[MRRiley]

Gene,

I only say it is "my set" in the regard that the B&G have hired me to shoot the official photos. By doing so, they assign to me the responsibility to manage the photography. You are right, it's not technically "my set" but it IS the B&Gs. Thus it is also their right to restrict photography by anyone other than me. If they are not willing to do this (especially during the important bits) they can find another photographer, one who is less concerned with getting the best shots possible.

As many have said in this thread, its impossible for me to know if Uncle Bob or Aunt Jane are any good or not. But that is irrelevant. However IF I am told that Uncle Bob is a retired professional portrait photographer I will have a polite chat with him and do my level best to accomodate his shots as long as, again, it does not interfere with my shots. Afterall, I've been paid to take the photos and if anyone gets in my way they have potentially damaged the product I can deliver to the couple.

That is my only concern here, as I supect it was the OPs. Whether you are asked by the couple or hired by the couple they have trusted you to deliver certain shots. If you don't or can't do that because someone else stomped on your shot then you will deliver a product below their expectations.

As you say, all of this needs to be discussed and made clear to the couple and then to every guest who shows up with any camera with a flash.

Mike

p.s. praux is not a real term like faux so if you wanna mash em together it should be protographer. And I never accused you of being a fauxtographer. That moniker is reserved for those people who act like they are somehow sanctioned by the B&G and who mess up my shots.

p.p.s. I have been asked by many friends to shoot photos at their weddings after they have hired another pro for the official stuff. I have steadfastly refused, since I do not want to get in his/her way. My wife often brings her P&S but she knows the drill and only shoots when the pro is off doing something else.

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 07-22-2009 at 01:09 PM.

[GeneV]

Gene,

I only say it is "my set" in the regard that the B&G have hired me to shoot the official photos. By doing so, they assign to me the responsibility to manage the photography. You are right, it's not technically "my set" but it IS the B&Gs. Thus it is also their right to restrict photography by anyone other than me. If they are not willing to do this (especially during the important bits) they can find another photographer, one who is less concerned with getting the best shots possible.

As many have said in this thread, its impossible for me to know if Uncle Bob or Aunt Jane are any good or not. But that is irrelevant. However IF I am told that Uncle Bob is a retired professional portrait photographer I will have a polite chat with him and do my level best to accomodate his shots as long as, again, it does not interfere with my shots. Afterall, I've been paid to take the photos and if anyone gets in my way they have potentially damaged the product I can deliver to the couple.

That is my only concern here, as I supect it was the OPs. Whether you are asked by the couple or hired by the couple they have trusted you to deliver certain shots. If you don't or can't do that because someone else stomped on your shot then you will deliver a product below their expectations.

As you say, all of this needs to be discussed and made clear to the couple and then to every guest who shows up with any camera with a flash.

Mike

p.s. praux is not a real term like faux so if you wanna mash em together it should be protographer. And I never accuesed you of being a fauxtographer. That moniker is reserved for those people who act like they are somehow sanctioned by the B&G and who mess up my shots.

p.p.s. I have been asked by many friends to shoot photos at their weddings after they have hired another pro for the official stuff. I have steadfastly refused, since I do not want to get in his/her way. My wife often brings her P&S but she knows the drill and only shoots when the pro is off doing something else.

No problem with anything you say here and no offense. I suppose to use better French to construct an uncomplimentary non-word, I could have said proutographer. (Multiple meanings possible).

[MRRiley]

No problem with anything you say here and no offense. I suppose to use better French to construct an uncomplimentary non-word, I could have said proutographer. (Multiple meanings possible).

No worries from me Gene. I was just trying to explain how and why I used the term "fauxtographer". I shoulda put a or a after that p.s.

Heck, we are all just trying to get to some common ground here.

Mike

[Leaf Fan]

However IF I am told that Uncle Bob is a retired professional portrait photographer I will have a polite chat with him and do my level best to accomodate his shots as long as, again, it does not interfere with my shots.

....

p.p.s. I have been asked by many friends to shoot photos at their weddings after they have hired another pro for the official stuff. I have steadfastly refused, since I do not want to get in his/her way. My wife often brings her P&S but she knows the drill and only shoots when the pro is off doing something else.

I think you hit the freaking nail on the head here. I'd be willing to bet if Uncle Bob was a pro (retired or not) he'd either refuse or be fully understanding of your position and stay out of your way and not interfere with your job.

The other examples Gene provided are very different than the photographer vs. fauxtographer in that guest usually don't bring their own food, or their own music, or their own flowers, but they most often bring their own cameras. Even if they did bring their own food/music/flowers, none of those should PREVENT the real chef/DJ/Florist from doing their job, as opposed to the fauxtographer who could ruin that crucial shot with an ill timed flash.

[GeneV]

I think you hit the freaking nail on the head here. I'd be willing to bet if Uncle Bob was a pro (retired or not) he'd either refuse or be fully understanding of your position and stay out of your way and not interfere with your job.

The other examples Gene provided are very different than the photographer vs. fauxtographer in that guest usually don't bring their own food, or their own music, or their own flowers, but they most often bring their own cameras. Even if they did bring their own food/music/flowers, none of those should PREVENT the real chef/DJ/Florist from doing their job, as opposed to the fauxtographer who could ruin that crucial shot with an ill timed flash.

First, to make it clear, I don't know if you've been following the entire thread, but I have said repeatedly that the guests should not get in the way of the paid photographer--no disagreement at all. Period.

My examples of all the other people who make the wedding happen, are because, from my attending way too many weddings this summer, it seems that increasingly the weddings seem to be by, of and for the photos--including both the pro and the amateurs. People getting in the way to take more photos, pros with multiple assistants crowding and shewing away any and all participation by the attendees and a multiplicity of pros (still and video) are symptoms of this syndrome. Twice, I've flown across the country at considerable expense so that I could have a conversation with a long-lost relative while a good part of the wedding happens in a corner unavailable to most of us. I totally agree with Mike about the practical part of this, but the use of the word "set" for the wedding just strikes at that nerve. That is exactly how the guest who has spent serious effort and money to be there feels--on a set.

Everyone needs to remember why this occasion happens, and it isn't just for the photos. The photographer is not the star, but just one of many people who make this happen.

[stewart_photo]

What would you do if someone walked into your studio set and started taking photos of a model you were shooting? I don't suppose you'd just let em shoot merrily away, disrupting your work. No, you'd kick em out or have em arrested for trespassing if they refused to leave. (snip)

Of course, that's not very likely since I'm usually a bit more polite to my invited guests. And we are talking about an invited guest here, not just someone who walked into the wedding ceremony (or my studio) uninvited. Anyway, I'm going to let it go with that and my previous comments. As I said earlier, I'm not trying to start an argument - certainly not a long-winded one covering the many topics you''ve now raised.

stewart

[aweir]

I think I can end this discussion by saying that whether or not this guest-photograper was a nuisance to me is irrelevant. But what would you think if the groom's face said it all? I think when the groom started frowning at this guest with the SLR, using a flash, that was all that that anybody needed to see to conclude "they were not welcome BY THE GROOM to be doing what he/she was doing".

The groom's mother could have loved every minute of it! That doesn't even matter. If I stood up, began to take a picture and looked through my viewfinder and saw the groom looking back at me with a puzzled exression , I would put the camera away. Any sensible person would.

Anyway, the only thing that would be worse than that would be the groom frowning at the professional.

And, oh, I shot almost 500 photographs that day. At one point a guest came up to me at the reception and said something to the effect "you must be getting tired of taking pictures..." But I'm not one of those photographers that jumps ship as soon as the B&G kiss. I like to follow it through till the end. Until the B&G tell me to take a rest. I'm not there to party with the rest of the family. I'm there to document an important occasion just like anyone else would be. I've seen some photographers leave their $2,000 equipment on a table while they go do the chicken dance. (literally).

---

Last edited by aweir; 07-22-2009 at 11:52 PM.

[GeneV]

I think I can end this discussion by saying that whether or not this guest-photograper was a nuisance to me is irrelevant. But what would you think if the groom's face said it all? I think when the groom started frowning at this guest with the SLR, using a flash, that was all that that anybody needed to see to conclude "they were not welcome BY THE GROOM to be doing what he/she was doing".

The groom's mother could have loved every minute of it! That doesn't even matter. If I stood up, began to take a picture and looked through my viewfinder and saw the groom looking back at me with a puzzled exression , I would put the camera away. Any sensible person would.

Anyway, the only thing that would be worse than that would be the groom frowning at the professional.

And, oh, I shot almost 500 photographs that day. At one point a guest came up to me at the reception and said something to the effect "you must be getting tired of taking pictures..." But I'm not one of those photographers that jumps ship as soon as the B&G kiss. I like to follow it through till the end. Until the B&G tell me to take a rest. I'm not there to party with the rest of the family. I'm there to document an important occasion just like anyone else would be. I've seen some photographers leave their $2,000 equipment on a table while they go do the chicken dance. (literally).

I don't think the groom's response was in your original post. However, that is just where the responsibility lies, and that is just who should be setting the rules.

If that other woman understood that mom wanted her to take photos, and no one told her otherwise, she might be posting on a board somewhere about how rude it was for you to upstage her. Moms tend to be pretty closely involved in the wedding prep and could easily be taken as in authority. The bride and groom need to set this straight with parents and friends or this kind of thing will happen.

I have seen the bride and groom look at the pros with puzzled expressions, and very recently, too.

[opfor]

Weddings, weddings, weddings. Someone is always going to have a bad day. You just have to plan for it.
As a favor to the wife, I did the pictures for her friend's wedding earlier this month. Shots in the church weren't a problem, the church didn't allow photography during the service except for the bride coming in or going out.
The problem was that there seemed to be about 30 people with cameras. Everything from P&S to DSLR/video, and when we tried to do the photos outside the church it turned into feeding time at the zoo. I've never seen anything like it and hope to never see it again...
Everyone seemed to think it was some sort of a competition where they had to try and out do the official photographer and each other. Why they thought they needed to use flash on a nice sunny day I will never understand.
I didn't get upset, I just kept on with what I was doing. Did I miss shots, no. Did my shots suffer, yes definitely. It's hard to get a good picture when the people you are trying to shoot are flinching from a dozen flashes going off. Can you stomp your feet and get stern with 30 relatives of the B&G, not really. The B&G didn't want to fuss with them, why should I worry?
I did get some good shots of the flashing seals trying to compete with each other and take pics though...
Sometimes you just have to laugh at it all and press on.

[PentHassyKon]

........snip....
The problem was that there seemed to be about 30 people with cameras. Everything from P&S to DSLR/video, and when we tried to do the photos outside the church it turned into feeding time at the zoo. I've never seen anything like it and hope to never see it again...
Everyone seemed to think it was some sort of a competition where they had to try and out do the official photographer and each other. Why they thought they needed to use flash on a nice sunny day I will never understand.
..........snip........

That's the paparazzi effect

[KierraElizabeth]

Well, when my husband and I married, we had a friend who wanted to do the wedding for experience, but frankly I didn't trust her since we would have been her first wedding. And being that my husband and I are both photography buffs, we knew we didn't want an amateur screwing up our photos. So, we asked the photographer who we hired if he would mind an (read: one) amateur photographer tagging along. He was fine with it and told us a story that the photographer he had interned with told him concerning outside photographers. His mentor had done a wedding shoot and all had gone well as normal. Unfortunately, while on its way to his lab (film days), the Fed Ex truck caught fire and all the photographs were lost. Of course, he was mortified and contacted the bride and groom. He refunded their money and then asked for the names and numbers of every person they could think of who had used a camera at the wedding. He contacted these people, bought their negatives from them, and then compiled a very lovely, high quality album for the couple. Our photographer said that since that time, he has never been one of those photographers that asks others not to take pictures. He says all he asks is that he get the first shot, and that the amateur not ask the bride and groom to stay posed or change poses.

Hubby and I have done a couple of weddings for close friends and have dealt with this. We have had people go so far as to literally step in front of the camera mid shot (yes, pictures of someone's back instead of the B&G are pretty awesome...) or tell my husband that he was taking a bad picture b/c she could see a car in the background. (which he could not b/c he was working with a very shallow DOF for that particular area). Anyway, I think it is really about approaching the situation based on how the other person is approaching it.

For the instance above, we had to ask the B&G to tell her friends to butt out, which they did. On other occasions, I have just told other that they are welcome to take as many photos as they like, so long as they see my flash fire first and they don't interrupt the posing (it helps that I only do shoots for friends, and only for free--long story--, so I can also tell them that every photo I take will be available from the B&G).

My bet is that the mother was just worried she wouldn't have 'enough' good photos and invited a friend she knew had a nice camera to the wedding. The friend probably had never shot a wedding, and if she is using a flash in the church, probably doesn't know much about etiquette. I would have just said something to her about it, ask that she turn off the flash--out of respect for the ceremony and the fact that you were hired by the B&G--and told her she is welcome to keep shooting so long as she lets you do what the B&G asked you to do. I have found that usually people just don't know they are interfering b/c they are so excited about the wedding itself, or they just don't know better. Rarely, will you have to do anything other than politely hint. GL! Besides that, how did the photos come out?

[stewart_photo]

There are always two important groups of images during a wedding event - the official wedding album and the family snapshots. While pros usually do well with the former, they seldom do great with the latter since they're distracted with the former and often don't know which people are important for the snapshots. As a result, they easily miss desirable secondary images, include too many images of the "Aunt Judy's" unpopular kids, don't included enough images of everyone's favorite "Uncle Bob," completely ignore the bride or groom's second or third best friend, or whatever.

Therefore, family members with sufficient prior wedding experience (the mother, etc) usually seek a second person (family member, family friend, etc) to handle the familiy snapshots and any images the pro might miss. Marching orders for this second person usually include instructions to get images of the bride & groom doing this or that - something the pro overlooked or screwed up during a previous wedding. Sadly, this overly enthusiastic official unofficial photographer often goes overboard and tries to capture everything, quickly stepping on the toes of the hired pro. Add to that a herd of other participants and guests with cameras.

I don't handle weddings today and haven't done one in perhaps twenty years (not my cup of tea). However, during those years ago, others with cameras were not an overwhelming issue since I entered those situations from a photojournalism background (events often covered by groups). While the distractions were occasionally annoying, I got on with the task of capturing the images I wanted. Greater experience with weddings may have reduced that annoyance considerably.

Ulitmately, if one lacks an even-tempered personality, or the ability to get along well with others, or is easily annoyed by others, photographing weddings with dozens or even hundreds of participants and guests is quite obviously not the best career choice. Same with any other photo situation where groups of people (or even individuals) are involved.

stewart

[GeneV]

The digital age has greatly added to the paparazzi effect. It used to cost something every time you pressed the shutter.

[marcdsgn]

At our wedding we encouraged guests to bring their cameras and shoot away whenever they felt like it, except when the official photographer was taking the posed shots. Guests were happy to co-operate and the didn't lose out on getting their own candid snaps.

Turns out it was a wise move on our part, as the pro's shots never made it to our gallery wall; quite a few of the guests' shots were better, as they were more natural and caught the atmosphere of the day.

MORE...
Reading Kierra's post has prompted another anecdote:

We live in a regional area of Queensland. One newspaper for the whole town. The residing events photographer for the 'paper has been around since forever and has the very annoying tendency to assume unlimited access to all areas of any community event at all times. This has resulted in many very disgruntled locals whose photo albums of family events such as debutante balls and school concerts feature this dill's back in shot as he nudges his way in front of the audience to take his shapshots for the newspaper. What makes it worse is that he doesn't bother to change his grotty workday clothes between - if appearances are anything to go by - staggering out of the pub in the afternoon and grabbing his camera bag to attend a formal event.

[George Lama]

For the most part, all weddings I've covered have arranged for guests to head to the reception while we work. All you have to tell people is there is free booze and there will be no one left behind to bug you.