Would you be offended by a "guest" photographer?

[andrew_west5]

After reading some of the more irritable responses here, it's a wonder these professionals get work with their apparent lack

of people skills. I can assure you, I won't have somebody shooting my wedding who can't handle guests with cameras.

 

Anyhow, I think the answer here is pretty simple. Take your camera and a good prime lens and go enjoy yourself. In the

process, snap some pictures. You'll have a good time and you'll have pictures from the perspective of a guest. The

professional can't do that the same way you can.

[alberta_pizzolato]

<p>If you won't be using a flash, how will you get anything with a 100-400 mm lens? Is it an f/4.5-5.6? Too slow and especially impossible if you won't have a tripod.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Perhaps the ceremony is outside in the bright sun (or at least, bright conditions) with a lot of space, and perhaps Rebecca, to stay out of the pro's way, was thinking about standing waaaaay back. This is exactly what I mean by needing to use judgement.</p>

[zml]

<p>I personally have no problem with guests shooting alongside me (I always set a fee for services and don't count on any "gravy" sales) as long as they don't step on my toes too often.</p>

<p>But if you want to piss of the official photog, show up with a way better equipment and skills to match :-) <br>

I can tell you about my recent exprience as a "guest." Setting: foreign land (in Central America), 2 wedding photogs hired, set fee for services with digital files furnished to the couple, civil ceremony. I am a member of the family (I was not sure if I could attend hence the hired photogs.) One of these photogs was the photog at my own wedding (way back, in the film era) and gave me a very dirty look #1 'coz I made him redo some prints the first time around...</p>

<p>I told the photgs straight up that I'm not to there to compete with them (dirty look #2) and that I would only take snapshots (dirty look #3... I - Canon 1Ds3 with a bigh flash on a bracket, they - Digital Rebels with camera mounted flashes, which in itself is meaningless but got important in the context...) and that I'd get out of the way (dirty look #4.) <br>

Well, the photogs were either not that competent or just plain lazy because I just <strong>had to</strong> do some pictures when they were just standing and looking (from the father escorting the bride, to the nuances of the ring exchange, to cake cutting, to party favors, to drunks dancing on tables...) Considering the number of important shots they missed, at the end they were happy I was there and somehow together (3 photogs, oh boy...) we were able to put together a decent set for the happy couple, so it is not always that bad if the hired "pro" has some real competition, if only because he/she might need help :-)</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>Unless they're shooting from the conga line with a spy camera mounted to their brassier, I'll spot them within five seconds of entering the room. Ten if I'm plastered. (Dan South)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I recently did a wedding where the best man and the parents of both bride and groom didn't realise I was the photographer even after 12 hours, and despite them collectively appearing in around a thousand pictures. Not all photographers work the same way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...as many pros chime in to limit "competition" from the guests at the wedding, or, at least to express irritation with that "competition." (Alan Barr)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might be misreading people's motivation. I don't know if that sense of competition exists any more. I wonder how many people depend on income from print sales? Not too many I suspect. Take myself as an example: I have a very clear view on print sales to guests. I don't offer them, I don't supply them, and anyone wanting prints can download the files for free and make their own. The 'sell prints' business model is pretty irrelevant these days (portrait photographers excluded), so I think it's highly unlikely anyone is concerned about guests diluting their earnings.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>If the pro's price structure is such that they ask for little up front because they plan on making more with prints then if the OP's shots are any good and she's giving them for free, it actually harms this photog's bottom line. Frankly, that's not cool.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frankly, I don't care and neither should the OP or any other guest.</p>

<p>There's a <strong>hierarchy of importance </strong>at a wedding.<br />(1) <strong>The Bride</strong><br />(2) The Families<br />(3) The Other Guests (friends, colleagues, etc.)<br />(4) The Officiants<br />(5) The hired hands (caterer, florist, photographer, orchestra leader, etc.)</p>

<p>The hired hands are people who play an important role in the management of this one event. The guests are people who have been and will be important to the bride and groom for years and years.</p>

<p>If the bride hires <strong>Emeril Lagasse </strong>to cook for the reception, and if one guest decides that they'd rather bring their own meal in from the local Chinese take-out place than eat Emeril's five-course meal, Emeril had better just smile and deal with it. Because the guest is a more important person in the B&G's lives than Emeril is despite his notoriety.</p>

<p>NO guest should EVER have to concern themselves with how a photographer makes his living. NO guest should ever have to apologize for showing up with a D3S or a 1DmkIV and a 70-200 f/2.8. That guest might have been the counselor who talked the bride out of killing herself, the best friend who served in Afghanistan with the groom, or the doctor who cured the bride's mother's breast cancer. Who the heck is the wedding photographer compared to THAT?</p>

<p>This friend/relative will still share a treasured relationship with the couple in years to come. How many wedding clients actually treasure the relationship that they had with their wedding photographer after the album is received? A lot of people end up hoping that they'll never see the photographer again after all of the haggling is done, and even if all goes well and they're thrilled with the photographic services, you're not buddies. The most they'll do if the REALLY like you is refer you to a friend.</p>

<p>Friends with cameras are going to cost the photographer money? Well, if the photographer can't <strong>out-perform</strong> Uncle Henry by a wide enough margin of quality to convince the bride to pay for his work, then he should take some classes or consider another career.</p>

<p>And consider THIS significant fact. The hired hands are CHARGING for their services. The guests are PAYING for the opportunity to attend this event. For every warm body in a pew, the B&G receive <strong>money</strong> (or items of value) that, in the grand scheme of things helps to offset the cost of the professional services that they're paying for (catering, music, flowers, dress, photography). If you're the hired photographer, Uncle Henry Canon and Fratboy Skip Nikon are actually <strong>paying</strong> part of your fee, albeit indirectly.</p>

<p>Do the work, deal with the circumstances, and unless they're obnoxious or absolutely thoughtless, don't complain about people who actually MEAN something to your clients.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Considering the number of important shots they missed, at the end they were happy I was there and somehow together (3 photogs, oh boy...) we were able to put together a decent set for the happy couple, so it is not always that bad if the hired "pro" has some real competition, if only because he/she might need help :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've had similar experiences. "Thank goodness you got a shot of XXX because the official photographers missed it."</p>

<p>At one friend's wedding - and I don't know how she missed this when she reviewed the guy's work - EVERY one of his photos was taken at an angle of about 25% from horizontal. Just looking at them made you dizzy after a while. I guess "tilt" is this fellow's "style," but she was happy to add my "level" shots to her collection.</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>Dan--where is the groom in your hierarchy?</p>

<p>Also, if a guest knocks you into the pool, camera and all, because he or she was shooting behind your shoulder or trying to get into position next to you, are you still going to smile?</p>

<p>This is why everyone needs to use judgement in these kinds of situations. A guest also has unspoken duties as a guest. One is--don't negatively impact the couple's wedding photos by getting in the offical photographer's way.</p>

<p>On the other hand, one of the official photographer's duties is to politely deal with guests with cameras who are getting in the way. There are no black and white rules to follow--only common sense and graciousness on both sides.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Dan--where is the groom in your hierarchy?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I realized after I posted that I forgot the poor guy. We'll lump him in with the families because he's not Number One.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Also, if a guest knocks you into the pool, camera and all, because he or she was shooting behind your shoulder or trying to get into position next to you, are you still going to smile?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, because I believe that that would qualify as being thoughtless or obnoxious. Please refer to my last paragraph.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This is why everyone needs to use judgement in these kinds of situations. A guest also has unspoken duties as a guest. One is--don't negatively impact the couple's wedding photos by getting in the offical photographer's way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree completely. The service is a religious service (or at least a formal one) and should be attended with reverence. Again, please see my qualifier about obnoxious, thoughtless behavior.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, one of the official photographer's duties is to politely deal with guests with cameras who are getting in the way. There are no black and white rules to follow--only common sense and graciousness on both sides.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And hopefully the professional with experience in such matters will be the one who knows how to manage such situations. Something as simple as this will probably do. "Hey, that's a great camera! Do you have a website? Hey, listen, take as many shots as you like, but please keep clear when I'm shooting so I can give the bride and groom the shots that they asked me to get for them. Okay?"</p>

<p>Again, if a guest is rude and interrupts the photographer from completing their work in a consistent manner, then that situation must be dealt with. On the other hand, a hired photographer who gives an otherwise polite guest a hard time for showing up with a camera and snapping shots from the sidelines, that is also rude and shows a lack of tact and professionalism.</p>

 

[mirek_elsner1]

<p>Nicely put, Dan!</p>

<p>Rebecca, if I were in your shoes, I would make sure I don't replicate the hired photographer's work and focus on situations he/she doesn't have access to - there should be plenty.<br>

Here is why:</p>

<ol>

<li>The formal pictures the photographer is making will most likely have better level of craftsmanship and side by side, similar photographs taken by you won't look as good or professional</li>

<li>If you stay in the main/hired photographer's way, he - and therefore the bride - may miss an important shot. Besides, as you can see from some posts here, some photographers may become mean and ruin your day</li>

<li>You know the bride and perhaps the family and you can get to places where other people can't. And you can capture emotions the hired photographer can't, because the people won't open to him or because he will be busy to do the required/formal stuff</li>

<li>You can make informal, relaxed set of pictures that will have great integrity, but won't mix well with the formal, possibly arranged photographs taken with strobes</li>

</ol>

<p>I would also leave any white lenses at home. If you want to get some good pictures without flash, consider renting 35/1.4 or something along those lines.</p>

[scott_szymanski]

<p>Thanks to this post, I now realize I was out of line to say the least at my sons wedding.<br>

It was on the beach so lots of room and no flash. I did stay way behind the paid photographer but did use a few of his poses. I had my old Canon F1N and a FD 200mm with Kodak Portra film out on the beach.<br>

I was pretty far behind him and standing behind family members waiting to be called for their poses. I tried to respect his space and not distract the subjects but he knew I was shooting. <br>

He had a point and shoot digital which really surprized me. I think it was a Canon powershot 620? No DSLR, no tripod, flash, umbrellas, reflector, or assistant. This was an out of state wedding so I know it wasn't old uncle Joe taking the pics. He was a hired local "Pro".<br>

I also used my 85mm for a few shots and put it away once at the reception. I think I shot maybe 4 rolls. The pics were for my wife and I. I was not trying to compete with the paid photographer.<br>

He did check out my camera at one point and mentioned it was and oldie but goodie and I sensed he wasn't happy with my shooting. I don't know if he said anything to the many guests and family with high end DSLR's that were not put away throughout the event.<br>

I don't know what my daughter in law's father paid the photographer but after I saw the wedding album I was happy I shot what I did. I didn't purchace any of them. This guy was no pro. I'm not either, but all his beach shots had a tilted horizon, lots of poor framing/compostion, distracting backgrounds, etc. My 8x10's are on my wall.<br>

In this case it was a good thing other people were shooting. However, I will not step on the photographer's toes from now on. All your opinions have enlightened me. Thank you.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_noceti]

<p>Scott: Wait a minute. The "pro" showed up with a point and shoot? I extend professional courtesy a long way, even for photographers who I can tell are producing terrible images, but a point and shoot is all bets off. If I'm a guest at a wedding and I see something like that then either that person is A) a master at the craft whose shots I'll never be able to rival no matter what I shoot with, or B) a charlatan. More than likely it's going to be B, in which case I go out to my car, stick my point and shoot in the trunk and pull out my gear.</p>

<p>In the same way I try to pay respect to other pros by not bringing my gear into their gig, I expect anyone accepting money to do the same job I do, to pay the profession its due respect by not ripping people off and pretending they are something they're not.</p>

<p>I say you did the right thing by shooting.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>David, you seem to placing gear over conduct. You will give "courtesy" to someone you deem as "producing terrible images" but if their gear does not meet you approval, "all bets are off". Respect for pros is offered by your decision on equipment, yours and theirs. You leave your gear in the trunk despite the fact that you can show courtesy and respect using that pro gear. People with an auto only P&S can be as discourteous as anyone with high end gear. Under your criteria, someone could be a "charlatan" that never shot a wedding, never used anything but a auto point and shoot, bought high end pro gear the day before and you will give them more courtesy than someone who may produce acceptable results and/or whose work the B&G are familiar with. You can do whatever you like but maybe your can consider providing some independent imagery based on whether there are going to be "terrible images" produced by the official shooter whether they use pro gear or not.</p>

[david_noceti]

<p>Actually, John, had you paid closer attention to my post you'd have noticed that I said the P&S photographer would have been one of two things, a charlatan, or a master of the art. So, my definition included a lot more than you suggest.</p>

<p>Professional quality is most definitely NOT dependent upon gear alone, but anyone worth a lick will know that you have to have the right tools for the job. If you were a plumber and were over to visit a friend who happened to have me over fixing his sink, a job for which I was charging him good money for, and you saw that I came in with only a hammer and duct tape, you'd likely be more than a little upset. You'd be upset not only because I was taking advantage of your friend and providing them with terrible service but also because I'd be making a mockery of your profession.</p>

<p>Like I said, respect goes both ways. Guests need to have respect for what the pro does, but when it's obvious that the pro doesn't know what they're doing and really isn't a pro, then I see no problem with stepping up and making sure that your friends or family (as was the case in Scott's example) get quality photographs of a moment that can't be redone.</p>

<p>I see advertisements in my area all the time for photography services by people using top quality gear who still get point and shoot results out of that gear. That's what they have advertised and that's what the B&G bought. But when I'm at a wedding and I see that they at least have the proper tools for the job I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that the B&G vetted them properly. Even still, it is possible for a good salesman to portray themselves as something they are not (see the Sean Peele thread). But for those of us who know what we're doing, it is rather easy to sniff out an impostor, especially when they're working. Respect is something that needs to be earned, not given. And from the description of the shooter at Scott's son's wedding, that person was an impostor and deserved little to no respect for what he was doing.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>had you paid closer attention to my post you'd have noticed that I said the P&S photographer would have been one of two things, a charlatan, or a master of the art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did notice that part. I also noticed and explained that your actual decisions were based solely on gear alone. Indeed, you just confirmed that to be the case. You continue to describe gear in an all or nothing manner. Non high end gear is portrayed as meaning the user is either utterly useless or a "master of the art" ignoring the obvious middle ground. I explained that someone can produce acceptable results and/or that the clients might be aware of the photographers abilities with the mediocre gear they use. We see threads about such scenarios here frequently.</p>

<p>You said before that you will base your decision to get your gear out of the car based on what gear the photographer has. You tell us again that when you see that the photographer has pro gear you "give them the benefit of the doubt" despite being able to "tell [they] are producing terrible images" or it being "easy to sniff out an impostor" when using pro gear. So, according to all your explanations, you might find it reasonable for someone to "step up" and take images when there is an unworthy photographer but, your explanation of your own decisions are still based on equipment.</p>

<p>There's no problem with that. I just thought you might not be aware of how heavily your decisions are based on gear alone. That may still be the case even now. If you decide not to bring pro gear because there is a pro as you explained, when you can be just as respectful with that gear, then its all about the gear regardless of conduct.</p>

[wacovoice]

<p>Wow alot of answers on this one, read all of them hoping to answer one of my questions about this but none was here, so I'll ask now.<br>

I have been asked to shoot at a wedding that has a pro already as well, just for me to get experiance though.<br>

But she (the bride) does want a cd of the pics I take.<br>

But my question is this, would the experiance I would get from the wedding, out way possibly having some sub par pictures with my name on them being passed around for all to see with the possibility of people judging them up against a pro's work?<br>

Now I dont plan on doing weddings and wouldnt even consider taking paid gigs for some time to come because I'm just learning photography, but! these could one day be potential clients who might remember me and those pics.<br>

So besides the "stepping on the pro's toes" question, would the experiance be worth the possible bad rep? <br>

Oh and I guess you should know before answering that I live in a fairly small town where almost everybody knows everybody else.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Matt, If you don't plan on shooting weddings, this may not be the best situation to gain experience for general shooting for the many reasons explained here. Surely there are various social events where there is not a dedicated pro figuring in to the situation so heavily. Perhaps its best here to shoot as a guest might rather then a pseudo-pro.</p>

<p>(The correct word to use in these balancing type situations is "outweigh", not "out way")</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Matt--who asked you to photograph--the bride or the pro? If the bride, I would find out what kind of package she is getting. If the pro is depending upon prints sales, he or she will not look kindly on you giving the bride a CD of images for free. If this is the case, I'd wait until the pro delivers his images before giving the bride the CD.</p>

<p>In a small town like that, if you plan to do wedding photography in that town--I would probably try to find assisting and second shooter gigs before doing one entirely on my own. It depends, of course, upon your experience level. If you've never shot weddings before, I'd say try the assisting first. Experience at a wedding where one doesn't already have experience is, IMHO, not all that valuable, because you could flub big time, and as you say, the risk of of that flub, and the not so great images can come back to haunt you.</p>

<p>Again, I personally would get permission from the bride to contact the pro, particularly since you intend to shoot weddings. To me, guidance from the pro would be more valuable than you trying to shoot on your own.</p>

[david_noceti]

<p>Well then, John, I'm curious what you would have done in a similar situation to Scott's. It's your son's wedding, the guy that someone else hired to shoot the wedding is using a point and shoot, you can tell that simply by how he's setting up shots, or not setting them up, that he really doesn't know what he's doing. You know that his five mega-pixel camera is not going to produce a very good quality large print, nor perform well in low light. Do you sit back and watch the train wreck, or do you try to save as many lives as possible?</p>

<p>And I will partially agree with you, gear does weigh into my equation heavily, but it is not the sole deciding factor. Matter of fact, you may have just convinced me to bring my camera to a wedding this weekend for a friend who hired a terrible photographer. This same photographer covered another friend's wedding a couple of months ago. She charges mid-range prices for entry-level work and carries decent gear (better than mine at the time of the first wedding). I gave her the benefit of the doubt the first time because you can't really know how someone's shots will turn out until afterwards, and maybe she just had a very different shooting style than mine. Well, I saw the proofs from that wedding, and you're right, gear doesn't get you off of the hook, but until I saw the end product I couldn't be certain.</p>

<p>I just think that showing up with proper equipment shows that you are at least taking it seriously even though you might not be very good at it. Again, without the correct tools it's very hard to do any job satisfactorily. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you sure are stacking the odds against yourself. That's just a fact of life. Let's call it a baseline. If you're trying to drive nails with a rock, at least step aside and let the guy with the hammer give it a go. No guarantee that he'll do a better job than you, but it's safe to say that he'll have a better chance at getting it right.</p>

<p>And to Matt: If you're as new to photography as it sounds, then just talk with the pro. Tell him you're just starting out, you don't really even want to shoot weddings but thought it would be a good way to get some practice in, and see if he'd mind you shooting as well. Don't shoot over his shoulder, don't try to reproduce his shots. To extend an even further courtesy you could ask him how long he'd like for you to hang on to your images before you give them to the bride and groom because although you don't think your shots will compete with his, you really don't want to cause any problems. More than likely, he'll be impressed with how respectful you were and might even give you some pointers. It's really more about mutual respect than anything else. </p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"would the experiance I would get from the wedding, out way possibly having some sub par pictures with my name on them being passed around for all to see with the possibility of people judging them up against a pro's work"</strong></em><br>

<br>

The experience of taking your camera to the Wedding, being where the Professional is not and not taking attention of the Wedding Party and taking some well timed well planned Photographs which suits your taste would be beneficial.<br>

<br>

You could then select a few good captures and spend some time post producing them and give them to the Bride, as a gift.<br>

<br>

To compete or be an alternative coverage, would be both silly and frustrating. <br>

<br>

I suggest you do not agree to give a CD of all that you shoot - in fact I suggest you do not shoot all that much at all, but control what you shoot and have a purpose each time you release the shutter.<br>

<br>

Basically I agree with exactly what JH wrote . . .<br>

<br>

WW </p>

<p > </p>

 

[William Michael]

<p><strong ><em >"In this case it was a good thing other people were shooting. However, I will not step on the photographer's toes from now on. All your opinions have enlightened me. Thank you."</em></strong><br>

<br>

Well Scott, that was a bad experience and I understand the sourness and the sarcasm. But hold off on the “<strong ><em >All your opinions</em></strong> have enlightened me.” No-one gave opinions on your situation. You did not ask for them. <br>

<br>

I certainly did not - and I was not asked – so slam away at the Photographer your in laws hired - and take it up there – but don’t sling it at me - thanks very much.<br>

<br>

*** <br>

<br>

David: I have been reading with interest your discussion with John . . . I was especially interested when I read: <br>

<br>

<em >“I extend professional courtesy a long way, <strong >even for photographers who I can tell are producing terrible images</strong>, but a point and shoot is all bets off. If I'm a guest at a wedding and I see something like that then either that person is A) a master at the craft whose shots I'll never be able to rival no matter what I shoot with, or B) a charlatan.”</em><br>

<br>

Which I thought was wildly contradictory and a totally illogical argument. I.e. You see a Point and Shoot is being used, so either situation A or situation B. But you <strong ><em >can tell</em></strong> when Photographers are producing terrible images ? ? ? Anyway I did get the gist of your meaning and I am leaving the debate of argument and logic and content to John and you . . . but I really want to answer your question (no offense intended for jumping the queue, John).<br>

<br>

<strong ><em >“</em></strong><strong ><em >Well then, John, I'm curious what you would have done in a similar situation to Scott's”</em></strong><br>

<strong ><em > </em></strong><br>

This is entirely a different kettle of kippers to your discussion:<br>

<br>

Having the similar equipment at hand and having assessed the likely poor outcome of the images later to be available of my Son’s Weddings, I would have shot all I could. Being film, I would be very conscious of the number of frames I had available.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>David, If I could help in some in some way without causing problems then sure, and any help of that sort you may provide can be very valuable to your friends and very kind on your part. My impression is, in fact, that you would like to help where needed and I certainly admire that.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"Matt--who asked you to photograph--the bride or the pro?"</strong></em> (Nadine) <br>

<br>

matt, my comments were predicted on the Bride asking you – "<em><strong>I have been asked </strong></em>to shoot at a wedding that has a pro already as well, just for me to get experience though. <em><strong>But she (the bride)</strong></em> does want a cd of the pics I take."<br>

<br>

As I assumed the Bride asked - and as she also had a caveat, that you provide a CD of all the images. <br>

<br>

My advice is strong, not to agree to that - but rather that you should be a Guest, do you own Photographic Thing and select few good images and give them as a gift and also an example of your work. <br>

<br>

There are many reasons for this advice, most are NOT about the Professional Photographer, mostly all are about you.<br>

<br>

If the Photographer asked matt to shoot, then that is different.<br>

<br>

WW <br>

</p>

 

[david_noceti]

<p>John, I think I owe you a bit of an apology, William was right when he pointed out how you were originally right. :o) My logic didn't quite match up. Like I said, this discussion has brought me around to seeing things a bit differently.</p>

<p>I guess I noted that I'd extend the professional courtesy for pro gear and bad practice because that's what I did at the last wedding. But given the quality of what was produced, especially for the amount of money paid. And to further hold with the notion that the gear does not make the photographer, I'll leave the 5Dii at home and bring a rebel with a couple sigma lenses. Actually, I hate the rebel, I'll bring the 50D instead. Although the rebel would make for a good challenge. Hmmm.</p>

<p>Anyway, I think what I was trying to get at was the idea of minimum requirements. To me, a P&S does not meet minimum requirements and it's insulting to anyone that works hard at this.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Scott, I don't see how you did anything that caused any problems for the person hired to shoot your son's wedding or problems for your son and bride. The real concern with pros shooting a wedding a pro is hired to shoot is causing interference to their mission which is for the benefit of the newlyweds and others who value the photography. Providing a reasonable level of professional courtesy is an incidental benefit. What you did seems very reasonable whether the shooter was competent or not. Maybe the couching of some of the discussion in terms of "offense" and so on created a negative image here. It should really be a matter of actual interference rather than emotional perceptions. On that point, you have a point. I think the idea is to be able to be helpful without inadvertently being counterproductive. There's plenty of room for that.</p>