michaelchadwickphotography

Oddly enough, I bought the radio transmitter because I was also having trouble with the wire doing the same thing and being inconsistent with its connection to the side of the camera body. So, my backup on this is to go with a Speedlite and use slave mode on the strobes. It's not ideal, but it works. I'll definitely order an additional radio transmitter as further backup, though. Thanks, everyone!

Since it happens on one camera and not another, I'd lean toward the possibility that it's the hotshoe rails on the camera. I shoot 50+ weddings a year and have been doing so with these camera bodies for several years now (Canon 5D Mark iii) so they definitely take abuse when I pull the cameras up and down quickly with heavy Speedlite flash units on them.

If the intended use matches what you plugged into Getty, then it's the right price to charge. Will they pay that? That's the real question. If they want the rights to use that image without photo credit or further compensation, that price is right. If it's for editorial use and they will give you full photo credit, is it beneficial to you to do so for less money? If you think it will actually generate additional work (it rarely does) then it's worth it to take less. Otherwise, make them pay the full price. They sell houses. They can afford pictures.

I actually did say that I had another camera (yesterday 6:43pm), and that I was wanting to rule out anything else before having to rule out something as expensive as a camera body. I eventually did test with another camera and was unable to replicate the issue. So it is definitely a problem with the camera body (sigh). Bill's suggestion early on ("...because of the camera tilting issue, is a slight mismatch in the hotshoe connections such that pointing the camera down somehow causes the connection to change slightly.") ended up successfully isolating the problem. Pointing the camera down was forcing the remote "forward" for lack of a better description. When I brought the camera back up, then manually pushed the remote forward on the body, it worked. Every time. So, thank you everyone for the advice and potential solutions. In the end, it turns out that the hotshoe isn't holding the remote down closely enough to the sensors, no matter how tightly I screw it on. This wasn't a problem with the Speedlite, probably because it's much heavier and has something of a locking mechanism. I'll have to see if this is something I can fix myself, or if I have to send it in for repair.

Appreciated, thank you for the clarification. I've had too many bad experiences with online forums, to the point where I stopped engaging with them for quite a long time, because of people who were just nasty. I will try your suggestion to further isolate the problem. I was trying less expensive fixes, looking at it more financially than logically, in terms of my order of troubleshooting operations.

That's very judgmental, Ken, and makes incorrect assumptions about my equipment and level of professionalism. I have four camera bodies. What I said was that I wanted to isolate it as a different problem first before I looked at the most expensive problem that it could be. In case you're wondering about my level of professionalism, you are welcome to buy my book on the business of wedding photography and judge for yourself.

I've not yet tried another camera. That will be my last troubleshooting step. I need to verify it's not something other than the camera first, because replacing the camera bodies would obviously be expensive.

Thank you both for answering my rather long original text. In answer to your questions: 1) Shutter speeds are variable and do not seem to solve the problem. It's always less than 1/200th, though. It's not one strobe messing up another (there are two units total). Neither of them are firing. 2) I apologize for the lack of clarity. By "remote" I mean the wireless transmitter attached to my hotshoe. I actually purchased this because the hard-wired version I was using was causing this problem. I thought the wireless transmitter would fix the issue, but obviously it has not. When wired to the flashes rather than using the transmitter, I'm not using the hotshoe. So, the problem exists both when I hard wire through the side of the camera, and when I use the wireless transmitter. It's really, really weird. I think I'm just going to have to see if this happens with different lights. If it does, I'll know it's something with the camera.

One quick note to add: I haven't actually tried this in a setting other than manual. I will test it with Tv or Av or P sometime to see if that helps, but that really isn't ideal. I am used to using Manual mode and would prefer to continue doing so.

Before anyone lectures me, I did do a search and could not find anything on this issue. If someone knows of a post discussing this, please feel free to share it. I've been a professional photographer for over a decade, doing almost exclusively on-location (non-studio) work. I have a set of Elincrom strobes that I would use here or there, but which mostly just stayed in their travel case. Recently, I opened up a studio location and am more actively marketing studio portrait work. I have been having a particular technical problem for a long time, and I just cannot figure it out. I have very logically and logistically troubleshot the issue, without success. I cannot find a pattern or situation which causes this problem. The problem is that my off-camera strobes will not always fire. 1) This happens both with wired connection and with wireless connection. 2) This happens almost immediately during a session, not a long time into a session, which leads me to believe this is not an overheating issue. 3) I never have this problem with my on-camera Speedlite strobes, leading me to believe there is nothing wrong with my hotshoe connection. 4) If I point the camera at the subject, the strobes won't fire. If I point the camera at the floor (same settings) the strobes fire just fine. 5) It doesn't seem to matter what I try to spot-meter the focus on, the strobes will not fire. 6) If I turn the remote on and off again, it works sometimes but not always. This isn't an acceptable solution because I still get the same (ahem) performance issues in front of my client. 7) When I click the test flash button on the remote, it fires every time without fail. When I then raise the camera up to photograph the subject, the camera/strobes don't fire, instead choosing to actively stick their tongue out at me and say "Ha! Your client thinks you don't know what you're doing now. Good luck with your session, idiot!" I have read through both the camera manual and the light manual, and cannot find anything that would lead me to believe that there is some sort of setting I have which is deliberately (almost seemingly maliciously) refusing to send a signal to the strobes to fire. I'm shooting on manual mode. If I overcompensate by jacking up the ISO and stopping down the shutter, then the strobes will fire just to spite me and overexpose the image. There seems to be no rhyme or reason, but ultimately I need these things to fire every time. I want to be at ISO 100 with a medium deep aperture (say, 6.3) but I also don't want those settings to determine whether or not the strobes fire. I want to be able to make adjustments to the aperture as needed without worrying that the strobes will "decide" they don't want to fire. This has to be a setting issue somewhere in the camera. There must be a situation with the camera where you treat a studio session differently than an on-location session. I don't know why that would be the case, but maybe that's the problem. ANY help or advice on this matter would be appreciated. I have lots of sessions coming up for the holidays, and I'm really nervous about the embarrassment this problem is creating.

Depending on whether you use it or not, Adobe Premiere can be used rather easily to make a simple slideshow. Import the images, order them how you want, then drag them all over into the film sequence. Choose transitions such as a slide or fade, and apply them globally. You can even manually zoom, pan, truck, etc. to make the images appear more dynamic, though if you've never done this before the learning curve can be a little steep and annoying.

I don't know if this was part of the venue's contract with the couple or not. They could have said something as vague as "vendors must comply with venue policies" and just left it at that. Their particular waiver is pretty much unique across the hundreds of venues at which I have photographed weddings over the years. So, I don't think it is unreasonable to think the couple had no idea this would be a problem when they booked. The only way I can see to help others avoid similar encounters is to make sure there are very public-facing reviews outlining the venue's waiver demand, as well as indications of their lack of customer service-friendly approach, in as many places as possible where couples go to research venues.

Were you asked to sign a waiver that actually said you could not sue over issues involving negligence or intentional acts? I doubt it. I have commercial liability insurance (2 million worth) and this has nothing to do with that. The venue forced me to sign their own waiver, which without they would prevent me from entering the premises to photograph my client's wedding. These are not the same situations. And, yes, my insurance company named the venue as additional insured for this event. That's standard operating procedure.

Hi Danny, A fair question. Their wedding is this coming September. The venue's ridiculous waiver was sent to the couple long after the venue was booked (as in, several months) and with very little time for the couple to find a different venue on a popular date. I doubt that was an accident on the venue's part. The couple would almost certainly lose their payments already given to the venue, too. The couple was caught between a rock and a hard place. If the venue barred me, the couple would lose their retainer with me while they scrambled to find another photographer, assuming they could even find one 1) with my experience level and 2) who would be willing to sign the venue's waiver. So, I decided to acquiesce (sort of - see previous replies about posting under duress) and will make sure to let the world know (after the wedding, of course) about this venue's policies and attitude. In the vast, vast majority of cases, the venue is the first thing a couple selects. That can even dictate their wedding date. Photography and DJ are typically next, but we are almost always booked after a deposit had been paid to a venue. So, couples are not going to easily be willing to switch a venue because they know they'll lose a huge deposit.

Hi William, Yes, I think it is a better business decision. I'm going to carry a recording device on my person that day and record anything they say to me. I'm also going to be on the lookout for them harassing my clients, and video record those interactions. I agree with your Barrister friend about the waiver's legal value being rather fecal. Nothing would hold up in court if truly tested. An earlier poster said this was likely meant to ward off frivolous lawsuits, which I get. But, this is symptomatic of a larger problem with these owners. There is a label for people like that here in the U.S. I don't want to get too graphic with my language, so I'll just say the label rhymes with douchebag. The groom told me they yelled at a friend of his at a previous wedding because the guy took out a flask and drank from it. Yes, that's probably not good form, but the owner yelled at the guy in front of everyone. Now, I own a flask, but of course I don't drink when I am working. I'm really temped to bring the flask and fill it full of water, just to troll the owner. I mentioned this as a joke to the groom, and he was all for it.

Both are good questions. My first question to the venue was to allow me to write into the waiver that I was waiving the right to civil, but not criminal actions, and they said the contract could not be altered in any way. Very gruffly. The groom called them and they were nasty to the groom, too. I later found out the venue tried to charge the couple for things at the venue that the couple was not using, and that they refused to allow a projector in to project something onto the cake. The couple is completely on my side in this, and I plan on reviewing the venue to warn others about it once the wedding is done. With respect to your second question, I did actually put something like that in my contract. Under the Failure to Perform clause, it states: "In the event Provider is unable to perform due to the interference of a third party refusing Provider access, Provider shall not be liable for any missed photographs and no refund to Client shall be issued." All of that said, I have to consider who is getting hurt by this venue barring my access, and the application of such a clause: the couple. The likelihood that something would happen to me is pretty slim, and I am risking the experience of my client by refusing to sign this ludicrous waiver. After a long conversation with the groom, who is already really angry with the venue over a number of things, I decided for this one time I would sign the waiver. I will never take a wedding in the future where the couple is working with this particular venue. I signed the waiver with V.C. and then my name. That stands for vi coactus which means "constrained by force." In other words, I am being forced to sign this waiver under duress for extreme economic pressure. It essentially means that if a court action were to take place, that would be factored in. Additionally, the likelihood that this waiver could be legally upheld given its vague blanket definitions is pretty slim at best. This poor couple are fellow Disney aficionados who are used to being treated kindly and with attention to a positive customer service experience. They unfortunately chose a venue with the opposite philosophy. I have a feeling I'll be wearing my psychotherapist hat that day. :-(

I've been photographing weddings for years. Well over a decade now. Hundreds of weddings. I have never been asked to sign something like this. I told the client I will not sign it, and let her know (very nicely) why. There was a thread from 2011 about this, and I did read it. I have NOT consulted a lawyer yet, but plan to do so if this venue digs in. I'm sending them my 2 million dollar commercial liability insurance information, and telling them that is sufficient. I will not bore you all with the entire contract, but here is the clause that sent up an enormous red flag: I ______________________________ (Your Name), an authorized representative of ______________________________ (Your Company Name) hereby agree to waive any and all claims arising against (THE VENUE), the liability carrier of (THE VENUE), and any and all employees and representatives of (THE VENUE). This is a full waiver of all claims arising including negligent or intentional acts of any employee or representative of (THE VENUE). I further agree to hold (THE VENUE) harmless for any injury to myself, my employees or my equipment that may occur while I am on the property of (THE VENUE). To say negligent and even purposeful acts are not something they will liable for is simply laughable. Rather than trouble my contracted client with my concern, I thought I would call the venue first to ask about it. They were as belligerent and obtuse on the phone as this waiver would make you think. They were intractable and curt, and when I said I was concerned this would jeopardize my client's wedding photography and my ability to fulfill my obligation to her, he said in a disdainful voice: "Okay." End of conversation. So, I hung up. I am putting this on the forum because I had difficulty finding threads on this topic. I expect that's because most venues aren't this ridiculous with their demands of photographers (this one even bars tripods, free standing lights, pole lights, stand-alone flashes, booths, printers, screens, monitors, projectors, and extension cords!). But, just in case anyone else is having this problem, I would love a more recent discussion on the forum about it.

If you don't want motion blur, you need a shutter speed fast enough to capture people without motion. This depends on your proximity to the subject, as well as whether or not you are using flash, and what kind of light is present. You need enough of an aperture (opening) to your shutter to let enough light in within that amount of time, and you need an ISO that isn't going to be too grainy. That's an incredibly broad question without any specifications whatsoever, so without being too cavalier with the answer, I would say "If you have to ask, you don't know enough to get it right. Hire a professional."

Here is my specific Exclusivity Clause paragraph, for you and anyone else who needs to add something like this to their future contracts... Exclusive Provider. It is understood this Provider is the exclusive and official provider retained to perform the Services requested on this Contract, and Client hereby grants permission to the Provider to photograph their private event. Family and friends of the Client shall be permitted to photograph or video record the wedding as long as they shall not interfere with the Provider’s duties. Other wedding vendors are not permitted to take photographs which fall outside the purview of their own service, and Provider retains the right to refuse access to other vendors if Provider feels it is infringing upon Provider's duties. It is the Client's responsibility to ensure that the Provider suffers no interference from guests or other vendors. In the event that a guest or vendor interferes with Provider, Client agrees to hold Provider inculpable for any missed images caused by said interference. In the event that the aforementioned interference is egregious and prevents Provider from performing the duties implied in this contract, it is the Client's responsibility to remove the interfering party from the location. Failure to do so will nullify this contract and Provider may leave the event with no refund to Client. Client also acknowledges, understands, and agrees that any other vendor taking an inappropriate number of photographs and/or photographs outside of the purview of their own services is photographing Client's private event without legal permission and Client will assist Provider in enforcing Client's right to privacy.

Exclusivity clauses are critical and there for good reason. Your situation is not at all normal nor is it tolerable. My advice to you is to let the bride know you must be given priority positioning and that the second hired photographer is at all times to be deferential to you. If you don't, you are asking for trouble and the potential for getting into a pissing contest with the student photographer. The student is likely looking to build their portfolio and will take much of the same shots you will be, so her money is not being spent well if she doesn't make sure that student knows they are to defer to you at all times and not take the same exact photographs you're to take.

I am full time and go through the ACA exchange as well. It's a much better option for self-employed.

If I decide to do anything special such as converting a RAW to black and white, or adding some sort of action to make it more artistic, I always make it a second version of the original image and give the client both. That way they are not stuck with my artistic decision on a given photograph, and they can see what can be done and perhaps get inspired to ask if specific other photographs can be altered the same way. All in all, I only do about a dozen of these at most out of an entire set.

1) What was in your contract? Did you deliver what was in your contract? If so, then there is no legal recourse they have. 2) If they choose to go after you in "the court of public opinion" I would watch out that they are not making any claims which are false, slanderous, or libelous. If so, sue THEM. You might have to endure a bad review. Just get many, many more good reviews to overshadow the bad one. That's really all you can do, IF they merely give an opinion. Again, if they lie in an attempt to hurt your business, that might be legal grounds for suing them. So, let them threaten a court case. If your contract is solid, and you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. And, if they're talking about going to court, cut off all communication that does not come from a solicitor.

Thanks for the heads up!

The space was pretty spread out and I didn't need to get many shots over people's phones. I don't remember it being a problem, though, and none of my shots have any interference from guest cameras. If anyone did get photos, they were conscious of staying out of my way.