Wedding Photography Etiquette

[ghoti]

I understand that there are some wedding photographers that stipulate no guests should take pictures. I've never experienced this myself but I've heard/read the stories.
First question is: how common is this and is it acceptable?

My second question is: when no such stipulation exists, what is the correct etiquette for casual shooters at a wedding where a pro is present?

I ask because I was at a friend's wedding recently and the photographer, though he hadn't stipulated any rules on casual shooters (I asked the bride because of my first paragraph) seemed very huffy about guests with cameras. I'm not talking about people snapping scenes that he'd staged (which would be obvious bad form) but in situations like the speeches, cake cutting, meal, first dance and the general reception.
At one point he blatantly sneered and rolled his eyes at my kit (not great but not terrible: a nikon D5100 with reasonably cheap nikkor lenses and - admittedly - a cheap yongnuo flash). It was clear that he wanted me to note his disapproval.

So what's acceptable snapping from guests and what is it acceptable for a pro to get ****ed off with?

 

[surfg1mp]

I believe the Americans call them uncle bobs (guests with cameras) I'd imagine as long as you arn't getting in the way it shouldn't be a problem. The most annoying thing I've experienced are guests standing right in front of you taking pictures with an iPad while I'm trying to get the bride and father coming down the isle. :bonk:

 

[george g]

I understand that there are some wedding photographers that stipulate no guests should take pictures. I've never experienced this myself but I've heard/read the stories.
First question is: how common is this and is it acceptable?

My second question is: when no such stipulation exists, what is the correct etiquette for casual shooters at a wedding where a pro is present?

I ask because I was at a friend's wedding recently and the photographer, though he hadn't stipulated any rules on casual shooters (I asked the bride because of my first paragraph) seemed very huffy about guests with cameras. I'm not talking about people snapping scenes that he'd staged (which would be obvious bad form) but in situations like the speeches, cake cutting, meal, first dance and the general reception.
At one point he blatantly sneered and rolled his eyes at my kit (not great but not terrible: a nikon D5100 with reasonably cheap nikkor lenses and - admittedly - a cheap yongnuo flash). It was clear that he wanted me to note his disapproval.

So what's acceptable snapping from guests and what is it acceptable for a pro to get ****ed off with?

You sure he didnt start this thread? You were'nt a bridesmaid by any chance were you?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=476127

:bonk:

 

[London Headshots]

There is no etiquette. You are a guest of the wedding. You are more important, and more welcome than some photographer. The photographer is a paid employee and should be disregarded.

Don't get in the way of their shots, but don't let them spoil your enjoyment of an intimate occasion.

 

[Damian Brown]

There is no etiquette. You are a guest of the wedding. You are more important, and more welcome than some photographer. The photographer is a paid employee and should be disregarded.

Don't get in the way of their shots, but don't let them spoil your enjoyment of an intimate occasion.

The etiquette is don't get in the pro's way. But you are more important as a guest and he shouldn't be in your way (99% of the time/ within reason)

Nobody should be disregarded. That's just rude

 

[DemiLion]

It sounds as though the chap hired to photograph the wedding that you were at had a rather large insecurity complex and was probably over compensating for his inadequacies.

I really wouldn't let it worry you!

 

[surfg1mp]

It sounds as though the chap hired to photograph the wedding that you were at had a rather large insecurity complex and was probably over compensating for his inadequacies.

I really wouldn't let it worry you!

that's a good point

 

[meonshore]

There is no etiquette. You are a guest of the wedding. You are more important, and more welcome than some photographer. The photographer is a paid employee and should be disregarded.

Don't get in the way of their shots, but don't let them spoil your enjoyment of an intimate occasion.

If you are acting as a guest then yes your are more important than the photographer. It is more important that you, rather than the photographer

- converse with other guests
- pay attention during the service / ceremony and sing if appropriate
- congratulate the bride and groom once they are married
- listen to, laugh where appropriate, and applaud the speeches
- watch them cut the cake
- join them on the dance floor

after all that is presumably what you were invited to the wedding for.

Of course there is etiquette. If you are an invited guest then you are there because the couple, or their family wanted you to celebrate their day. That is the etiquette the average guest needs to be concerned about. They didn't invite 100 family and friends to ignore them, and view everything from behind a camera.

If you haven't witnessed the "semi-circle of death" when a couple emerge from a church or ceremony room and stand then waiting for family and friends to come and congratulate them when most if not all are taking photos with their camera phones then you won't realise the embarrassment that many couples feel when they realise that their wedding is no more than a photo-shoot for most of the guests. I have had to suggest to parents of the B&G that they might like to go and congratulate their son/daughter instead of holding an iPhone out at arms length. The intimate occasion exists because of the guests, not for the benefit of their photography.

So to answer your question. No - I never imposed a blanket ban on cameras as part of my contract, yes I did explain to couples how a proliferation of camera toting guests can spoil the celebration of their day - not just in the case of cameras in front of guests faces in the pros images, or blocking the aisle, or eyes wandering around the paparazzi during formals - but in the actual day that the B&G experience. Yes I did have some couples as a result in their invites ask guests to leave their cameras at home, and to enjoy the day WITH them.

I moved when I could, quietly and politely asked people to move if they were blocking my way because they had moved from their position in the ceremony to get a photograph, joked about the paps during formals and ensured that they got their shots but I can't tell you the number of images that were spoiled by LCD screens lit up with review images, or just blocked by lenses and camcorders, or the complete lack of interaction between £150 a plate guests and the couple.

The photographer is there, paid in advance (and therefore rarely if ever bothered about the photos the guests get in comparison to their own), to tell a story with wonderful images. You as a guests are part of that story and should be a component of those wonderful images not a bystander. Failure to do so isn't just a minor breach of etiquette is is downright bloody rude.

It is one of the reasons that I stopped shooting weddings.

My 2c of course.

 

[gadgeteer]

Yep, any photographer worth his salt won't be bothered by a guest sporting a DSLR. As often said, it's not all about the gear.

The only thing that would worry me is if they turned up with a 70-200 lens, gripped and flash attached. But only because it seems they are there to take photos rather than celebrate the day as a guest. And as a result they may be more likely to get in my way.

 

[Lyonspride]

Seems to me while the guests are more important, they should also recognise that getting in the pro's way, might well spoil things for the poor sod that paid £3000 to have a pro there in the first place.

I think if I were getting married, i'd stipulate when and where guests were allowed to use cameras and i'd ban iPads altogether.

 

[boyfalldown]

I really like this article http://offbeatbride.com/2011/06/unplugged-wedding

but there isn't really an etiquette, as such, for how to behave as a guest. just I guess be led by your own normal standards

 

[Yv]

The ettiquette? Hmmm, with Hugh on this, there really isn't one as such other than remembering you are there to enjoy yourself and help the couple celebrate, not to view the entire thing through a viewfinder.

Personally, guests with cameras rarely bother me, if they are getting a bit 'in the way' I usually just ask that they give me 2 secs to get the picture, then they can all have a go. Prime example was on Friday, civil ceremony in a stunning room at a good venue, the set up shot for the register signing. Behind the couple was the most enormous, floor to ceiling framed mirror I have ever seen. It meant getting on an angle so I couldn't be seen in the mirror, but guests still could and of course, a plethora of cameras and phones had their flashes going, all bouncing in the mirror. I just turned and asked them, with a big smile, if they could do me a huge favour and put the cameras down for a minute and in fairness, every one of them did.

In my experience, with the real 'uncle Bobs' [those with full blown big DSLR stuff], often talking to them as an equal is far more effective at getting them to give you some space than any huffiness, but thats just my experience.

 

[Colin44]

I would hate to jump in anyones way while taking a photo even if it was someone who was snapping away with a camera phone outside.

I've got a wedding to attend in July and I dare say I'll take my camera along but I wouldn't dare get in the way of the paid photographer. He/she is there because the couple want them to get the best shots on the day.

 

[ghoti]

If you are acting as a guest then yes your are more important than the photographer. It is more important that you, rather than the photographer

- converse with other guests
- pay attention during the service / ceremony and sing if appropriate
- congratulate the bride and groom once they are married
- listen to, laugh where appropriate, and applaud the speeches
- watch them cut the cake
- join them on the dance floor

after all that is presumably what you were invited to the wedding for.

Of course there is etiquette. If you are an invited guest then you are there because the couple, or their family wanted you to celebrate their day. That is the etiquette the average guest needs to be concerned about. They didn't invite 100 family and friends to ignore them, and view everything from behind a camera.

If you haven't witnessed the "semi-circle of death" when a couple emerge from a church or ceremony room and stand then waiting for family and friends to come and congratulate them when most if not all are taking photos with their camera phones then you won't realise the embarrassment that many couples feel when they realise that their wedding is no more than a photo-shoot for most of the guests. I have had to suggest to parents of the B&G that they might like to go and congratulate their son/daughter instead of holding an iPhone out at arms length. The intimate occasion exists because of the guests, not for the benefit of their photography.

So to answer your question. No - I never imposed a blanket ban on cameras as part of my contract, yes I did explain to couples how a proliferation of camera toting guests can spoil the celebration of their day - not just in the case of cameras in front of guests faces in the pros images, or blocking the aisle, or eyes wandering around the paparazzi during formals - but in the actual day that the B&G experience. Yes I did have some couples as a result in their invites ask guests to leave their cameras at home, and to enjoy the day WITH them.

I moved when I could, quietly and politely asked people to move if they were blocking my way because they had moved from their position in the ceremony to get a photograph, joked about the paps during formals and ensured that they got their shots but I can't tell you the number of images that were spoiled by LCD screens lit up with review images, or just blocked by lenses and camcorders, or the complete lack of interaction between £150 a plate guests and the couple.

The photographer is there, paid in advance (and therefore rarely if ever bothered about the photos the guests get in comparison to their own), to tell a story with wonderful images. You as a guests are part of that story and should be a component of those wonderful images not a bystander. Failure to do so isn't just a minor breach of etiquette is is downright bloody rude.

It is one of the reasons that I stopped shooting weddings.

My 2c of course.

I have never been at a wedding where casual photography has been so frequent as to diminish the interaction between guests. In my experience, people tend to take photos at key moments and enjoy themselves for the rest of the time.

You must have been at some strange weddings where casual photography has ruined the interaction between guests at the meal or reception. Or maybe I'm the one who's been at strange weddings and this non-stop snapping frenzy really is commonplace.

Incidentally, I was asked to do the photography for this wedding as the couple were distressed by the quotes they were getting from pros. I declined for various reasons. Not least of which was that, even as a keen amateur, I didn't want to spend my friends' wedding behind a viewfinder. But also because I don't think I'm good enough and wouldn't want to mess it up. They grudgingly ended up shelling out a grand for a pro.

 

[Phil V]

TBH any photographer who gets upset at guests behaviour doesn't deserve the job.

Portrait photography is more about people than it is about photography, it ruffles my feathers when I hear people talking about photographers behaving in this way. If the blokes not an absolute bundle of joy when you're booking him - go elsewhere! If he's even slightly off when he's selling, he'll be an a.r.s.e when he's under pressure at the wedding.

 

[jon ryan]

Bit of a digression, but how often do flashes fire at the same time? Flash duration is commonly around 1,000th/sec, so for two to go off at once would be quite rare, I'd think. I wonder if what is perceived as flashes going off simultaneously is actually one flash catching the reflector of another?

 

[Durbs]

@Jon - Maybe "proper" flashes, but compacts have a pre-flash which seemed to last about 1/2 - 1 second I reckon. I was taking some first dance shots on Saturday and a surprising number had several cameras with bulbs going off flashes in them.

I'm going to chime in here - just came back from a very wonderful wedding where I was definitely a guest, but took my camera, one lens and a flash as I tend to anyway...

I don't think anyone missed anything from looking through a viewfinder/LCD. The bride walks up the aisle - you take some snaps - you watch them go past and enjoy the ceremony. Same as all key moments; they cut the cake, you take a snap, you clap. Fun times.

I could imagine if a super-keen amateur turned up with remote flashes, 3 bodies and a step-ladder the pro might feel a tad annoyed, but unless you're actively obstructing them - they should be invisible.

 

[Organnyx]

Can't understand what the fuss is about- if you're the "pro", the other people with cameras and 'phones are all part of "the fun of the fair", and if treated right can become your greatest allies....
Take the groups outside the church for instance - I do cumulative groups and start with the bride and groom - if someone gets in the way I'd good humouredly say "hang on a tick, you'll get your chance in a minute", take the pictures I want, then stand out to the side and motion the "press pack" in to take what they want - gently pull their legs, urge them to get closer, patiently help aged auntie with a camera she's holding backwards, then usher them out of the way, add more to the group, take what you want, call in the pack, and repeat till the end of the groups. If you do it right they see you're getting a move on, and will be more than happy to swiftly join the group and give you a grin when it's their turn - if you do it right you're all working together to get what you all want.

 

[meonshore]

You must have been at some strange weddings where casual photography has ruined the interaction between guests at the meal or reception. Or maybe I'm the one who's been at strange weddings and this non-stop snapping frenzy really is commonplace.

Well I photographed over 250 weddings as a professional photographer over an 8-ish year period from 2002-2011. So about 30 per year (a reasonable sample), very few of them strange, and typically averaging £2k+ for photography. I'd say that since the widespread availability of camera-phones it has got much worse and I was starting to see people bring iPads to weddings to take photos and videos in 2010/11. Where you might have had 10-15% of guests with cameras back in 2003 now almost everyone has a device on them capable of taking a photo.

Can't understand what the fuss is about- if you're the "pro", the other people with cameras and 'phones are all part of "the fun of the fair", and if treated right can become your greatest allies....
Take the groups outside the church for instance - I do cumulative groups and start with the bride and groom - if someone gets in the way I'd good humouredly say "hang on a tick, you'll get your chance in a minute", take the pictures I want, then stand out to the side and motion the "press pack" in to take what they want - gently pull their legs, urge them to get closer, patiently help aged auntie with a camera she's holding backwards, then usher them out of the way, add more to the group, take what you want, call in the pack, and repeat till the end of the groups. If you do it right they see you're getting a move on, and will be more than happy to swiftly join the group and give you a grin when it's their turn - if you do it right you're all working together to get what you all want.

Thats all fine and dandy if you arrive at the church 20 mins before the bride, are basically shooting posed groups in a c1980-2000 style and f.e.ck. off after the fake cake cut before the evening meals begins but not if you want to capture the interaction and emotion in documentary coverage where the engagement of the guests with the B&G is as important as who was there.


My criticism here is not with the guests <-> photographer I rarely if ever had to ask someone to stop shooting as they were in my way, but with the lack of attention by a number of guests to the B&G which reduces the quality and quantity of some of the images that the couple could receive. That is why I would have looked to restrict camera usage - nothing else.

 

[Organnyx]

"Thats all fine and dandy if you arrive at the church 20 mins before the bride, are basically shooting posed groups in a c1980-2000 style and f.e.ck. off after the fake cake cut before the evening meals begins"

I always arrived at the church a good hour before the bride (having done the fags and curlers shots), and shot everything that moved until the last little boy was skidding across the dancefloor on his knees at the end of the reception - (there's always at least one!), and can honestly say I've never had a real problem with other photographers that couldn't be defused with some good humour and nifty footwork - I did some hundreds of weddings (all "reportage" style) over some 20 years, and although now retired, keep my hand in shooting those of friends and family "for the fun of it" (because I really enjoy it), and really don't notice anything "worse" nowadays - as others have said, a lot of it is down to "people skills", and if you don't have them, then you really shouldn't be doing weddings. If some pompous prissy photographer demanded that other photography be limited I'd give him the order of the boot (before he was booked) - as I said earlier, the crowd are part of the wedding, handled right, they are all part of the "fun of the fair"- it's what happened at their wedding, which I always viewed as the couple's day - to my mind "being precious" about such things is a mark of not having a truly professional attitude (and abilities).

 

[Richard King]

I understand that there are some wedding photographers that stipulate no guests should take pictures. I've never experienced this myself but I've heard/read the stories.
First question is: how common is this and is it acceptable?

My second question is: when no such stipulation exists, what is the correct etiquette for casual shooters at a wedding where a pro is present?

I ask because I was at a friend's wedding recently and the photographer, though he hadn't stipulated any rules on casual shooters (I asked the bride because of my first paragraph) seemed very huffy about guests with cameras. I'm not talking about people snapping scenes that he'd staged (which would be obvious bad form) but in situations like the speeches, cake cutting, meal, first dance and the general reception.
At one point he blatantly sneered and rolled his eyes at my kit (not great but not terrible: a nikon D5100 with reasonably cheap nikkor lenses and - admittedly - a cheap yongnuo flash). It was clear that he wanted me to note his disapproval.

So what's acceptable snapping from guests and what is it acceptable for a pro to get ****ed off with?

99% of the time, you (as the Pro) roll with it. The exception is when there is 1 chance to get the 1 important shot, and that is normally in the church.

Guests waving SLR's with flashes on, right in front of a moody vicar quickly erode any goodwill the Paid for photographer had with the vicar, and that not only knocks on that wedding, but often with the next wedding etc. etc.

If you are a pro that sets up poses, then guests distracting whoever is being photographedwill quickly become annoying

The rule here is... look at what is going on and remember the Professional has been chosen by and is being paid for by the Bride and Groom to get the result... Not you, so don't do anything that gets in the way of the professional doing the job the Bride and Groom have paid for

On a personal note, I never really have an issue, I shoot with a fairly fly on the wall PJ attitude. More formal photographers probably have to intervene more on this one

 

[Richard King]

Bit of a digression, but how often do flashes fire at the same time? Flash duration is commonly around 1,000th/sec, so for two to go off at once would be quite rare, I'd think. I wonder if what is perceived as flashes going off simultaneously is actually one flash catching the reflector of another?

If you have a flash set up as a slave (optical) other flashes can be an issue. (your flash can be recycling when you want to shoot) With the advent of cheap radio triggers, this is more of a historic issue

Whilst the flash is 1000th second, a lot of photographers who shoot high ISO, low shutter speed, can get caught out by other flashes.

 

[seriousrikk]

Bit of a digression, but how often do flashes fire at the same time? Flash duration is commonly around 1,000th/sec, so for two to go off at once would be quite rare, I'd think. I wonder if what is perceived as flashes going off simultaneously is actually one flash catching the reflector of another?

I can add to this.

Not weddings, but at gigs I shoot it is not uncommon for a flash from some dude with a compact in the front row to get caught in my shot. Probably happens 1 in 4 gigs.

 

[leapark]

It is understandably frustrating when people get in way but there has to be a balance in letting the guests enjoy the wedding and the pro getting the shots - a good pro will do this with the minimum of fuss.

I also think it is a question of not what you say but how you say it if it becomes necessary to ask guests to refrain or move out of range

 

[PistolPeteUK]

I went to a number of weddings as a guest last year and for the first time I heard the.....well not sure what he was, maybe the wedding co-ordinator for the venue, ask that after the ceremony, during the cake cut and first dance that people hang back and let the pro take the shots he needs then he'll stand back and let everyone else shoot.

I found that there was much less of the usual "scum" and the pro seemed much more relaxed.

 

[leapark]

I went to a number of weddings as a guest last year and for the first time I heard the.....well not sure what he was, maybe the wedding co-ordinator for the venue, ask that after the ceremony, during the cake cut and first dance that people hang back and let the pro take the shots he needs then he'll stand back and let everyone else shoot.

I found that there was much less of the usual "scum" and the pro seemed much more relaxed.

I cover a lot of Asian weddings.......these announcements usually fall on deaf ears and the scrum ensues!!.......seriously by and large it is ok and guests respect the fact that the pro has a job to do........my best story is guests with iPads but save that for another day

 

[Stuart M]

I went to a number of weddings as a guest last year and for the first time I heard the.....well not sure what he was, maybe the wedding co-ordinator for the venue, ask that after the ceremony, during the cake cut and first dance that people hang back and let the pro take the shots he needs then he'll stand back and let everyone else shoot.

I found that there was much less of the usual "scum" and the pro seemed much more relaxed.

I do hope that was a slip of the keyboard and you meant to write scrum and not what you actually did write.

 

[ghoti]

Well, I've just seen the photos from the "pro". £1000 he cost and they're rubbish. Really rubbish. Wish I was cheeky enough to link to them so you know it's not just sour grapes.
For example, the DJ is clearly visible in all of the first dance shots. Looming over the shoulders of the couple in most. And shots of the wedding dress hanging over the window of the couple's house; blinds open so you can clearly see the houses opposite and people walking past on the street.

 

[meonshore]

Really rubbish ?

Like...

- Out of focus ?
- Unintentional motion blur ?
- Very over-exposed or under-exposed ?
- Heads cut-off ?
- Feet cut-off ?
- Poor flash technique (big flash shadows behind people) ?
- Missing major parts of the day ?

Because for £1000 I'd expect the images to be technically competent and complete.

As for composition, and clean frames (as you have described above not being achieved) - well I guess it depends if that is consistent throughout the coverage and not just your examples ... and what they are offering in the £1000 cost - an album, large prints, canvas or just the files ?

The biggest difference you'll see between £1000 and £1500 assuming products are similar are clean frames and good composition and the biggest difference between £1500 and £2000 is capturing more emotion and greater creativity (IMVHO).

 

[andya700]

Well, I've just seen the photos from the "pro". £1000 he cost and they're rubbish. Really rubbish. Wish I was cheeky enough to link to them so you know it's not just sour grapes.
For example, the DJ is clearly visible in all of the first dance shots. Looming

Quite - we will never know

 

[ghoti]

Really rubbish ?

Like...

- Out of focus ?
- Unintentional motion blur ?
- Very over-exposed or under-exposed ?
- Heads cut-off ?
- Feet cut-off ?
- Poor flash technique (big flash shadows behind people) ?
- Missing major parts of the day ?

Because for £1000 I'd expect the images to be technically competent and complete.

As for composition, and clean frames (as you have described above not being achieved) - well I guess it depends if that is consistent throughout the coverage and not just your examples ... and what they are offering in the £1000 cost - an album, large prints, canvas or just the files ?

They're offering files. £1,000 was for 12 hour coverage.
I honestly wish I could link to this, because it's uniformly awful.
Okay, none of your bullet points above are really missed, but is just not making really basic mistakes worth a grand in itself? Or worth anything, for that matter? Come on. You reckon those bullet points are a minimum standard for a paid gig? Minimum standard for a pint and a slap on the back, maybe.

The couple (neither remotely interested in photography) are happy, though. I guess that's all that matters.

 

[seriousrikk]

You reckon those bullet points are a minimum standard for a paid gig? Minimum standard for a pint and a slap on the back, maybe.

For a pint and a slap on the back, you could make all of those mistakes and still walk away feeling you gave your client good value for money.

The couple (neither remotely interested in photography) are happy, though. I guess that's all that matters.

Absolutely. If the person who paid the money is happy with the product, then that is all that needs to matter to the photographer. The opinion of someone largely unrelated to the proceedings is (to put it quite bluntly - sorry) of little consequence.

Sure, by your expectation they results may be low. In my preferred line of work I see results published that I would not even let slip past the first deletion pass. But people keep going back to those guys and booking them again. So the client is clearly happy.

 

[andya700]

Absolutely. If the person who paid the money is happy with the product, then that is all that needs to matter to the photographer. The opinion of someone largely unrelated to the proceedings is (to put it quite bluntly - sorry) of little consequence.

Sure, by your expectation they results may be low. In my preferred line of work I see results published that I would not even let slip past the first deletion pass. But people keep going back to those guys and booking them again. So the client is clearly happy.

Exactly.
i think it is bad enough when we hear of professional photographer's being rubbished in the press for their work, but it is something else when the client is quite happy (which as you have pointed out is the most important thing), but the only problem seems to be a bystander who is more than willing to criticise, but unwilling to show any proof.

 

[meonshore]

Exactly.
i think it is bad enough when we hear of professional photographer's being rubbished in the press for their work, but it is something else when the client is quite happy (which as you have pointed out is the most important thing), but the only problem seems to be a bystander who is more than willing to criticise, but unwilling to show any proof.

^^^ This

and

The couple (neither remotely interested in photography) are happy, though. I guess that's all that matters.

I assume that they were as uninterested in photography when they selected the photographer to shoot their wedding. I doubt this photographers work is any different to the samples shown to the couple on the website or at a meeting.

If you pay £1000 for something having seen similar then caveat emptor. £1000 for 12 hours coverage and digital files might not be bargain basement but it isn't generally considered to be the kind of fee that an experienced creative wedding photographer would charge. Yes I'd expect the basics correct for that but no I'd not expect every delivered frame to be a masterpiece.

Unless the work is substantially worse than what they saw then they have nothing to complain about - and even less so you.

 

[riddell]

Exactly.
i think it is bad enough when we hear of professional photographer's being rubbished in the press for their work.

I don't think its bad at all.

in 99% of cases where I have seen 'photographers' being rubbished in the press its simply because their work is awful.

Many, many so called photographers have an inflated sense of their achievements and think that because they managaed to take a single photo which a number of their friends liked on facebook and because they have a shiny new £300.00 camera that they are suddenly a professional photographer.

Of course a portion of blame must lie with any couple booking them for not being more selective about quality and booking simply on cheapness alone.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Photographer is a hired hand not a guest.
At a posh wedding... I saw a guest who had been ordered around, pour a glass of champaign over the photographer, and every one laughed.

I have taken hundreds of weddings and Guests have always taken photographs, often with better cameras than mine. It has never been a problem. You simply take charge and organise time for them to do their own thing. And if you have to move them be friendly and smile, but don't bully them. I have even setup their cameras for them and sometimes taken shots of them, with the bride, or groom on their own camera.

Guests are your best advertisement. Many come back as brides and grooms or as parents of couples. If they like you they will recommend you. (I never advertised.)

 

[Phil V]

I don't think its bad at all.

in 99% of cases where I have seen 'photographers' being rubbished in the press its simply because their work is awful.

Many, many so called photographers have an inflated sense of their achievements and think that because they managaed to take a single photo which a number of their friends liked on facebook and because they have a shiny new £300.00 camera that they are suddenly a professional photographer.

Of course a portion of blame must lie with any couple booking them for not being more selective about quality and booking simply on cheapness alone.

Only a portion of the blame?

I don't buy it I'm afraid - If I go to McDonalds, I expect calories and little in the way of proper food. If I go to a dodgy burger van outside a nightclub, I think I'm lucky to get away without getting ill.

If I want proper food, I'll have to pay the going rate, and I would make sure I'd tasted it first if I was buying it for an important occasion.

If the B&G book a photographer without considering the standard of their work, they don't really deserve sympathy if things go wrong.

 

[Flightphoto]

One thing I have noticed with clients is that a lot are pulled into the B&W shots with a touch of vignetting of which these seem to be the best photos some of these sub £1000 togs achieve on Gumtree, the clients do not understand the difference between an experienced tog and an amateur as the exp tog will be confident, have coordinated the plan for the day, the key shots, and then candids. I've seen some of the cheaper togs at work and no offence against them but christ, they were too nervous to do anything, shots were just lacking in composition and too chaotic with no emotion in the shot. Experience is always essential and people have to start somewhere but there is a fine line that needs to be drawn.

I've had a few calls in the past from people who want a shoot done, they've not asked me about my work, any of my portfolio, they just wanted me to turn up. Each time I've turned them down, I don't want a client calling in to just turn up with no idea of what they want, maybe that sounds snobbish but what I have found is these types are also the later payers!

Another thing that gets my gripe is people using instagram, just because it has simplified effects, it doesn't mean you're a pro with a phone / iFad.

 

[riddell]

Only a portion of the blame?

I don't buy it I'm afraid - If I go to McDonalds, I expect calories and little in the way of proper food. If I go to a dodgy burger van outside a nightclub, I think I'm lucky to get away without getting ill.

If I want proper food, I'll have to pay the going rate, and I would make sure I'd tasted it first if I was buying it for an important occasion.

If the B&G book a photographer without considering the standard of their work, they don't really deserve sympathy if things go wrong.

Haha. I love your analogy. Thats a good and very true way of putting it.

and when I think about it that way, I know from speaking to brides and grooms that when booking a menu at a venue they generally have taste test prior to the day.

No one has McDonalds at a wedding, so why do they book a photographer who is the equivent of a McDonalds?