f_r2

<p>Nadine, many of the posts in this thread hint at the importance of the pro photographer and are somewhat condescending to the bride and groom and the couples' guest.</p>

<p>I found two sentences in particular interesting. Both hint at this importance of the photographer.</p>

<p>Marc in reference to guests who should be staying out of his way: " It's a wedding, not a photo op designed for your creative outlet. "</p>

<p>OP about guests who shoot her formal setups: "All of our creativity was being leeched."</p>

<p>The wedding is not a photo op designed for the photogs' creative outlet either. The wedding day is a celebration, not a theatrical performance. As I've mentioned, the best wedding photog I've seen doesn't do the formal poses on the wedding day. The wedding day is handled in a photojournalistic way and the formal photographs in the studio. </p>

<p>I don't see how it's reasonable that the photog should prevent others from shooting the poses. It's not like the photog had anything to do with the elements such as dress, makeup, etc. One could say that the photog is leeching the creativity of the dressmaker, the baker, the makeup artist.</p>

<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>

<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>

<p>Matt, I know almost nothing about flash. I recently got an SB-600 and have used it precisely as you describe. No idea what any of the buttons do, but figured out the commander/remote thing and let CLS get everything else right for me. I've been using the wide-angle diffuser and holding the flash in one hand and the camera in the other. Sometimes I use that little stand thingy too. </p>

<p>Thanks for a great description and example of how to do this properly.</p>

<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>

<p>To the OP:</p>

<p>If you treat people as human beings instead of objects, the job of street photography may just become easier. That applies in more than just photography. When it comes to the dangerous places, those would be dangerous sans camera too.</p>

<p>To add...</p>

<p>It would be so nice if someone were ever able to return some of my family's lost photos. I doubt it will ever happen.</p>

<p>That liquor store was at El Centro and Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood. There is a reference by name in an online blog of someone who worked at that intersection at that time. That person may know who the family was, having spent time there and all.</p>

<p>Somewhere, someone has my family photos like these (from when I was a child). Either that or they are lying in a landfill somewhere.</p>

<p>Is the family in those photos really unknown? I saw a number of clues that could lead to their identity.</p>

<p>This is where I get confused. I've looked for a good book on the subject, but have found nothing so far. I usually use aperture priority because that's where I feel most comfortable. I use shutter priority sometimes. With the flash, I can still adjust the aperture, but I notice that the flash has the "m" and I haven't figured out how to make that go away. The flash goes off and the photos look nice, but I have no idea how I've managed to do anything and just thank CLS. I also don't know what the EV has to do with flash. I've been solely ambient light and have shunned flash until now. Now I'm ashamed to have not paid any attention and feel really, really stupid. </p>

<p>Thanks for the help, Matt and Simon. The questions and answers are giving me some good lessons.</p>

<p>Can we expand the discussion then? I have always used existing light, but now have an SB-800 for my D-80. I know nothing about using flash and don't understand the user guide that came with it. I've figured out how to use it off-camera, but have only used the automatic settings.</p>

<p>Tourists make me anxious and annoy me. I just know the photographs they take will be jpegs with artifacts, poorly composed and poorly exposed. It nauseates me just to think about it. Can one take a class action against a class rather than on behalf of a class of people? ;)</p>

<p>They asked how much you are willing to pay for the answer? Or asked you to pay?</p>

<p>One is a marketing survey and the other is a charge for service.</p>

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>The photos may make the world a better place. Something in the photograph could be used to help identify what caused the problem (accident reconstruction). It could also help identify victims who may have been injured but not treated on the scene because of priority injuries. Maybe a newspaper wouldn't want them, but there could be other takers that would use them for some good.</p>

<p>Who has the right to impose that on you?</p>

<p>Why, the person paying you for your services, of course. This case was a wedding, wasn't it?</p>

<p>Matt Laur, I so agree with you.</p>

<p>In the US, I think plastic surgery has become rather pervasive. People are physically more beautiful these days (noses, for instance), but it's not natural beauty. I think people were more "earthy" in the 1970s. It was a contrast to the overly-made-up late 1950s and 1960s with all that mascara. </p>

<p>Why not look at some issues of Life magazine?</p>

<p>My example was "speaking a foreign language", not something protected by the Civil Rights Act (anybody can speak a foreign language). Instead, it is more a freedom of expression issue, which happens to be very similar to the restriction of freedom of expression through photography.</p>

<p>Again, if you're disturbing the peace by annoying others with your behavior (shouting in peoples' faces, or shoving your camera at them), there is a different issue. It's not a photography issue but a disturbing of the peace issue.</p>

<p>It's not the semantics; it's the concept. There are three types of spaces in question here: privately owned private space, publicly owned public space and privately owned public space. A mall is a privately owned public space.</p>

<p>If the mall security asks a person to leave a mall because that person is speaking a foreign language (not a crime of any sort), they cannot have the person arrested if he/she refuses to leave. What would the police officer charge the person with? What would the judge say? Don't you think that the person, if arrested, would have a wonderful civil case against the mall?</p>

<p>Public or private space is definitely relevant.</p>

<p>I'll give you another example. In a public space, you cannot exclude people who are, for instance, foreigners. The mall, being a privately-owned public space, cannot say that foreigners are excluded. In your privately-owned private space, your home for example, you can indeed exclude foreigners should you feel so inclined.</p>

<p>Huge effect.</p>

<p>Has that been tested by the Supreme Court? </p>

<p>Just this past January makes it a test to see how far they can go. </p>

<p>Another question is whether a multistory apartment is a public space or not. Did they ban smoking in one's bedroom, whether rented or owned? Or in the hallways and on the public spaces within the private property?</p>

<p>If someone else took the photo of one, then yes. ;)</p>

<p>There are two definitions of "public". </p>

<p>One definition has to do with whether the government owns the property or not. The other definition has to do with whether the public uses the space or not, no matter who owns it. </p>

<p>The public does not use a private home, for instance. The public does use a restaurant. That means that smoking a legal substance such as tobacco can be banned in restaurants by the government, but it cannot be banned in private homes. </p>

<p>Public v private property and public v private space are two different concepts.</p>

<p>I like the second one. I'm not sure whether to be happy for the guy or sad.</p>

<p>So if they had the signs up 40 years ago, why did they take them down?</p>