Wedding photographer's nightmare

[Braineack]

You're completely missing the point. I don't think there are too many wedding shooters out there who care how many relatives drag out their P&S/cell phones. What they care about is being blocked. For instance: Next event is the boquet toss, as the professional, you know where & when, and have done a recce, and know exactly where you're going to stand. You get in position and are all ready to capture the moment when Uncle Joe steps right in front of you with his brand-new Best Buy special (for which he's not even read the instructions) and you lose the shot through no fault of your own. THAT'S what the clause is for.

is it egotistical when other people trying to take their own photos are in your way? or when their flash is getting in the way of your flashes?
I never said people should not be allowed to use their camera at a wedding. I am ONLY referring to people with cameras that are getting in the way of the paid photographers. please note the distinction.
what is silly and disrespectful, is for the bride and groom to hire a professional photographer, and then have guests totally disregard that photographers
needs for movement, space, and lighting because they just HAVE to get that iphone shot to post up on FB during the reception.
and your right. the couple is paying US to take pictures, so give US a little courtesy and respect and let us do the best possible job for the bride and groom.
the clause in our contract does NOT say you cant bring a camera. it does not say you cant USE your camera.
what it DOES say, is that you cannot use flash of any kind during the ceremony or formals, and that you cannot get in our way, or impede our movement.
I think it is FAR more disrespectful for a friend or family member to be intrusive of the hired photographers than it is for those photographers to ask them to stop.

thus far, we have been fortunate in the fact that we have never had to "ask" someone to stop shooting.
I think we are actually pretty liberal as far as letting other people take pictures, but that doesnt mean
we should let ourselves be impeded from doing the job we were hired to do.

This clause and situation makes sense to me, and is completely understandable. What i thought was being suggested is that there's a contract being signed that says there's no cameras allowed, maybe I misread.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

If you want to enforce it, you have to enforce it to everybody including that lady with iphone taking hundreds of photos. I ve had father of groom, groomsman, mom of bride, mom of groom, etc. with a camera. They have more right to be there than the photographer.

 

[kathyt]

Melinda, I was wondering if you could PM me your intrusive wedding guest clause... I'll be honest I've never heard of such a clause before and would be interested in possibly adding it to my contracts. Would you be ok with this ?

Google "sole photographer clause"

Welcome to the forum M!

 

[tirediron]

If you want to enforce it, you have to enforce it to everybody including that lady with iphone taking hundreds of photos. I ve had father of groom, groomsman, mom of bride, mom of groom, etc. with a camera. They have more right to be there than the photographer.

This is why I tend to advocate for the wording to be "I and/or my assisstants will be the sole professional photographers..."

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Then John, lets talk about who is considered a pro? Pro vs. Amateur debate again?

 

[kathyt]

Then John, lets talk about who is considered a pro? Pro vs. Amateur debate again?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[pixmedic]

Then John, lets talk about who is considered a pro? Pro vs. Amateur debate again?

oh gawd...please no.

 

[tirediron]

Then John, lets talk about who is considered a pro? Pro vs. Amateur debate again?

Really Robin?

 

[Robin_Usagani]

What i am saying is, if you say you are the only professional photographer, then those people the OP mentioned should be able to shoot because they are not professional.

 

[tirediron]

What i am saying is, if you say you are the only professional photographer, then those people the OP mentioned should be able to shoot because they are not professional.

That's exactly my point - I don't want (and don't think it's appropriate) for me to attempt to restrict family and friends from taking souviner shots. At the same time, I want to avoid 'Uncle Joe' issues at all possible, which is why I would address them before-hand with the couple (which may or may not prove useful, but can't hurt), and why I have the "If someone jumps in front of me at the critical moment and I lose the shot, you can't whine" clause.

 

[Braineack]

Don't bring along a second shooter, bring along a tackle.

 

[merk102]

Don't bring along a second shooter, bring along a tackle.

I agree !! Sometimes it feels necessary to bring one along.

 

[Fox_Racing_Guy]

I would never want to shoot a wedding, seems you should bring a assistant with a mono-pod to bang people over the head.

[video=vimeo;75820951]http://vimeo.com/75820951[/video]

 

[MelindaG]

Here is what we have in our contract about wedding guests. But after this wedding I will be adding the exclusive photographer part to it as well.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Looks like you had a normal wedding to shoot nothing unexpected, most weddings are like this you just work round it

Pretty much what I've seen just being an attendee and not shooting. I've shot two weddings and they were for friends. I shot one as a 2nd shooter doing candids only. I refuse to shoot a wedding for money or for people I do not know even though I have been approached at least a dozen time. "You shoot bugs, how much harder could it be to shoot people?" Uh, no. Not doing it... Precisely because I don't want to ruin friendships and for the reasons the OP had. I'm going to do senior portraits for a neighbor kid but only because they want somebody they know already who she is comfortable with to do them. Even then they'll be signing a contract and I will be accepting only two bottles of Collingwood whiskey as payment.