Wedding Photographer didn't like me taking photos

[On the Huh]

Get a room you two!..........

 

[marcusp13]

When the bride and groom get there pictures back and one of them is looking at the official photogrpaher and the other one is looking at you... there not going to be best pleased with those pictures..

Apologies to dig up the start of the post again, but I would hope, as they are a hired professional. That if there is an image of the bride/groom looking away towards the loved relative, that this would have been reshot.

 

[Lindsay D]

Apologies to dig up the start of the post again, but I would hope, as they are a hired professional. That if there is an image of the bride/groom looking away towards the loved relative, that this would have been reshot.

I'm sure it will have been re-shot. And that's the point. The paid photographer doesn't really have time to keep on re-shooting images which have been spoiled by over-enthusiastic guests. It puts them (and everyone else) behind schedule and it can be irritating for the guests when they'd rather be enjoying the party.

 

[stu.artd]

Partly, I still think its not right to stop people taking photos during a wedding.

She could of done it in a better way. It's not my fault that's the business model she's chosen. She has to consider that when offering that service.

I did actually write the original post in a manner which asked for your opinions not in a angry sense.

In my opinion the hired photographers is there to take wedding photo's. If someone is stopping or interfering with their ability to take the photo's they've been hired to take then they should speak to them to explain the issue and then continue with what they've been hired to do.
If other people are taking photo's and are obviously taking care to stay out of the way and not interfere then they should be left to get on with it. I'd contend that a good wedding photographer might even discuss things with them and maybe even make suggestions. I've seen that happen and it's quite a positive thing when it does.

The wedding is not the photographers big day, it's the bride/groom/their family's big day. The only reason they are there is to help record the day with photo's. It makes sense that the more people that take photo's (unobtrusively) the better.
For the photographer to have a go at a family member that was not getting in the way and was doing what they had been asked to by the couple/family that were paying for everything is just poor form and reflects poorly on them. Their business model is their own concern, however my guess is that their basic costs for the day would have been set at a level to more than cover everything as not every couple / family order extra prints.

 

[visagephoto]

The wedding is not the photographers big day, it's the bride/groom/their family's big day. The only reason they are there is to help record the day with photo's.

No It's the Bride & Grooms big day, the family and guests are invited to witness the proceedings and participate in the celebrations.

The official photographer is paid to record (not help record) the day with photo's.

To be honest if I thought I was likely to interfere with the official photographers work either directly or indirectly, I would put my camera away or even better leave it at home out of consideration for the couple, rather than risk being even partly responsible for their disappointment when they get their album.

While it's now common practice for guests to take photo's at weddings, I believe it's still a private occasion and I think any guests who insist they are entitled to carry whatever equipment and take any photographs they like (especially at the church or during the service), are being selfish, inconsiderate and disrespectful to the people who are paying for their meal.

 

[stu.artd]

It's also the family's big day. It may be the parents only respective son and daughter getting married. They'll say it's the kids day but the kids know it's also a big day for their parents as well. At least both my wife and I thought that when we got married.

The offcial tog is not the sole person there to record the day with photo's. They may well be the only person that's been paid for it, but they're not the only person that's going to be doing it. Every bride and groom I've known has asked friends or family to try and get some photo's as well.

Yep, If you're interfering get out the way. If you're not then what's the problem ?
If the bride and groom have asked you to take photo's as well where'e the issue ? Assuming you have the sense to stay out the way ?
IME the people I've seen (inc myself) taking photo's at weddings have the blessing of the bride and groom. I've also had the blessing of the official tog as well, he was a pleasant and amenable guy and we ended up talking about our kit later on.

Maybe we've just been to very different weddings.

 

[visagephoto]

It's also the family's big day. It may be the parents only respective son and daughter getting married. They'll say it's the kids day but the kids know it's also a big day for their parents as well. At least both my wife and I thought that when we got married.

I agree it's also a special occasion (or big day) for the close family, but the events should centre around the B&G as it's their day

The offcial tog is not the sole person there to record the day with photo's. They may well be the only person that's been paid for it, but they're not the only person that's going to be doing it. Every bride and groom I've known has asked friends or family to try and get some photo's as well.

The official photographer is the only one there with the responsibility to record the day, I understand that guests will also be taking photographs, but I wouldn't say they are there to record the day with photographs.

I agree that some couples may ask some guests to try and get some photo's (usually those that the official photographer isn't expected to cover), Personally I wouldn't normally have a problem with guests taking photographs.

My comment was in response to those who were declaring that as guests they had a right to use whatever equipment they like to photograph whatever they want, and if the official photographer has any issues, well that's his problem. Well that may be so, but it's also likely to reflect on the quality of service/product received by the very people who had the courtesy to invite them to their big day, and pay for their meal.

Yep, If you're interfering get out the way. If you're not then what's the problem ?

Or maybe even (unknowingly) causing a distraction?

If the bride and groom have asked you to take photo's as well where'e the issue ? Assuming you have the sense to stay out the way ?

Agreed

IME the people I've seen (inc myself) taking photo's at weddings have the blessing of the bride and groom. I've also had the blessing of the official tog as well, he was a pleasant and amenable guy and we ended up talking about our kit later on.

Yes most probably do, but if I noticed the official photographer was under pressure, distracted by other cameras, or just having a bad day, and this was likely to reflect on the quality of the shots provided to the B&G, I would find another location or time to take my personal photo's.

Maybe we've just been to very different weddings.

Yes probably as i don't recognize you from the image attached to the end of your post.

 

[stu.artd]

I agree it's also a special occasion (or big day) for the close family, but the events should centre around the B&G as it's their day

The official photographer is the only one there with the responsibility to record the day, I understand that guests will also be taking photographs, but I wouldn't say they are there to record the day with photographs.

They're the only one there with the paid responsibility. Some family / friends may well have been asked to "bring their fancy cameras and take photo's". It's not the same level of responsibility, but people can put pressure on themselves to help out close friends. Including those that are getting married.

I agree that some couples may ask some guests to try and get some photo's (usually those that the official photographer isn't expected to cover), Personally I wouldn't normally have a problem with guests taking photographs.

I'd contend that it's not the official photographer's place to have a problem with the principle of other people taking photographs at a wedding anyway.

My comment was in response to those who were declaring that as guests they had a right to use whatever equipment they like to photograph whatever they want, and if the official photographer has any issues, well that's his problem. Well that may be so, but it's also likely to reflect on the quality of service/product received by the very people who had the courtesy to invite them to their big day, and pay for their meal.

Agreed. It's a stressful day for them, and although they're rewarded well enough in terms of their fees (or else they wouldn't be doing it I suppose) it's unfair of others to impede them.

Yes most probably do, but if I noticed the official photographer was under pressure, distracted by other cameras, or just having a bad day, and this was likely to reflect on the quality of the shots provided to the B&G, I would find another location or time to take my personal photo's.

I'd ask them if there was anything I could do to help. Maybe knowing the family / friends would help with getting them moving / positioning etc.. If one guest in particular was causing them grief by acting the clown and I knew them then a request from me would likely be listened to more than one from a stranger. There's also a possibility that just getting the chance to talk briefly with an interested guest would help relieve their stress.

Yes probably as i don't recognize you from the image attached to the end of your post.

Well it is a very low res' smiley so I'm not at all surprised!.

 

[cambsno]

The tog was well out of order here imo. Weddings are for the B&G and guests. Sure, if someone is getting in the way have a word, but according to what the OP said the tog seems a complete idiot!

 

[visagephoto]

The tog was well out of order here imo. Weddings are for the B&G and guests. Sure, if someone is getting in the way have a word, but according to what the OP said the tog seems a complete idiot!

Well yes, according to what the OP said.

To be honest if other guests were also taking photographs I can only imagine that the official photographer must have felt he had a good reason to single out the OP.

Unless of course he was just intimidated by the size of the OP's kit.

 

[Digitalize]

I actually covered my cousins wedding at her request, and even went to the bride and groom photos. But then the photographer was the best mans Dad, and we spoke about photography, he knew I was a student etc, and was getting more BTS photos.

 

[shaylou]

Maybe the analogy was flawed, but I'm sorry... if the client wants great shots of the father and bride walking down the aisle, for example, and all he gets is arms reaching out holding iPhones, then I fail to see why he shouldn't have explained this to the clients before hand, and imposed some rules.

How do you work around an irritation like that?

I don't shoot weddings, so maybe I'm talking crap here, but common sense would seem to dictate you can't hire someone to do a job, then criticise them when everything about that job makes it impossible to get what the client wants... nor when the photographer tries to claw back some control over the chaos.

Sorry but this was not the case here. If you go back to the original post you will see why your post is inaccurate. No offense intended.

 

[sturisoma]

struck a chord with me having recently been to vegas for my daughter's wedding. the wedding venue provided a photographer in with the price, but I wanted to get some good shots too. So there we were, sitting in our seats, listening to the vows, my eyes all teary, when suddenly the official photographer stands between us (the audience) and the bride and groom in order to get some (very) close up shots of the bridesmaids. I was extremely annoyed. The photographer and his assistant made real pests of themselves. I mean, why didn't he get a tele?? I just hope his shots turn out brilliantly cos mine were run of the mill (was more interested in my daughter getting married than in taking 'pro' shots, plus I'm not a portrait togger)

 

[Lyonspride]

I mean, why didn't he get a tele??)

plus I'm not a portrait togger)

 

[JonathanRyan]

Now I know how footballers feel. This Monday morning post match analysis is both hilarious and a little scary.

Sounds like somebody said something somebody else took exception to. Personally I'd have talked it over with them on the day.

 

[sturisoma]

um, now I know wedding togs use long lenses, especially when they're trying to take photos from the back of the church


well, this one should have at least (also we were outside, not in a church so no excuse for it tbh)

 

[Voiceofthelens]

Sounds to me as though the OP is very proud of their professional grade equipment and associated 3 lenses. Perhaps the appointed official photographer took the equipment to indicate a "fellow professional" who might just have been trying to infringe on professional tog's contracted earnings and therefore tried to make a "professional" comment into fellow tog's ear, to back down a bit.

 

[Paulsim]

Maybe he was worried your photos would be superior and it affect his ability to get paid. A friend of mine was a wedding photographer until a rather large gypsy decided he didn't want to pay due to some photos he didn't like. A few days in hospital brought early retirement on