until the Senor Crocodrillo post...</p>

<p>A friend of mine got married a few years back and did the cameras on the table thing...most sat unused until the 5-10 year old crowd grabbed them and started taking photos of things that amused them...mostly each other's teeth, tongues, and a few of a broken chair which fascinated them....</p>

<p>My advice for couples is don't go there.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[savagesax]

We haven't done this recently, but in the past we provided a camera at every reception table We bought the cameras and had them developed for the couple. The couples really enjoyed looking at the photo's.

 

Some of the young kids got a hold of the cameras, but often the people really had a lot of fun with them.

 

Anyway I think it could be a lot of fun. We would ask the DJ have fun with this as well and elect a person to be the photographer at each table, by playing some sort of game. You can't expect much in quality, but you will probably get some really fun candids.

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>I agree with Bob, it's about having fun. The point of this is not to 'get some good shots on the cheap' (not that the OP has suggested that) but to give your guests some additional entertainment. When I got married I was fortunate enough to have one of the best wedding photographers in the world, but I still put cameras on each table. The results were absolutely hysterical.</p>

[e._hughes]

<p>Just yesterday I was talking to one of my good friends who works in a photo lab in town. She specifically mentioned that recently a young couple had gotten a bunch of disposable cameras for their wedding, she developed the images, and had to break the news that she had done all she could but they just didn't come out. Not a single one. So they had absolutely no pictures from their wedding... ick. If I were getting married nowadays, I would NOT do the disposable cameras... why bother if you already have a great Photographer...? :)</p>

[fotografz]

<p>When clients ask about this I sit down with them and just do the math ... purchase price of the cameras is just the tip of the iceberg. </p>

<p>For example: "Classic Wedding Camera" 30 bulk pack of 15 exposure ISO 400 film @ $75.00 ... plus processing for 30 cameras @ $7. ea. = almost $300. and time running back and forth<br>

or mailing in the cameras which isn't free. </p>

<p>I tell my clients that for $300. I can have a second photographer at the reception that'll do nothing but interact with the guests and take fun portraits and candids of all their friends ... and the pics will actually be good.</p>

<p>The last client that decided to do it anyway e-mailed me that she got less than a dozen decent images out of the 300 photos she paid for. Lots of floor shots, dark shots, blurred shots, overexposed shots, and a fair amount of butt shots and even out-of-focus nostril shots ... LOL!</p>

<p>What a waste of money IMO. </p>

<p> </p>

[maile_lani]

<p>Just get a pro flickr account and have your guests upload the images they took from their point and shoots :) Everyone has them now days and most people are more than willing to upload them for you. It's a LOT cheaper and you may get some fun images from it!</p>

[theresa_skutt]

<p>As a bride, I can tell you I loved getting them. Quality-wise of course, they're not great, but they're not meant to be. A photographer can't be looking everywhere all the time, and the guests enjoy having them. You're more likely to get pics back of those than people's personal cameras.</p>