UPDATE: Brothers Wedding (done)

DG Phototraining said:
Waaaaayyyyyyy late coming to this one, but...

When my Brother-in-law was married (2nd time) a few years ago i got roped into covering it for them - I kicked & screamed that I wanted to be a guest and just have fun instead - but my wife won and I agreed to shoot it (she ALWAYS wins btw, no idea why I even argued lol)

So on the day there I was stuck behind a camera again and you know what... I LOVED it :)

Knowing them so well made it even more relaxed than a normal Wedding. I had a great time and the photos were pretty good too - so all were happy then ???

Errr NO !!!

My wife wasn't happy that she'd been left pretty much by herself all day chatting to family members she either didn't know or didn't like !!!

So, my suggestion given the fact they aren't going to hire a Pro, shoot it, have fun doing it, but make time for your own wife/partner too or they will feel left out

Can't bloody win can you :D

Dave
Click to expand...

I have shot 3 family weddings, and numerous friends weddings and I too loved it! Sure, you have to go easy on the fun juice but you feel much better the next day!
 
Bell said:
Turns out they have set up an account on some phone app where the guests can log in to an account and upload photos straight from a phone.
i might not bother with my heavy cumborsome dslr, i could just use the app! I dont remember them telling me what camera i had to use! :D
Click to expand...
Surely then you're the same as any other guest, with just a camera phone?! If the B&G want you to produce some nicer pics than the rest of the guests you'll be letting them down somewhat!
 
odd jim said:
Surely then you're the same as any other guest, with just a camera phone?! If the B&G want you to produce some nicer pics than the rest of the guests you'll be letting them down somewhat!
Click to expand...
Was written in jest, clearly i wont be using my phone.
 
Daryl said:
I'll shoot your brothers wedding for free.......

............................But you get invoice for £800
Click to expand...
I take it thats a basic package, or is that TP discount?!
 
big soft moose said:
its a forum community thats what people do - its not like any of us are out there trying to convert random muppets in the street

It is entirely up to the individual whether they hire a pro , or indeed up to the amateur whether they want to risk doing them for a mate - but if they post asking for opinions they can't be suprised when they get honest opinions rather than having smoke blown up their arse.

Also you miss the point - its not about it being a good idea to hire a pro - its about it being a bad idea to expect your mate bob to be your pro because he has a 'fancy camera' if he isnt actually a pro - if you don't want to spend a lot to hire a pro then fine rely on guest photos , or don't have photo's at all

A

actually not - its not practical to be a guest and 'the photographer' - its perfectly practical to be a guest and take some photos like any other guest but that isnt the same thing,



Actually it does for two reasons

a) a good pro will have business costs (sometimes called PI) insurance , so if the photos are terible theres an opportunity to go to court and get his insurers to cough up the cost of restaging

b) even if the money isnt an issue , if a pro makes a cock of your wedding photos you can slag him down, witter about him on bitched, and generally give him grief - of course you can do this to you best mate bob as well ... but the relationship that gets buggered up might be more important than a pro you don't care about.

(b) is the principal reason i wouldnt advise any tog who's not experienced and with back ups etc to do their mates wedding - though as i said at the start I only give that advice if someone asks, i don't roam the streets with a placcard saying "togs don't do it"... and if he insists he wants to do it despite my advice i'll (like many others here) offer as much help and advice as possible to help him not cock up ... because thats what forums like this are for QED
Click to expand...

OK, well clearly you've made a good effort to prove me wrong on every point. I suppose in essence I have just always wondered why it's such a touchy subject with professional wedding photographers. Are you a wedding photographer by any chance?
 
Has anyone considered the idea that maybe they don't really give a rip about "professional quality" images? We didn't and we're happy with the images we did get, even the ones with my mom's finger over part of the lens. To an extent their candidness, informality, and lack of "professionalism" makes them somehow more meaningful.

Fact is, photographers have always thought more of "their art" than the average consumer has. Why do you think "journalism" is going to journalists w/ cell phones? Quality is subjective and the vast majority of stuff we photographers get twisted about the average consumer won't even notice or won't really care even if they do.
 
connersz said:
OK, well clearly you've made a good effort to prove me wrong on every point. I suppose in essence I have just always wondered why it's such a touchy subject with professional wedding photographers. Are you a wedding photographer by any chance?
Click to expand...

Are you a troll by any chance ?

You are getting detailed and reasoned arguments back and all you can do is bait the people explaining their point of view.
 
sk66 said:
Has anyone considered the idea that maybe they don't really give a rip about "professional quality" images? We didn't and we're happy with the images we did get, even the ones with my mom's finger over part of the lens. To an extent their candidness, informality, and lack of "professionalism" makes them somehow more meaningful.
Click to expand...

If that works for you then thats great.

Many many people *are* disappointed with their wedding photographs the day they see them, others regret many years later that they didn't get any done by a pro because whilst they have loads of informal images from guests no-one thought about the grandparents who were quietly sitting away from the crowds.

Just as you can't paint a brush that says everyone should have a pro you can't do the opposite and say that everyone will be happy with guest photographs.

Fact is, photographers have always thought more of "their art" than the average consumer has. Why do you think "journalism" is going to journalists w/ cell phones? Quality is subjective and the vast majority of stuff we photographers get twisted about the average consumer won't even notice or won't really care even if they do.
Click to expand...

A completely different sphere of photography and you can't compare the two. Social photography paid for directly by the B&G (in this case) is a different need to editorial photography servicing the papers and a part of the item purchased by the newspaper reader. In this case economics of falling advertising revenues, and the need to often deliver images from breaking news stories where a photographer can't or wasn't able to be present in time are causing newspapers to use alternative means. The Chicago Sun Times re-hired several photographers after assuming it could do without.

Quality is subjective you are right - but it has nothing to do with photographers thinking about their art above the story. They are trying to tell the story visually in a way that most people who write words for the papers just can't see through the lens.
 
meonshore said:
If that works for you then thats great.

Many many people *are* disappointed with their wedding photographs the day they see them, others regret many years later that they didn't get any done by a pro because whilst they have loads of informal images from guests no-one thought about the grandparents who were quietly sitting away from the crowds.

Just as you can't paint a brush that says everyone should have a pro you can't do the opposite and say that everyone will be happy with guest photographs.



A completely different sphere of photography and you can't compare the two. Social photography paid for directly by the B&G (in this case) is a different need to editorial photography servicing the papers and a part of the item purchased by the newspaper reader. In this case economics of falling advertising revenues, and the need to often deliver images from breaking news stories where a photographer can't or wasn't able to be present in time are causing newspapers to use alternative means. The Chicago Sun Times re-hired several photographers after assuming it could do without.

Quality is subjective you are right - but it has nothing to do with photographers thinking about their art above the story. They are trying to tell the story visually in a way that most people who write words for the papers just can't see through the lens.
Click to expand...

There are a number of problems at the moment. The first one being that anyone can essentially photograph a wedding, or start calling themselves a wedding photographer. The second being that some people don't care about the quality or content of the photographers, either now or in the future.

Those problems are only really problems for a wedding photographers and like I said before, if the B&G and everyone else is happy, that that remains a problem only for wedding photographers, either because they're losing money or because they're genuinely concerned that the B&G are going to regret their actions.

As I said before, it's not an issue of the quality. I have seen lots of terrible wedding photographers and lots of amazing uncle bobs. If you have a camera you can photograph a wedding, you don't need an exam or a license and you can charge more or less than everyone else.

I think it's important as a photographer to take a step back and think about what your client's needs really are, what their budget is and whether they can afford £800 for photographs, whether it is a wedding or not, rather than getting too upset about the situation.
 
connersz said:
I think it's important as a photographer to take a step back and think about what your client's needs really are, what their budget is and whether they can afford £800 for photographs, whether it is a wedding or not, rather than getting too upset about the situation.
Click to expand...

James, I've not had a chance to reacquaint myself with the participants in this thread, but do you photograph weddings (genuine question)? Whilst I completely agree in principle with what you're saying, your statements are entirely sensible but very often they are at odds with the reality. I think I mentioned earlier that wedding photography is unique in this respect - unique in terms of dynamics and the stresses and expenditure relating to the event. Of course not every client has the budget for a quality photographer and understandably not every client will want to spend a chunk of cash on photos. That is their choice or their position - they have to accept that as a consequence their photographs may not match whatever they have in their mind. The problem is that many of these clients will seek to blame someone (other than their own actions or circumstances) and it can end in tears. I've seen this over and over again on forums. The fact that the client is a family member can somewhat ameliorate the worst of the backlash, but I have also seen family members photograph the wedding of a relative only to receive some pretty rough treatment afterwards for failing to deliver whatever was desired. I'm saying this for the benefit of any new photographer reading this thread. In terms of the OP I think he sounds sensible and he has covered the necessary preliminaries - the relatives in question also appear to be fairly grounded in terms of what to expect, so everything should be fine.
 
Lindsay D said:
James, I've not had a chance to reacquaint myself with the participants in this thread, but do you photograph weddings (genuine question)? Whilst I completely agree in principle with what you're saying, your statements are entirely sensible but very often they are at odds with the reality. I think I mentioned earlier that wedding photography is unique in this respect - unique in terms of dynamics and the stresses and expenditure relating to the event. Of course not every client has the budget for a quality photographer and understandably not every client will want to spend a chunk of cash on photos. That is their choice or their position - they have to accept that as a consequence their photographs may not match whatever they have in their mind. The problem is that many of these clients will seek to blame someone (other than their own actions or circumstances) and it can end in tears. I've seen this over and over again on forums. The fact that the client is a family member can somewhat ameliorate the worst of the backlash, but I have also seen family members photograph the wedding of a relative only to receive some pretty rough treatment afterwards for failing to deliver whatever was desired. I'm saying this for the benefit of any new photographer reading this thread. In terms of the OP I think he sounds sensible and he has covered the necessary preliminaries - the relatives in question also appear to be fairly grounded in terms of what to expect, so everything should be fine.
Click to expand...
I'm not a wedding photographer but a portrait photographer and I both know and recommend lots of wedding photographers and people who have had weddings and not used a "professional" photographer.

I think you're mostly right and I have also seen and heard of lots of people having problems with wedding photographers (paid professionals) but I'm still skeptical of exactly how many people have had confrontations with family and friends of whom weren't paid or had any formal setup. I have never heard of such a case and I'm wondering if those claiming this to be a problem, really have the evidence or information to backup the claim. In all the cases where I have heard of the bride and groom requesting a family or friend(s) to take pictures, they have been happy with the results. I'm sure there are cases but in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure it's not a real issue; definitely not an issue to provoke so many complaints from photographers.
 
connersz said:
I'm wondering if those claiming this to be a problem, really have the evidence or information to backup the claim. In all the cases where I have heard of the bride and groom requesting a family or friend(s) to take pictures, they have been happy with the results. I'm sure there are cases but in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure it's not a real issue; definitely not an issue to provoke so many complaints from photographers.
Click to expand...

There is a popular adage which I have heard many times: "never work with friends or family". I have lost count of the number of upsets I have heard about over the years in just this kind of scenario. I daresay there will be a few kicking around this forum as well. And I think a few respondents in this thread have voiced similar concerns, for the same reasons. I for one will not discount the experiences I have had, or others have had, as amounting to groundless claims - that seems a little patronising. I'm sure the OP will produce an excellent collection of images, but there are other matters associated with the whole friends and family quagmire (these have been outlined previously) which can leave you grinding your teeth afterwards.

Speaking generally, every year I will get some enquiries from brides who are asking me if I can salvage their wedding photos - and in the majority of cases it is because they had enlisted a friend or relative to photograph their big day. In some cases the photographs are quite good, though not good enough for the bride. Just because this can go well at times does not mean that there are not a great many couples out there who live to regret their decisions - and no doubt the friend or relative in question will also wish they had never taken part. There is nothing remiss in making this known to anyone in the OP's position - of course we hope things will run smoothly, but it makes sense to put forward the possible pitfalls so that the photographer in question is suitably primed.
 
connersz said:
In all the cases where I have heard of the bride and groom requesting a family or friend(s) to take pictures, they have been happy with the results.
Click to expand...

Jamie, might I ask who's told you that - the couples or their photographers?
 
meonshore said:
Are you a troll by any chance ?

You are getting detailed and reasoned arguments back and all you can do is bait the people explaining their point of view.
Click to expand...

well said - I'm not going to feed him further except to address this point


connersz said:
I'm still skeptical of exactly how many people have had confrontations with family and friends of whom weren't paid or had any formal setup. I have never heard of such a case and I'm wondering if those claiming this to be a problem, really have the evidence or information to backup the claim.
Click to expand...

Have a read of the thread in this forum - theres more than one , off the top of my head i'd say double figures that i can remember where a non pro tog is posting for advice after it's gone completely to s***
 
Last edited:
Lindsay D said:
There is a popular adage which I have heard many times: "never work with friends or family". I have lost count of the number of upsets I have heard about over the years in just this kind of scenario. I daresay there will be a few kicking around this forum as well. And I think a few respondents in this thread have voiced similar concerns, for the same reasons. I for one will not discount the experiences I have had, or others have had, as amounting to groundless claims - that seems a little patronising. I'm sure the OP will produce an excellent collection of images, but there are other matters associated with the whole friends and family quagmire (these have been outlined previously) which can leave you grinding your teeth afterwards.

Speaking generally, every year I will get some enquiries from brides who are asking me if I can salvage their wedding photos - and in the majority of cases it is because they had enlisted a friend or relative to photograph their big day. In some cases the photographs are quite good, though not good enough for the bride. Just because this can go well at times does not mean that there are not a great many couples out there who live to regret their decisions - and no doubt the friend or relative in question will also wish they had never taken part. There is nothing remiss in making this known to anyone in the OP's position - of course we hope things will run smoothly, but it makes sense to put forward the possible pitfalls so that the photographer in question is suitably primed.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting point about people asking if they could be salvaged so they were clearly bothered about them and must have had some expectations. The majority of people I have come across have not been too interested (or at least said that) in having great wedding photos and have not had a lot of interest in selecting anyone special to take them. I suppose unfortunately they may change their minds the day after and look for someone to blame; whoever took the photos I guess. That could easily be unforeseeable to someone who was asked off-the-cuff.

Thanks for being so well mannered in your answers, appreciate it.
 
connersz said:
The majority of people I have come across have not been too interested (or at least said that) in having great wedding photos and have not had a lot of interest in selecting anyone special to take them. I suppose unfortunately they may change their minds the day after and look for someone to blame; whoever took the photos I guess. That could easily be unforeseeable to someone who was asked off-the-cuff.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's the main risk - you just don't know who is going to turn out to be difficult until after the fact.

That's the story for amateur photographers who get enlisted by friends, but I think professionals can have a hard time as well. I actually dread being invited to social events because I know there is often (if not usually) an unspoken assumption that I will turn up with a camera in my hand, ready to supply a professional set of photos. The general public just don't realise what goes into producing a good result - planning, some control and intervention on the day, several hours on your feet concentrating, then all the postproduction. I know that when I show up somewhere without any kit there can be palpable disappointment and even the odd backhanded comment. I'd sooner do without it and these days I prefer to socialise with people who don't even know what I do!
 
meonshore said:
If that works for you then thats great.

Many many people *are* disappointed with their wedding photographs the day they see them, others regret many years later that they didn't get any done by a pro because whilst they have loads of informal images from guests no-one thought about the grandparents who were quietly sitting away from the crowds.

Just as you can't paint a brush that says everyone should have a pro you can't do the opposite and say that everyone will be happy with guest photographs.
Click to expand...
In a sense, I agree. I do believe those who are *paying* to have a photographer expect quality results...often well above what they are actually paying for. So those who "go cheap," for the sake of being cheap and getting "a bargain," are often disappointed. The grandma thing is really just a lack of having pictures of grandma... not really wedding related as such.

I also agree about the hazards of working with/for friends/family... that can be quite problematic, but usually because it involves money/demands.

Just as you can't paint a brush that says everyone should have a pro you can't do the opposite and say that everyone will be happy with guest photographs.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And who is the one to make such a call? Obviously it's the couple... if that's their decision then fine. It's not like they will change their minds and hire a pro if she doesn't take some pics for them. They probably won't if they've already decided against it... whether they regret it later isn't terribly relevant. And if they do regret it later it's not probable that they will displace the blame (but not impossible either).

The issue is, as it always is, to have a clear understanding of the expectations/abilities by both parties. If that is handled appropriately, then there should be no more risk than there is for a pro being hired to shoot it. It sounds to me like that has been well addressed.
Of course there's always the side consideration as to if the relationship seems like it might be problematic (i.e. a very unreliable, overly demanding, unrealistic expectations, PITA client). That doesn't change regardless of the situation.
 
If this was my sister asking me to do it this is how it would go:

Sister: can you take some photos at my wedding?

Me: you're getting married?

Sister: what do you mean by that?

Me: nothing

Sister: so yeh, can you take some photos for me?

Me: you know im not a professional or anything yeah? If you want professional photos you need to pay a professional

Sister: yeh, i'm not stupid

Me: if you say so...

Sister: shut up youre doing it cause its my wedding and your my brother

Me: ok

I'd probably then go on to buy her the prints and album and whatever so I dont have to put anymore thought into what to buy her.

As for the 'you're taking money out professional photographers pockets' if i have a choice between my sister having £2000 extra on her wedding day or you i wouldn't lose any sleep over that decision. But realistically it wouldn't be my decision anyway.

If she didn't ask me, id take my camera anyway - so i can get the best photo of her when she falls over drunk.

The idea that someone should pay for a professional just because they can afford it is out right ridiculous. Its like saying you have a responsibility to buy an audi instead of a ford just because you can.

Doesnt matter how good you are, my sister is always going to look and feel more comfortable with me than with someone she hardly knows - ultimately i would give her enough credit to know what she values.

If she complained afterwards that 7th uncle albert twice removed wasnt in the photos i would a) be pretty suprised cause really who cares and b) tell her stop being a knob

Sounds like a lot of people have some rather odd relationships with their siblings.
 
NJL said:
Sounds like a lot of people have some rather odd relationships with their siblings.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking.

If a friend or family member asked me to do their wedding I'd be the best person to decide if it was a good idea or not on an interpersonal level. To be honest, I'm not sure I'm friends with anyone who's likely to ask for a freebie then moan about it because that would suggest they were somewhat unlikable on a fundamental level.

Pros in these threads always stride in treating people like idiots who can't be trusted to understand their relationships with their own friends and families. Patronising nonsense.
 
NJL said:
If she didn't ask me, id take my camera anyway - so i can get the best photo of her when she falls over drunk.

The idea that someone should pay for a professional just because they can afford it is out right ridiculous. Its like saying you have a responsibility to buy an audi instead of a ford just because you can.

Sounds like a lot of people have some rather odd relationships with their siblings.
Click to expand...

And you need to make sure that the drunken photo ends up on the first page of the album ;)

I haven't read all the answers in the thread, but I don't think it has anything to do with paying for a professional just because you can. I think what people are saying is that a lot of couples try to enlist a relative because they don't want to spend the money (absolutely nothing wrong with that providing they understand the limitations of going down this route) but then they sometimes gripe and complain afterwards - for all of eternity.

I don't know about some of us having odd relationships with our families (I always thought that was normal) - but if you get along with yours I'd say you're unusually fortunate! :LOL:

Weddings really are quite unusual events in that they tend to bring out the irritations of human nature. This is of course mostly down to sheer stress and tiredness - by the time the wedding day happens the various parties can be fit to scream. Weddings also magnify family and social dynamics, you may see some lovely things but you're also likely to see some tensions and a bit of backstabbing here and there. As a photographer one is in a wonderful position to overhear much of it - some of that can be hair raising. Then after the wedding there is something of an anti-climax and this can particularly affect the bride and the MOB - it's not unusual for brides to suffer from depression in the weeks or months which follow. This can cause them to see all sorts of things in a negative light, particularly the photography. I believe that if the day has been tense, the bride is more likely to associate those feelings with the pictures. It's all rather complicated but this does in part explain why there tends to be a discrepancy between the answers you'll get from professionals and the replies you'll get from the hobbyists who may not have photographed a wedding before.
 
That's really interesting, i hadn't considered the psychology of it all post wedding. Does that affect when you provide the photos to your clients?
 
NJL said:
That's really interesting, i hadn't considered the psychology of it all post wedding. Does that affect when you provide the photos to your clients?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it does. I would normally say to them that they should allow up to 6 weeks for the proofs. This gives them a bit of recovery time and builds some anticipation. It also prolongs the 'wedding phase' somewhat.

A lot of photographers get the proofs up within a few days. I think it's a personal thing, I'd just do what works best for you.
 
ghoti said:
I'm not sure I'm friends with anyone who's likely to ask for a freebie then moan about it because that would suggest they were somewhat unlikable on a fundamental level.

Pros in these threads always stride in treating people like idiots who can't be trusted to understand their relationships with their own friends and families. Patronising nonsense.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised at the extent to which otherwise rational and friendly people can react to their wedding photos. I'm sorry you feel that the professional advisers are being patronising and treating people like idiots - unfortunately that's often the reaction we get when real-world advice and experience is shared.

When I more or less stopped shooting wedding stuff a while back I carried on taking album designs for people who have had digital packages. It can be very revealing. As I mentioned earlier I sometimes get brides coming to me with photos asking if I can 'fix' them. On several occasions I have considered the photographs to be good. And very often we'll get talking and a bride will offload some of the emotional baggage she's carried since the wedding. There is absolutely no doubt that a bride is under considerable pressure to look her very best on her wedding day. For months before the event many if not most brides will try to lose weight, will have facials and even cosmetic surgery or cosmetic injections, teeth whitening .... And so forth. I recall one bride who cried over the photos she showed me - they had been taken by her brother who was clearly a talented amateur photographer. But this bride was endlessly comparing herself with the brides featured in the leading wedding magazines, and her body image was poor. Consequently she loathed her wedding photos and apparently had not shown her brother much appreciation. I think this is not uncommon - many of the best professional wedding photographers also encounter this kind of thing.

I will say this again - weddings are unique, they simply cannot be compared to a family photo shoot or Christmas party. You cannot always second-guess what someone is going to be like to 'work' with - even if they are one of your closest relations. This is why the working professionals on the forum will usually take a cautious approach. Some will advise not doing it at all, and others will suggest a structured approach where the main points are put into writing for future reference and expectations are repeatedly set.

I will also add that the OP has had concerns right from the start, which is why he consulted the forum. He has repeatedly tried to warn (set the expectations of) his relatives yet they appear to have resolutely pressured him into accepting the role of photographer, believing this is possible as a guest from the sidelines. It seems the decision was not in his hands at any point - and this is very much how it can be with family and close friends, you can end up between a rock and a hard place. Saying 'no' is not a simple as you think and can introduce a whole other set of consequences.
 
Lindsay D said:
You would be surprised at the extent to which otherwise rational and friendly people can react to their wedding photos. I'm sorry you feel that the professional advisers are being patronising and treating people like idiots - unfortunately that's often the reaction we get when real-world advice and experience is shared.
.
Click to expand...

:agree: the thing is those of us who give this advice in these threads have seen too many well meaning people come unstuck , precisely because they thought they understood the relationship with their extended family/freinds and so didnt bother setting realistic expectations.

Only after the wedding when BFFE discovered that all her wedding pictures were out of focus and went berzerk , did they find out that their understanding was flawed and come to this forum for help.

Another common cause is that although the tog may be "best friends for ever" with one of the happy couple, being the grooms best mate ever doesnt cut much ice when the bride (who you barely know except as your mates main squeeze) hates her photos and gos on the war path - expecting your best mate to take your side against his incandesent newly wedded wife is unrealistic at best.

The bottom line is that non photographers will often assume that owning a DSLR equates to you having the ability of david bailey - and if you don't tell them different you can come badly unstuck.

To illustrate this I know a bloke who did a wedding shoot for his brother in law. They told him "no formal shots, candids only" , so he took them at their word and didnt take any formal shots... turns out however that the brides mother really wanted some groups shots to send to the great aunts and was mortified that none were provided , cue bridezilla on the war path - as a paid tog when this sort of thing happens you can shrug and hide behind the wriiten agreement , that doesnt fly so well with family. 4 years later the fact that "he ruiined their wedding by not taking the right pictures" still comes up regularly in conversation , to the point that he no longer takes his camera to family gatherings hoping to avoid yet another recap of "you're so crap"
 
The other thing with weddings is that you have a number of "customers". There is not just the bride and groom, there's the bride's parents, the groom's parents and possibly other relatives who may wish to buy pictures. Let's say the bride and groom decided to enlist a talented and well-regarded documentary photographer and are thrilled with the pictures. The groom's parents on the other hand regard the photographs as modern drivel and are very upset because they made a financial contribution to the wedding. They contact the photographer seeking recompense - then it all goes around the houses as usual. Of course, professionals have certain safeguards in place as Pete has said and once done with a client we can walk away from them forever. If you're a relative you can only hope that in years to come everyone will see the funny side.
 
See I never have that issue, my friends all know I don't do people with my camera, they know I'm all about doing crazy stuff that usually involves fire, so the brides don't want me to be near the dress with my style :D

Plus I very rarely do portraiture, yes I can do it if I need to but I try and avoid it and I don't know kit dedicated towards it just as lighting, modifiers, backgrounds where desired etc and it's not a type of photography I get all that much pleasure from
 
MWHCVT said:
See I never have that issue, my friends all know I don't do people with my camera, they know I'm all about doing crazy stuff that usually involves fire, so the brides don't want me to be near the dress with my style :D
Click to expand...

I can just see you at a wedding whirling a bird feeder full of burning wirewool round your head :ROFLMAO: it would make a dramatic trashh the dress shot, but i think i'd want to check fire retardency of the dress first
 
big soft moose said:
I can just see you at a wedding whirling a bird feeder full of burning wirewool round your head :ROFLMAO: it would make a dramatic trashh the dress shot, but i think i'd want to check fire retardency of the dress first
Click to expand...

Do it from a boat while the bride an groom are stood in the ornamental pond in the hotel grounds....a couple of well positioned speed lights with snoots....I think we have a photo idea forming here :P

StewartR said:
Good grief. Have you no sense of adventure?
Click to expand...

Hell he'll want a flipping risk assessment done next :bang:
 
only if its on my insurance - if its your P/L we can break out the flame wands , flamerwefer and DK79 Flame weapons for all i care
 
big soft moose said:
only if its on my insurance - if its your P/L we can break out the flame wands , flamerwefer and DK79 Flame weapons for all i care
Click to expand...

You wimp you..:D
 
sk66 said:
What's the point of paying for insurance if you never use it?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Plus I think you'll find the people who work in claims handling like a good story. I know ours do. The best bit is often the attempts to persuade them that the claimant has "taken all reasonable precautions to avoid loss or damage". Bit difficult to make that stick if you've been playing with a flamethrower, perhaps, but I'm sure BSM is up to the task!
 
I'd have to get my mate Jamie to come along, as a royal marine commando i'm sure he's "suitably trained and/or qualified" to use a flame weapon ;)
 
I'm slightly wrried that the enormous fuel air explosion from the DK79 may caause the whites in the dress to blow out though - Matt better use a 20 stop filter ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top