mulitple cams remotely triggered / wedding?

Status
Not open for further replies.
thanks for all the discussion.. it just came across my mind the other nite while i was playing around with my PWs and realised it had this feature.
 
Andrew
As a first wedding (if and when you do one) it's not really worth considering. Keep your two cameras close to hand with fast glass, you'll probably need them.

Worth a go though. You have me thinking about it again for my next one!
 
besides what elsa said, its an obstruction and a potential lawsuit if someone tripps over an unmanned tripod. and your out 1K or more.


Also, It makes them think that a robot could do your job, should they pay good money for it?.. seriously its not a good idea, from the time you react to the movement, and adjust any settings , also youll miss the shot.

Video is a completely different monster... you actually prob could get away with that with video, pics, not the same thing... it may sound good, but give it a test run sometime and see how you like it...
 
I accept the position regards the tripod. Didn't think about that. i don't think that anyone was talking about doing a wedding from that one position though. Some nice shots of emotion from the couple/congregation I don't think would be bad..... However yes if there's an issue of falling over a triod then obviously the minister wouldn't be keen to permit this.

Settings? Set camera to manual (inc manual focus) all the photographer would need to do is select when to hit the shutter!

Why would video be different? Fallong over one tripod would be the same as another?

Good to hear opinions on this though. I'm seeing both sides at the moment and just arguing the points out ;)
 
Well if you setup the tripod in the aisle and asked the bride to sidestep it you may have an issue. If you use some common sense and set it up in a private balcony or in the AV booth some facitilies have you'd be fine. It amazes me how many people will tell you why you can't do something.

It works. It's easy. It's not for any shot you NEED but it will get some shots you might WANT and otherwise wouldn't get.

You would use it for a wide shot of the ceremony, not zoomed in on the couple or anything like that. It works fine if you use some common sense and if you have a spare body.
 
Well if you setup the tripod in the aisle and asked the bride to sidestep it you may have an issue. If you use some common sense and set it up in a private balcony or in the AV booth some facitilies have you'd be fine. It amazes me how many people will tell you why you can't do something.

It works. It's easy. It's not for any shot you NEED but it will get some shots you might WANT and otherwise wouldn't get.

You would use it for a wide shot of the ceremony, not zoomed in on the couple or anything like that. It works fine if you use some common sense and if you have a spare body.

My thoughts too Dewey. I think it would give a nice shot of everyone "watching" the ceremony rather than the usual "backs of heads"......

Split views.
 
some of the video gear has tripods that can swivel or pan remotely this is the goal of video, smooth panning, for still pics and a wedding thats not a good idea.

If it works for you go for it!!! I was just trying to let you know of a potential risk. No biggie.. generally speaking if you can go through the hassle of setting that up, why not hire an asistant and look 300% even more professional to all the people there who you will be handing out cards to... weddings are more about personality then equipment from what I see..................................just a thought... no biggie...
 
Yep, I certainly do have some pent up aggression. I've given my time, for free, to help first timers out of lawsuits.
"Man, that was a lot harder than I thought".
That's why I asked PLEASE do an apprenticeship. The idea of a remote up front is simply not a workable option. It's been tried time and time again with zero success. Any videographer can tell you this.
Dewey, I'm not trying to be holier than thou. I'm just trying to stop this poster and his EOS buddy from slashing their own throats.
You might not like what I have to say, but I'm a pretty damn well informed messenger.
And yeah, if you screw it all up, I will try to help. :) I'm here to help, not to hinder.
 
Well, ya know... Cindy is not way off on this.

Personally, I have no first-hand info on resulting law suits, but (for me) that's the least of it. There's a lot at stake for the couple... if the marriage lasts.

I made a policy years ago: Try nothing new with a client... at least nothing that keeps me from doing what I'm expected to do. Once I've covered all that, then I may introduce something new.

I'm not willing to put anything of mine in view in the sanctuary.

Everybody has to start somewhere, but remember to walk before tying to run.

Good luck!

Pete
 
The idea of a remote up front is simply not a workable option. It's been tried time and time again with zero success.

I'm sorry but you are wrong on this, plain and simple. Just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean it's not possible. I have used a remote camera several times in places I could not be and it's worked just fine.

I'm not going to argue about experience, as a wedding photographer who has invested a lot of time and a lot of money into photography I support your idea of learning first. Wedding photography isn't a trial and error sort of thing. I just don't think it's fair that you jump on people like that - he asked a question about remote cameras not about whether we approve of him doing the wedding.

Let's stay on the topic :)
 
You are way off the line on this one!

Who is going to shoot a wedding at ISO3200?!!! Buy faster lenses!!!

Why does it downcalss the business? Can you tell me? I don't understand this? Because I may want to try something different???

Remember the OP stated multiple cameras so the main shots wioll still be taken but you can supplement these with some amazing emotion shots..... think about it!!

Why would we be fleecing? Is it such a bad idea? I'd really like to know why you feel as you do!!


It's done all the time. And btw, most first timers wander in with a 24-105 f4 thinking they can shoot the whole wad with that. God knows, I've tried to help clean up after a few of those.
Unless they are really wealthy weekend warriors, first timers aren't walking around with a few bags full of 1.8 and faster lenses at $1500 a pop. No quick travel lighting, no 4th and 5th bodies, no assistance....no nothing.

You know how to get amazing emotion shots? You sweet talk the officiant, and you get your a$$ up in the front, but hidden away. I have a whole website of emotional up front shots to back up what I am saying. But you need a second shooter for the back, and an assistant to hand you the various cameras needed.....quickly.
You can't just shoot a frame every 10 seconds or so. That is "spray and pray", and yeah, a machine can do it, but shouldn't. They aren't paying for a robot camera. They are paying for a pro that they trust their entire big day to.

It downclasses the business, because I can't tell you the amount of horror stories I've heard from clients and priests. A story about a local wedding photographer made the nightly news recently, and it messed up ALL of the wedding photogs in the area. You will never see the newscast about the happy bride, but get one "wakes up one morning and wants to be a wedding photog" person out there, and it's a weeks worth of news. No kidding.

So yeah, I have a right to ASK this photographer to work along side a wedding photog for a week or two. And you have a right to gripe about what I said, but unless you've spent a few years in my shoes, I don't think you can reasonably argue with what I've said. Call it ego if you like. I prefer to call it "saving your butt".
 
This was the original question...
I was wondering if anyone who has multiple bodies and pocketwizards has ever thought to preframe and focus one cam on a tripod during the ceremony
It's a simple enough question and the answer seems to be that it is doable but probably isn't the best idea, especially if it's untested.

The other issue stems from this statement...
i havent shot any weddings.. ive been seriously considering getting a start in it this summer
I believe this is a separate issue and should be discussed in another thread. And please keep the tone civil...there is nothing wrong with a heated discussion but we will shut down any threads that get out of hand.
 
I'm sorry but you are wrong on this, plain and simple. Just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean it's not possible. I have used a remote camera several times in places I could not be and it's worked just fine.

I'm not going to argue about experience, as a wedding photographer who has invested a lot of time and a lot of money into photography I support your idea of learning first. Wedding photography isn't a trial and error sort of thing. I just don't think it's fair that you jump on people like that - he asked a question about remote cameras not about whether we approve of him doing the wedding.

Let's stay on the topic :)


Don't you understand that I am not "jumping on people?" Do you honestly think I don't have work to do....that I don't stop by here as a way of paying back what was given to me by others here?
If you re-read my original post, I was mearly trying to help the poster with some good sound advice. It was a later post that really ticked me off, and my latest posts will expound on why.
Remote cameras DON'T work. You can spray and pray and hope for the best, and you might get a good one, but not like you would get if people got up there, heart feeling humans, and did it themselves when the moment was exactly right. I can promise you a great shot on EVERY moment with a live human, and 1% with a robot.
But this post cost you exactly no money, and you can decide it's worth just that.
 
MY whole point in even considering it was that Nobody is supposed to be behind the minister during the wedding (especially a photographer or assistant) and nobody but the minister really sees the emotion on the faces of the B/G during the ceremony so why not get one or two shots. Because they are looking the other way you wouldn't be doing anything anyway so aim the remote and shoot. I wouldn't suggest doing it anyway with out a third body. mike ***looks like a lot has gone on since started typing. It also looks lilke there are Two WAY different conversations going on here and I'll be leaving now. me
 
MY whole point in even considering it was that Nobody is supposed to be behind the minister during the wedding (especially a photographer or assistant) and nobody but the minister really sees the emotion on the faces of the B/G during the ceremony so why not get one or two shots. Because they are looking the other way you wouldn't be doing anything anyway so aim the remote and shoot. I wouldn't suggest doing it anyway with out a third body. mike ***looks like a lot has gone on since started typing. It also looks lilke there are Two WAY different conversations going on here and I'll be leaving now. me


Why is nobody supposed to be behind the minister? Is there a place, biblically that states this?
Of course you can be, as long as you make it clear that the santanty of the ceremony is the most important thing.
Sorry for the two conversations Mike, but there were two distinct topics in the initial point.
You should stay and offer your opinions. They are valid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

Back
Top