Ship of Fools: Wedding Photographers

Thread: Wedding Photographers Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026216

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

For wedding photographers who just can't get enough, we pray:

http://www.wimp.com/photographymishap/

BTW, if you want to get a daily dose of slightly irreverent petitions, go to

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Unvirtuous-Abbey/184277211606988

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Oh that's not funny. That's some expensive kit, that is.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Oh it is funny. He's insured.

Wedding photographers who think they are the main event deserve some sort of kicking.....

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Hmm, how can we persuade the DAC to let us install a sunken pond in our church?

I almost came to blows with a photographer once: arriving in my loft half-an-hour before a wedding I discovered this chap setting up a tripod, having moved the bench to one side.

When I pointed out that (a) he had no business being there without permission, and (b) in any case, no bench = no music, he was completely unmoved.

It took the combined remonstrations of the vicar, a churchwarden and the presence of 2 burly choirmen before this man would move. [Mad]

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :

L'organist, I've had very similar run ins with wedding photographers, too. One had moved my bench, I told him to leave while moving the bench back into place. Another tried to station himself right beside me, in my line of sight to the wedding, and asked if I could quit playing and move. I told him to move now!, and must have used my mommy voice and look, because he did.

One of our pastors stopped a wedding to tell the photographer to either get to the back of the room, or to leave.

It was very satisfying to see the photographer in the link fall into the water. [Snigger]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Not as good as a pond, but I did see an obnoxious wedding photographer stand on a folding chair to get a good view of the couple signing the Register in the Sacristy. The chair collapsed, trapping his leg inside, and a hefty groomsman had to rescue him. (The organist and I were laughing so hard we had to leave the room.)
[Snigger]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Right. I shall try to keep this response out of Purg or Hell. Now, viewing the first link, it does seem the photographer is a bit obnoxiously placed. However, without knowing the circumstance, it is difficult to judge.
For a short time, I did wedding photography to help a photographer friend. One of the worst jobs I ever had.
One is employed to capture what is supposed to one of the most cherished moments of someone's life. A single chance to get it right, to give those entrusting this moment to you the best possible representation. And from the beginning, you are beset with obstacles. Conflicting rules, forbidden locations, no flash, no movement during x part of ceremony, etc. In shorter terms, no way to get a result the couple should be willing to pay for. And somehow it is all the photographer's fault.
Let me give you a real-life example.
We get the contract to do a wedding. Then go to the church to speak to their wedding coordinator. Walk through the church itself, discussing locations, ceremony, time allotted, etc. and come to an agreement with the person whose job it is to coordinate this. Arrive early, day of the ceremony, stash equipment so to be unobtrusive and out of way. Minutes before the ceremony, the priest comes in; no, no, you cannot be there. You cannot approach during such and such, etc. No time to relocate, no time to adjust plan, no time to speak to the couple.
So tell me, what is one supposed to do?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Not sure where you're operating lilBuddha - am I guessing USA?

Here in the UK we don't have "wedding co-ordinators": the arrangements are made with the couple and the church and in a well run parish they are well aware of rules about photography, videography, etc from the time they first enquire about getting married.

For example, we issue all prospective couples with a booklet with the following information:

legal requirements for getting married in the church
times and days of weddings
full details of what photographs will be allowed, when and from where
same for sound & vision recordings, including list of effect on fees, location of camera, details about lighting, etc
full details about flowers - where, who by, cost if in-house, etc
details about music - who can do it and what they can have

It is made quite clear from day one exactly what is allowed when it comes to photographs - and we've circulated all the local photographers.

But still we get mad snappers appearing who seem to think the church exists only as a "venue" for their craft and who see the wedding as their chance to shine, rather than as a milestone moment in the lives of the two people being married.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Many churches here in the USA have similarly clear standards for what is OK and what is not.

And with apologies to lilBuddah, I'm glad to see that I have some fellow travelers on the "wedding photographer should stay out of the way" boat. Maybe it's a church musician thing. There was a video circulating about a month ago of a priest stopping a wedding to tell the photographer to get out of the way, and I was a little surprised to see most people commenting that the priest had no right to tell the photographer where to go.

I was at a wedding a few years back, which was held at a lovely estate in Cincinnati, with huge gardens and a few water features. I'm still mad that I wasn't around when a guest apparently took an accidental swim. Between that and the handful of videos out there of entire wedding parties landing in the drink, maybe the lesson is that water features and weddings don't mix.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Not sure where you're operating lilBuddha - am I guessing USA?

That particular incident was in America, yes. But I've seen elements of this on both sides of the pond.
I think part of the problem is the nature of the different jobs. A musician, for example, has a static position. If a musician flubs a note, most will not notice and most of those who do will forget. If the celebrant stumbles on a line, people will laugh, it provides a story to tell. Neither of these results in them not being used again. If a photographer misses the kiss, the ring or anything else, do you think the result is an amused smile?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

If I am contacted by a wedding coordinator (not very common here)I always have them ask the couple to contact me about booking and arranging the wedding. There are too many potential issues to navigate where the personal knowledge/decision of the couple is required for me to feel secure working with a third party.

The only time I had any significant dealings with a wedding where a coordinator had been used, she had booked the couple in for a popular wedding venue for a suitable mid morning time, and then for a romantic venue for lunch nearly two hours drive away! They'd only discovered when visiting the reception venue within a few weeks of the wedding, and (having sacked the coordinator) phoned me in a panic about whether I could accommodate their ceremony (I could) as they were expensively committed to the reception venue, and by then other venues were not available anyway. I think being a wedding coordinator must be a pretty thankless task really, and I swing between sympathy and irritation with the breed.

As for wedding photographers, we issue a sheet outlining the rules for the couple and tell them to give it to the photographer. Most photographers are very professional and entirely aware of the need not to obtrude.

Looking at the video I do feel a bit sorry for the man, with only a very short aisle to work with, but he was incredibly in your face. In the end it would have been less obtrusive to have paused the exit for a moment for his shot(s) but perhaps he was trying not to interrupt the flow.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

Back in the days when I did some wedding photography I would sometimes use a step-ladder to get the big 'group' shot. When climbing up it I would say to my assistant, "Remember, if I fall off the ladder, catch the camera".

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I think this particular photographer got what he deserved. Notice he is about three steps in front of the couple taking series after series of flashes. It would have blinded the couple, in my opinion. It also ruins the recessional for the congregation as well. The photographer should have stood in the back of the aisle and gotten more than enough shots of the couple coming down it.

Then too, if he insisted on backing up, he should have had a spotter who would have stopped him from going into the baptistery.

Obviously, though, the minister of the service had lost control of the photographer, if the minister ever did have control. As a professional, the photographer should have discussed what his plans were with the minister prior to the wedding, maybe even had things blocked out.

No, I have no sympathy for the man. Too bad his gear--or kit--got dunked. I would think he would have insured it. But maybe he learned some heard lessons this way.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

He does seem to have more kit than clue, and be of the school that thinks that taking twenty shots, with flash, in 'rapid-fire ' mode is the way to get one good shot.

But in his defence, if he had done the 'sensible' thing and stayed at the back of the church to photograph the recession he wouldn't have got a picture of the couple, but of the congregation standing in the aisle to take their own photographs (because they don't want to simply enjoy seeing the couple, they have to take their own pictures, otherwise the event didn't happen). At least there is only one official photographer, there are 57 others who have to get the shot.

[ 17. October 2013, 06:02: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Some wedding photographers see themselves as movie directors. The bridal couple, clergy, and wedding party are supposed to do what he tells them to.

Moo

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I don't talk to wedding coordinators. The couple have to speak to me, or no dice.

The wedding photography thing is an unfortunate sign that recording the occasion has eclipsed the occasion itself in importance. The photographs are supposed to be mementos of the occasion, right? Not substitutes for it, and certainly not the thing-in-itself. If the officiant is restricting the photographer, it is usually because he is concerned that the ceremony be as reverent and fitting as possible. The photographer is there to document an important life event. It is not a photo shoot.

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

I expect all clergy have stories about photographers, because we are doing different jobs at the same event. But the worst I came across was last November 11th when at a war memorial a free-lance photographer moved in close during the 2 minutes' silence and snapped away loudly and prolifically. I had to move over and in a fierce whisper tell him (not a request) to stop. Later in the day he did the same at another memorial - I have three, none at 11 a.m.

I got in touch with the local newspaper and told them the tale and they undertook to use nothing that he sent them for these events.

Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Hmm, how can we persuade the DAC to let us install a sunken pond in our church?

Tell them it's for baptism by full immersion? [Smile]

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

Not yet had a wedding, but of the ones I have attended in various places and types of venue the photos have been staged at different times.

Bride & co arriving - pic in car etc, then outside doors if pretty place.

Maybe at signing registers but can be restaged afterwards.

Then outside afterwards, couple at front of church, guest combinations etc And if ceremony venue not pretty enough then at reception place or even nice park.

But I suppose the catching it in action, the 'natural moment' has taken over

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Chapelhead: But in his defence, if he had done the 'sensible' thing and stayed at the back of the church to photograph the recession he wouldn't have got a picture of the couple, but of the congregation standing in the aisle to take their own photographs

When there is a wedding (or a baptism) at our church, the rules are quite clear that only the 'official' photographer is allowed to take photographs. In the case of a wedding, this would be the professional photographer contracted by the couple. In the case of a baptism, the church appoints a volunteer who takes photographs, and people can get a cd with the pictures afterwards.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

With the type of telephoto lenses that guy had, he could have zoomed in on the couple and not get the congregation.

Then too, there is such a feature as cropping.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
But I suppose the catching it in action, the 'natural moment' has taken over

As has the insistence that every single moment needs to be photographed. If I haven't taken a 'selfie' [Projectile]

then how do I know I was ever here?

Having said that, I can understand a desire to move away from the old 'every possible group' arrangements. In reality, nobody wants a picture of the bride and groom with the groom's side of the family, or many of the other combinations. The bride's mother wants a picture of the bride's mother with the bride; the bride wants a picture of the bride with the groom (groom optional). The rest you can generally forget, unless it's to play 'how many of the couples at our wedding are still together now' game in a few years.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0