Weddings preparation and back up equipment.

I agree with AliB. As soon as money is involved (or a trade for some other service) then it is commercial and expectations change. How you address the couple, how you interact with the guests, your relationship with the venue owners etc. all changes.

If you are asked to shoot as a guest and the couple have chosen not to have a paid photographer then the couples expectations should be different. But even then it is not unreasonable that they should expect that if you have agreed to do it that you can do it despite any technical problems that may present themselves.

For myself, guest or paid, if I am asked to shoot I treat it as I would any other job and do everything I can to ensure that I do not disappoint. As a guest who was not asked to shoot but had a camera with me I would behave exactly as most others and take a few personal snaps and be happy that I had a personal record of the day.

It is not about money. The couple have entrusted you with capturing their most important day and I believe that you have a responsibility to do everything that you possibly can to ensure that you can meet that responsibility. In my view, even shooting for free, does not absolve you from the responsibilty if you have agreed to do it.

I have turned down paid work that I was amply experienced to do but felt I was insufficiently resourced (staff, time or equipment) for the job. A good friend is worth far more than any camera and I would rather say no and keep a friend than say yes and disappoint one.

John
 
jpwone said:
It is not about money. The couple have entrusted you with capturing their most important day and I believe that you have a responsibility to do everything that you possibly can to ensure that you can meet that responsibility. In my view, even shooting for free, does not absolve you from the responsibilty if you have agreed to do it.
Click to expand...

This is the point where we differ because, to me, if someone is after a professional service, then they will pay for it. If they ask a mate to do a favour, they are accepting that they may not get pro quality photos.

L
 
I think that as soon as they see a big black camera then they expect pro quality shots because some genuinely believe that the camera does all the work.

Pro Kit=Pro results.

Back to the joke about the chef and the pots again :)
 
It's not really optimism. I'm fortunate to have had a (non photography related) business for a long time, and built up a relationship with a large number of customers. People aren't that stupid.
Also, there are lots of people around with big black cameras now, and the more comon they get the less people will think camera=photographer

L
 
in my experience, when i get my camera out, i get labelled immediately. I recently covered a salsa event for a friend so she had shots on her website, I got asked several times what other work I would do, and even got asked by the official tog how long id been in the business..unfortunately, people really can be that stupid.
 
I just did covered my first ever wedding yesterday (separate post to follow when I get home) and I don't class myself as a pro- or possibly even semi pro. But I can't believe you can do a wedding without 2 bodies. The amount of times I wanted to change lenses- or just get 1 shot using wide angle, then go back to telephoto etc- could not even imagine it. (Also don't think its a good idea to try a wedding without an assistant either, my wife in this case)
 
Hi L

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. It is not the quality of the photo or the quality of the camera being used to take it but the fact that there may not be any photo's.

If you ask a mate to come around and help you to fix the roof you accept that the quality may not be up to a pro roofers standards but that he will at least turn up. If he fails to turn up and you can't do the job then you have been let down and he has failed to deliver. If he turned up but did not have the tools required (after telling you he did) you would be disappointed again. This is the same. It is not the quality of the product but the ability to deliver the product even when things go wrong.

The quality of the product is a different issue and you would expect any pro photographer to be able to produce quality images in his/her speciality area. I would expect a wedding photographer to be able to produce good wedding photo's and I would expect the wedding photographer to be able to do this even if a bit of kit failed or the weather was poor. Should I have the same expectations of an amateur? I believe you should if that is what they say they can do.

There are some very skilled amateur photographers who are more than capable of taking superb wedding photographs but the minute they commit to doing it they also commit not just to the quality of the work but also that they can and will deliver on that commitment. If the photographer makes it absolutely clear that the photography is dependent upon a single camera and/or a single lens and the bride and groom accept that there is a possibility that there may be no photographs then they have assumed responsibility for the risk. This is a different scenario to the one generally being discussed where the bride and groom believe that the wedding will be photographed and they have not been made aware that there is any risk of that not happening.

Anyone setting themelves up as a pro photographer or working as a pro photographer should be regularily reviewing their work flow, work practices and equipment to ensure that there is no single point of failure and that they can deliver. Initially the back up might be a single lower spec camera and general purpose lens (with flash back up) or fast prime (with no flash back up). The same should apply to any amateur who finds themselves with the job of photographing a friends wedding.

It is far easier to say 'No, sorry, I would rather not do it' than to say 'Sorry, no, I have failed to do it'.

John
 
aligibbs said:
I just did covered my first ever wedding yesterday (separate post to follow when I get home) and I don't class myself as a pro- or possibly even semi pro. But I can't believe you can do a wedding without 2 bodies. The amount of times I wanted to change lenses- or just get 1 shot using wide angle, then go back to telephoto etc- could not even imagine it. (Also don't think its a good idea to try a wedding without an assistant either, my wife in this case)
Click to expand...

Me too. Have done my first wedding and don't know how I would have coped without two bodies and my wife to assist/2nd shoot.
 
fabs said:
Me too. Have done my first wedding and don't know how I would have coped without two bodies and my wife to assist/2nd shoot.
Click to expand...

and also as a backup as well!! I cant imagine going back to a bride saying that something had gone wrong.
 
aligibbs said:
and also as a backup as well!! I cant imagine going back to a bride saying that something had gone wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, when I agreed to do the wedding, the first thing I did was to go out and buy a second body. It pretty much ate up all my profit but is an investment going forward. There was no way I was going to attempt it otherwise.
 
I get what you mean, I think I am probably heartless. I tend to think if you want guaranteed images you get a pro, if you want to take a risk, then you're taking a risk and if it doesn't work out, weel, that's what taking a risk means.

L
 
Possibly, and I am sure that's what a bride thinks prior to "booking" a friend. I think the reality of not having images afterward is a bit different however. For me, a second body was another Canon 20d for 200quid, as I already had many lenses covering different lengths. Maybe this is where you need a tog buddy to lend you a hand? :)
 
Bit if you're not interested in photography as a career, or weddings, then you're not going to spend £200 on a back up camera. Like i say, I think it's different if you're pro, wanting to go pro, accepting payment.
I guess you could underestimate how important the photos might be to you, but I still think it's a little bit patronising not to give b+g responsibility for decisions they take.
Anyway, sorry to take the thread meandering off topic.

L
 
Headless Lois said:
Bit if you're not interested in photography as a career, or weddings, then you're not going to spend £200 on a back up camera.
L
Click to expand...

And if you are not interested in weddings you should not be taking the job on in the first place Lois.

There is a lot to learn to do it properly. My "must have" shots list that lives in my head is about 22 shots that I had better get. Expand that and you often have something in the region of 48 shots that you have to remember. You need to learn how to set up a lot of those too. Take shoes and dress shots. Shoes must never be on a table as it is considered bad luck, are best shot in natural light and window ledges are often good places, dress should be shot in close up, 3/4 and full length and that's before the bride gets in it. Does the bride go on the left or the right of the groom? How do you light the cake cutting? How do you shoot the first dance?

Unless you commit to learning all of the above and a heck of a lot more then you should leave it to someone who will. You really do need to be interested to do it justice IMHO
 
Headless Lois said:
This is the point where we differ because, to me, if someone is after a professional service, then they will pay for it. If they ask a mate to do a favour, they are accepting that they may not get pro quality photos.

L
Click to expand...
That is what I would expect, but in reality different people will put different values on such things. The photo's from my wedding were taken by a friend with a Nikkormat and 1 lens, (for free) and are little more than snaps, but 29 years later they are still valued by us as they show friends and relations who are no longer with us on a happy occasion. On the other hand, in the same year, my sister paid ££££s for her photographer, the images and album were great. 3 years later she got divorced and the album burned, she is now on husband no 3 ( 3 weeks and counting.)

I have only shot at 1 wedding as an assistant, and found it to be a very long and tiring day. I take my hat off to all you who do it regularly.
I would also agree anyone shooting any job for money should have backup kit and a plan B. "Always expect the unexpected":)
 
jpwone said:
Hi L

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. It is not the quality of the photo or the quality of the camera being used to take it but the fact that there may not be any photo's.

If you ask a mate to come around and help you to fix the roof you accept that the quality may not be up to a pro roofers standards but that he will at least turn up. If he fails to turn up and you can't do the job then you have been let down and he has failed to deliver. If he turned up but did not have the tools required (after telling you he did) you would be disappointed again. This is the same. It is not the quality of the product but the ability to deliver the product even when things go wrong.

The quality of the product is a different issue and you would expect any pro photographer to be able to produce quality images in his/her speciality area. I would expect a wedding photographer to be able to produce good wedding photo's and I would expect the wedding photographer to be able to do this even if a bit of kit failed or the weather was poor. Should I have the same expectations of an amateur? I believe you should if that is what they say they can do.

There are some very skilled amateur photographers who are more than capable of taking superb wedding photographs but the minute they commit to doing it they also commit not just to the quality of the work but also that they can and will deliver on that commitment. If the photographer makes it absolutely clear that the photography is dependent upon a single camera and/or a single lens and the bride and groom accept that there is a possibility that there may be no photographs then they have assumed responsibility for the risk. This is a different scenario to the one generally being discussed where the bride and groom believe that the wedding will be photographed and they have not been made aware that there is any risk of that not happening.

Anyone setting themelves up as a pro photographer or working as a pro photographer should be regularily reviewing their work flow, work practices and equipment to ensure that there is no single point of failure and that they can deliver. Initially the back up might be a single lower spec camera and general purpose lens (with flash back up) or fast prime (with no flash back up). The same should apply to any amateur who finds themselves with the job of photographing a friends wedding.

It is far easier to say 'No, sorry, I would rather not do it' than to say 'Sorry, no, I have failed to do it'.

John
Click to expand...

Maybe but if your mate was a roofer you would expect a good standard of roof repair, thats the propbem, people think because someone has a "proper" camera they are a professional photographer. you have a good camera = you must take good pictures.
 
I shot a wedding on saturday. Prior to the wedding the bride ahd said her friend was also taking photographs to give her an album as a present. When she told me this I invited her just to let her friend do it and I would not attend. She immediately said Nooooooo, her friend was no professional.

Her friend was a lovely lady, has a nice digital camera although it is a nikon :D so you can imagine my first advice to her :D:D:D

but

I reckon I only saw her take a handful of shots so I think the bride was possibly right :):)

stew
 
AliB said:
And if you are not interested in weddings you should not be taking the job on in the first place Lois.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't agree. It very much depends on the b+g. Not everyone places the same importance on their photos, after all. If a friend wants you to a favour, and it's the difference between maybe having some pics and definitely having none, I don't think the automatic response should be 'no, because I don't want to be a wedding photographer'.

L
 
Headless Lois said:
Hmm, I don't agree. It very much depends on the b+g. Not everyone places the same importance on their photos, after all. If a friend wants you to a favour, and it's the difference between maybe having some pics and definitely having none, I don't think the automatic response should be 'no, because I don't want to be a wedding photographer'.

L
Click to expand...

I do agree though. I don't see how you can do a good job of anything if you're self employed and have no interest, and it will come across.

Hugh
 
Really? I would think there are lots of people who love photography, have no desire whatsoever to make a living from it, but could take you some great shots at a wedding. (I am not saying they could compete with a pro, before anyone's head actually explodes or 'owt).

L
 
they could - there's no doubt about it, but make a living from something you have no interest in ( weddings not photography) would be very difficult and your lack of interest will come across

Hugh
 
Sorry, we are talking at crossed purposes. I'm not saying they could make a living from it, I'm saying as a one off they could potentially, but not necessarily, take some good photos. They may never do another wedding again (if they have any sense, waaaay too much like hard work, lol)

L
 
swanseamale47 said:
Maybe but if your mate was a roofer you would expect a good standard of roof repair, thats the propbem, people think because someone has a "proper" camera they are a professional photographer. you have a good camera = you must take good pictures.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

And that is one of the problems that we face everyday as photographers. There is a misconception that the camera does the work and the photographer just presses the right buttons. I have recently had a number of prospective small company commercial clients reject quotes with the phrase 'We could buy our own camera for that'.

Only one has come back so far, after spending a considerable amount of money on camera gear, and asked me to do the job. To paraphrase 'We had not realised how difficult it is to do this photography properly'. I suspect the others have not swallowed their pride quite as easily and have either got poor pictures or hired someone else.

We are back into the arguement that if you buy some top of the range pots,pans and knives does that make you a chef? Most would agree that it does not but the same logic does not seem to apply to cameras and photography.

A part of the problem is how the cameras themselves are promoted by the manufacturers. The underlying implication of most advertising seems to be that the more expensive the camera the more it does for you ie. point and shoot. Unfortunately this has also carried over into into the DSLR world and some of the recent advertising by the major manufacturers reinforces this. Read a few of the adverts for entry level DSLRs and you are left with the impression that all you need to do is part with £450 and you will be the next David Bailey.

I do some work for a local charity which I support by giving my time and expertise. They have a set of 22 framed and mounted behind glass collectable items which they are going to auction. For the promotion they need images and asked me to photograph the items. They were duly delivered yesterday and after a coffee and a bit of a chat it became apparent that what was expected was that I would now produce the 'magic' camera and knock off 22 quick product shots so that they could take them away. There was a moment of disbelief when I pointed out that what was actually sitting in front of me was a day and half of work.

If someone does have one of these 'magic' cameras could you drop me a pm as it wont half make my life a lot easier :lol:

John
 
Just a quick comment on the 'pro v amateur' posts.

There are some amateurs who produce work that is absolutely stunning and equally there are some pro's who produce work I would be ashamed to show to anyone. The status of pro or amateur does not necessarily reflect the photographers skill level as a photographer but it should reflect the understanding, skill, preparation, obligations and equipment required to do a given job.

An amateur can produce great wedding photographs. A good pro has to do it week in week out consistently and deliver regardless of the problems faced. The fact that one charges and the other does not does not make one a better photographer than the other. Both can produce pictures but one has an obligation to produce them. An amateur who takes on the role of a 'pro' at a wedding should think long and hard about the commitment they are making.

John
 
FetchMeMyTools said:
Are you saying people cant do weddings if they havent got a second body ?
Click to expand...

They can do it with one body but I would strongly advise against it. From my own personal experience I have had issues at two recent weddings, the first was when I had a camera/lens/memory card stolen and the second was on Saturday when the D3 developed a focusing problem, if I hadn't had a second body on both occasions I would have been royally ****ed.
 
jpwone said:
Just a quick comment on the 'pro v amateur' posts.

There are some amateurs who produce work that is absolutely stunning and equally there are some pro's who produce work I would be ashamed to show to anyone. The status of pro or amateur does not necessarily reflect the photographers skill level as a photographer but it should reflect the understanding, skill, preparation, obligations and equipment required to do a given job.

An amateur can produce great wedding photographs. A good pro has to do it week in week out consistently and deliver regardless of the problems faced. The fact that one charges and the other does not does not make one a better photographer than the other. Both can produce pictures but one has an obligation to produce them. An amateur who takes on the role of a 'pro' at a wedding should think long and hard about the commitment they are making.

John
Click to expand...

I don't think any experienced pro would disagree with you. I have a friend who would make a fantastic pro but it would mean giving up his £200k a year job and he is not sure he would match that from photography, well he might but only just

stew
 
Headless Lois said:
I'm saying as a one off they could potentially, but not necessarily, take some good photos.
L
Click to expand...

I hope you don't think I'm deliberately quoting you out of context Lois, I'm just picking up on certain points here.

"Potentially, but not nececessarily taking some good photos" does not cut it at a wedding. You need to be right place, right time with the right kit in your hand.

I could draw an analogy with sports. I've never shot a sporting event (other than a wrestling show and that's more entertainment really!) but it would be a little bit like asking someone with no interest in football to shoot a premiership football match. Technical skills a must, right kit a must and a knowledge of what they are doing to get the shots, a must. If you have no interest in the sport how on earth do you expect them to be able to anticipate what is going to happen next, never mind be prepared for it?

Weddings can be a little bit like that. It took me half a dozen to get really familiar with what is happening around me so I can be prepared.
 
Seriously, I am aware of what it takes to shoot a wedding properly. But not everyone wants/needs it done properly. there are people out there, on a budget, who can make do. That's all I am saying. I am not denigrating the work of wedding photographers, but not everyone requires the full service.

L
 
What do you call the full service Lois and at what price point does the full service start?
 
matty said:
in my experience, when i get my camera out, .
Click to expand...

Ah no, someone's hacked matty's account again :(

As far as weddings are concerned I've only done four. Each time I had a backup body and a range of lenses, not duplicates though, to cover in case one of them went faulty. I borrowed a spare flash from Marcel on here as well for the first one I did.

Point being that even though I wasn't charging for that first one there was no way I was going to take the chance that anything should fail and I'd leave the couple hanging out to dry.
 
AliB said:
What do you call the full service Lois and at what price point does the full service start?
Click to expand...

I don't think I am making myself very clear. For me there is a fundamental difference between charging ANY price at all for something - at which point you need to offer a good service, have a back up etc - and charging NOTHING at all, because you are essentially doing a favour, for a friend, end of. Not building a portfolio, not working towards a career in photography, literally just doing a favour for someone on a tight budget.

This is simply my personal view, I am more than happy to agree to disagree if people don't share it.

L
 
Ok, thanks Lois, I just wanted to be clear what the delineation was as regards someone's obligations as a photographer. So we are essentially in agreement that if it is for friends and there is the expectation that, since it is all for free, it could essentially all go thingies uppermost and that will be accepted by the couple and all is well.

And as soon as you are building a portfolio, looking to gain experience or starting out commercially then you should be going down route B and doing it properly.

Wholeheartedly agree :)
 
Another wedding and another equipment failure and this one shows you need to back up everything including yourself.

Booked as the second photographer at a large wedding for Saturday. Main photographer phones on Wednesday to let me know he has flu and may not be able to do the main so can we swap roles. I'm now main and he is second. The big difference being the main is doing the coverage for the bridal preparation and the reception whilst second and main cover the actual ceremony but the second gets to go home after the ceremony. Phones me on Friday (he's a good mate by the way and I'm not having a pop at him) and says he feels much better and will now do the main and I'll do second. I prep the gear for my role on Saturday - a relatively small pack as I'm only doing the ceremony but made sure all other gear was charged and ready just in case.

Phone call at 7.30 am on Saturday and he is out of it. He can't do main or second and can I cover both? I phone another photographer (keen amateur) and by 7.45 am I have myself as main and him as a second. I now pack a lot more gear and jump in the car as I have to be at the brides hotel for 9am (a 20 minute drive). Get my assistant to brief the second on the phone whilst we drive and all covered.

Preparation shots went fine - a bit of a delay but still time to beat her to the venue and meet up with the second. Ceremony starts and two thirds through the flash (430EX) gives up the ghost and will power up but not flash. A lot of ambient light so drop to no flash and let my assistant know that I need another flash. Metz duly arrives and I am back at full speed again.

Having the second flash was essential as I needed it later at the reception. I had a third in the car if needed as well. Whilst I could have done ambient light shots at the reception they would not have been in the same class as a nicely mixed ambient with a tad of fill.

The original photographer having a backup photographer was also key here. You don't just need to back up your kit you also need to think about what is your plan if you are out of action.

The bride and groom were very grateful that their day had not been spoiled and I think a little amazed that what could have been a disaster for their day had been solved so quickly.

Those who are starting out and arguing that they just cannot afford to have backup equipment to start with should now be thinking that maybe they need to spend a bit more time and make sure they have the kit before they book a wedding. There had been some serious money spent on this wedding, a lot of preparation on the bride and grooms part and guests flown in from around the world. Do you really want to be the one who screws it up for them?

By the way the original photographer had priced this at a friends rate. By the time I pay the assistant and the second photographer, repair/replace the flash and post process the images I wont have made a bean on the day. Sometimes its not about the money. It is helping someone else because you can. Should be a big load of good karma coming my way :)

John
 
jpwone said:
Those who are starting out and arguing that they just cannot afford to have backup equipment to start with should now be thinking that maybe they need to spend a bit more time and make sure they have the kit before they book a wedding. There had been some serious money spent on this wedding, a lot of preparation on the bride and grooms part and guests flown in from around the world. Do you really want to be the one who screws it up for them?
John
Click to expand...

I don't shoot weddings and have no intention to ever start. I can only imagine the pressure on the day and am pretty sure I would not enjoy it, and I have total respect for the people on here that do.

I'm not sure anyone thinks it's a good idea not to have a second body, however I imagine those that don't generally are starting out, cannot afford them and may charge less than more established photographers.

Personally if say I'm going to pay someone £250 to cover my wedding versus £1,500 I wouldn't necessarily expect there to be a backup body \ second shooter etc. I think it's up to me as someone buying a product to find out what I get, and I think it's up to the photographer to explain what I do and don't get for the cut-price service. So we both set each others expectations so both parties are clear. For me this is the same as when you buy any service as such.

I realise how horrendous it would be for both photographer and B&G if the camera \ lens failed but in some instances some people can't afford to pay for photographers that have the full kit and backup.

and to finish good job today, sounds like a nice rescue, let's hope that's your bad luck done for this year! :)
 
I just wish there was a bit more transparency to the process of choosing a photographer and that those choosing a photographer should be made aware of the experience and back up level of the photographer. It is too easy to pass yourself off as a photographer and there is no obligation to let the client know that they are not just choosing a style, a package and a person but are also choosing a risk level.

I am prepared to turn down a job that I know is either beyond my skill level, too big or beyond my equipment level. There is an obligation on the client to find out exactly what they are paying for but equally there should be an obligation on the photographer to not misrepresent themselves.

For a long time I said I would not do weddings. Having a few under my belt now I find there is an incredible high to them. There are 100 things to think of in the preparation and then there is the period from the bridal car arriving to it leaving when you are absolutely flat out. There are the must have shots, the want to have shots, the nice to get shots, the opportunistic shots and the 'list shots'. Then you have breathers, the guests are eating and you can have 10 minutes to have a coffee and think through the order of events to come. It goes from trying to be at three places at once and trying to do do four things at the same time to just being able to just enjoy the day surrounded by happy people.

You have to be able to communicate at all levels and be prepared to communicate. The order of events will change and time will be made up or lost during the day and it is the photographers job to stay in touch with what is happening, when it is happening and where it is happening. This means you are always trying to anticipate where you need to be and what you will need. I will try to look at the next shot set and get settings that will put me in the ball park for all areas as I go around.

It is a long day if you do the full day from bride getting ready to reception dancing and you will be dashing at one moment to get one shot and then have 50 shots in a couple of minutes. Challenging, tiring and exciting kind of sum it up for me.

Yes, I was a bit chuffed with myself yesterday when we managed to get things back on track, did a mate a favour and turned a potentially poor day for the bride into one which I hope the images will reflect was a great day.

John
 
Hi John

Don't disagree with anything you say there, still not sure I'll ever take the plunge though! Lack of ability (and a second body :-) ) woulld stop me now, the fear would prob stop me in the future.

Good luck

Al
 
agree with what you are saying john. I did a civil partnership last week, the couple were on a real tight budget, and already lost money with another tog. i was completely upfront and frank with them about my level of experience and what they were signing up to. We agreed to sign a contract too, even though I offered to do it for free seeing as they were taking a gamble with me. In the end they were really pleased with the sample images. On the day I managed to have a backup of everything, either my own kit or borrowed kit. I think going without a backup kit is too big a risk to take and it would be so bad to let the b&g down because of kit failure.

I have an asian wedding to do today, again with the mrs acting as a 2nd shooter. so today we have a backup kit for both of us.

I think people on tight budgets are willing to chance it a lot more with lesser experienced togs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top