# Wedding photographer's nightmare



## MelindaG (Oct 16, 2013)

We were really excited to shoot this wedding. It is at a new venue. This was only their second wedding. We arrived early to the house where the bride was getting ready. Their car broke down so they were an hour late. Then the hair/makeup artist took two hours, making us late to arrive at the venue for bridal party photos. My husband (and primary photographer) had already taken the groomsmen photos and detail shots in the time it took for the bride to get ready. The ceremony was outside in direct sunlight. We then had to try to take advantage of the remaining sunlight to do bride and groom photos first. The family didn't understand that and kept telling people we were doing family formals. Seeing as we were at a barn and there was no where to go, we had no privacy with the bride and groom. We had maybe 10 minutes with them before the family formals. And then my husbands camera broke. There is a defect with the canon 5d where the mirror can come loose due to adhesive failure. We did have a backup camera. Soon after I accidentally dropped a lens on the ground. Thankfully it is not broken and is working. My husbands foot broke the fall. Then it was time for the reception which was not favorable for photography in the dark. Only one small section had Sheetrock on the ceiling. And it was so dark we could barely focus.  We set up our strobe and umbrella to get some decent shots. It was in a narrow barn so there was hardly any space for it. Most of the ceiling was bare rafters and OSB. So using speed lights to bounce off the ceiling just created and orange hue to the photos (nothing Lightroom can't fix). To top it all off, the venue owners daughter is a photography student so she just showed up and started taking photos. She posted them on her Facebook page claiming them as portfolio work. Of course the venue and parents of the bride have been sharing the photos. We have only posted a few previews because we want to surprise them with the photos when we meet with the bride. And the wedding planner (also the brides aunt) took hundreds of photos with her phone and posted them all on Facebook. I guess we didn't even have to be there. I feel disrespected. There's nothing I can do or say. I have to be the professional. We were paid and hired. We will deliver our work and that will be that. Thank you for letting me vent.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 17, 2013)

Welcome to the forum.

Wedding photography can be the best...and it can be the worst.  Chalk it up to experience and move on.


----------



## GDHLEWIS (Oct 17, 2013)

Welcome, sounds like a nightmare


----------



## ronlane (Oct 17, 2013)

Welcome to the site.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 17, 2013)

and when you give the couple back their photos once you are finished they'll know why they paid you the big bucks....right?


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 17, 2013)

I've shot one wedding in my life. The bride and groom (and I, frankly) were ecstatic with the results.

I'm battin' a thousand. I don't wanna' screw that up...


----------



## Designer (Oct 17, 2013)

Exactly right, Braineack. 

The professional photographs should be so much better that the wedding couple and all their friends will be glad they hired the pros.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 17, 2013)

And

Part of being a pro is being ready for all circumstances and challenges. Sounds like you were for the most part.  

The deck was stacked against you this time. But I wouldn't worry about Grandma's cell phone pics on Facebook. Your pictures should outshine them, no problem, or what did they pay you for? 

I don't like the sounds of this other chick with her DSLR posting stuff to her Facebook and calling it "portfolio" work. You need to have an "exclusive photographer" clause and you and the B/G need to be on the same page before the wedding takes place. If you saw this happening, you needed to politely, but firmly, take control of the situation and ask this person to back off. You are the hired photog. Everybody else is second string. That's how it has to be for you to insure that you do your job correctly.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 17, 2013)

Welcome to the site

I've never done a wedding but the ones I've been too there's always camera phones, bridge cameras, etc there but they are usually in the audience but do wander around.

Doesn't the pro get all the pre wedding, post wedding, wedding specific photos all to their self to capture the moment - ie, asking the bride/groom to pose for a second before the first dance, etc.  So there should be a BIG difference between the pro and someone just taking some pics.  but I've never done a wedding ....


----------



## gsgary (Oct 17, 2013)

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


----------



## MelindaG (Oct 17, 2013)

The good news is we are pretty happy with all the photos. I am not worried that our photos aren't better. I just wonder why the planner and the venue felt like they had to take photos all day. We are going to give them professional photos. 

And yes we plan to add the exclusive photographer clause to our contract. We have a clause about intrusive wedding guests. 

Also canon is fixing our camera for free because it is a somewhat common defect in that model. 

Yes I know that most weddings don't go perfectly as planned and we are prepared for that. This is just one of the worst ones. And one of the worst with people posting horrible photos on Facebook. 

Thank you for welcoming me to the forum and your comments.


----------



## kathyt (Oct 17, 2013)

MelindaG said:


> The good news is we are pretty happy with all the photos. I am not worried that our photos aren't better. I just wonder why the planner and the venue felt like they had to take photos all day. We are going to give them professional photos.
> 
> And yes we plan to add the exclusive photographer clause to our contract. We have a clause about intrusive wedding guests.
> 
> ...


I have noticed the guests are getting more and more invasive as my second shooter and I try to get our job done. I really think it is a sign of the times, but it is also really sad too. The bride and groom pay a lot of money for us to be there, and then they have every Aunt Sue and Uncle Joe standing in our way. Yes, it gets really frustrating. I felt this at my last wedding as well. I don't mind the FB post though, because I know our quality will shine through in the end.


----------



## merk102 (Oct 17, 2013)

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 ?


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 18, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Welcome to the site.



This made me laugh for some odd reason


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 18, 2013)

merk102 said:


> 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"


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 18, 2013)

Welcome to the site!

The only part of your story that raises my blood pressure is that planner's daughter coming in with her DSLR and having the gall to shoot and post like it were her wedding. You definitely need to make sure that kind of bullcrap is specifically prohibited in your contract with all future clients. That's the sort of thing I make very sure to address in person before the wedding. I've had to walk up to other vendors before and tell them to put their camera away. I provide watermarked images to the other vendors for their personal use...


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 18, 2013)

Dont let that bothers you. It happens all the time. The only timr I would be pissed is if my 2nd shooter that I hired post photos before I blog it.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 18, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Welcome to the site!
> 
> The only part of your story that raises my blood pressure is that planner's daughter coming in with her DSLR and having the gall to shoot and post like it were her wedding. You definitely need to make sure that kind of bullcrap is specifically prohibited in your contract with all future clients. That's the sort of thing I make very sure to address in person before the wedding. I've had to walk up to other vendors before and tell them to put their camera away. I provide watermarked images to the other vendors for their personal use...



Other shooters should not worry you if you are good, i'd like to see you walk upto me and tell me to put my camera away


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 18, 2013)

gsgary said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > Welcome to the site!
> ...



are you saying you would not put your camera away if the bride and groom were under contract not to allow any guests to use cameras?
seems kinda crappy not to follow the rules at someone elses venue.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 18, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...



I have a 'exclusive professional' clause as well as a "if Uncle Joe gets in my way and ruins the shot, it ain't my fault' clause.  I hope never to have to invoke either one, but they're there if absolutely necessary.  I have to admit, the venue owner's daughter showing sounds VERY odd, and extremely unprofessional.  That one would have been a tough one to handle.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 18, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> are you saying you would not put your camera away if the bride and groom were under contract not to allow any guests to use cameras? seems kinda crappy not to follow the rules at someone elses venue.



I wouldn't; I'd laugh.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 18, 2013)

You put that on the contract to cover your ass if you have bad shots of important moment. You shouldnt really enforce it.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 18, 2013)

Braineack said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > are you saying you would not put your camera away if the bride and groom were under contract not to allow any guests to use cameras?
> ...



I think this is a sad statement about people and a lack of respect for professionals trying to do their job. 
its also sad to think you would be willing to potentially cost the bride and groom money and/or pictures by causing them to be in violation of their contract. 
im a little surprised that there are fellow photographers here that have so little respect for a field they have interest in. 
I wonder if you would have that same attitude with someone distracting me from saving your family members life.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 18, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> You put that on the contract to cover your ass if you have bad shots of important moment. You shouldnt really enforce it.



no, you shouldn't HAVE to enforce it. 
you should not HAVE to use it as an excuse as to why you didnt get shots. the offending people should be stopped. 
if the bride and groom want a bunch of people taking pictures, then they have no need to hire you to do it.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 18, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...




I have plenty of respect for professional photographers and I'm doing nothing to stop them from doing their jobs.

I couldn't even imagine going to a wedding where i would be asked not to take pictures; that's silly and disrespectful to the family and friends who wont to capture the event on their own for their own personal records.  I'm also trying to remember the last time I went to a wedding and recieved my own photo album of the event from teh photographer...

I'm a little surprised to hear a photographer would be so egotistical and butthurt to suggest such a clause.  You're shooting for the couple, they are paying you for your skills to take pictures and giving you access/time where guests wouldn't have it.  So take pictures. Who cares is someone else there happens to have a camera?



> I wonder if you would have that same attitude with someone distracting me from saving your family members life.



Strawman.




> I've had to walk up to other vendors before and tell them to put their camera away.



And as far as asking a vendor to put the camera away...that's just silly. Instead, wallk up and say, hey I'll take pictures of your food/cakes/flowers and even print you some postcards for free to give to potential clients.  Then after the event, create a 2-sided postcard with a few samples of your wedding photography and the pictures you took of the vendor's stuff.  Put their logo on the side with their stuff and yours on the other with your pictures along with your contact information.  Congratulations, you now have a strategic marketing partner instead of a vendor who would never suggest to a client to hire you.




> if the bride and groom want a bunch of people taking pictures, then they have no need to hire you to do it.



They they wouldn't of had a wedding in the first place.  They hired you to take the pictures, they have no expectation that all the guest who take pictures are going to take professional level photos, post process them and present them to the couple once they are done so they can print from them or make photo albums.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 18, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > You put that on the contract to cover your ass if you have bad shots of important moment. You shouldnt really enforce it.
> ...


I think it's also good practice to discuss this at the consult; ask the B&G if they have an "Uncle Joe Photographer" in the crowd and explain that while you don't mind family getting a few snaps, if they get in your way, you cannot be held liable.  If there is an 'Uncle Joe' I would also suggest talking to him; treat him like a second shooter and see if you can 'assign' him tasks (away from you).  A lot of people would be very pleased to be given a job by the professional and will make both your lives a LOT easier.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 18, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I have plenty of respect for professional photographers and I'm doing nothing to stop them from doing their jobs.
> I couldn't even imagine going to a wedding where i would be asked not to take pictures; that's silly and disrepectful to the family and friends who wont to capture the event on their own for their own personal records.


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.




Braineack said:


> I'm a little surprised to hear a photographer who be so egotistical to suggest such a clause. You're shooting for the couple, they are paying you to take pictures and your skills. So take pictures. Who cares is someone else there happens to have a camera?


 You might want to tag along as a grip on a wedding or two with a pro just to get an appreciation of what goes on before you start running off at the mouth quite so much!


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 18, 2013)

No.. You should still take kick ass photos even with those photographers messing your shots. Guest with a DSLR is no different than a guest with a point and shoot or phone camera.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 18, 2013)

Braineack said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



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.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 18, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> No.. You should still take kick ass photos even with those photographers messing your shots. Guest with a DSLR is no different than a guest with a point and shoot or phone camera.



ive never had issues with any particular TYPE of camera. it isnt the camera that is the problem, it is people jumping in your way. 
You are pretty awesome Robin, but even YOU cant get an awesome shot of the bride with uncle Joe standing in the way.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 18, 2013)

> 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.





pixmedic said:


> 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.
> ...




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 (Oct 18, 2013)

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 (Oct 18, 2013)

Majeed Badizadegan said:


> merk102 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 ?
> ...


Welcome to the forum M!


----------



## tirediron (Oct 18, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> 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 (Oct 18, 2013)

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


----------



## kathyt (Oct 18, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


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


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 18, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


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



oh gawd...please no.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 18, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


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


Really Robin?


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 18, 2013)

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 (Oct 18, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> 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 (Oct 18, 2013)

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


----------



## merk102 (Oct 18, 2013)

Braineack said:


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



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


----------



## Fox_Racing_Guy (Oct 18, 2013)

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 (Oct 19, 2013)

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 (Oct 20, 2013)

gsgary said:


> 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.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 20, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...



We don't have crap like that over here, if you are good enough  other photographer should not worry you but 98% i have seen on here would have a lot to worry about


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 20, 2013)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



yea, I guess there are differences over here. 
for instance, over here, we honor our word and contracts. 
but, however you want to do it over there is fine too. 
im not sure why you keep bringing picture quality into this discussion, because that has never been what the issue was about. 
I dont know if you skipped over the last page of this thread, but most of us have already established that the "contract rules" are really just there in case  you have someone physically getting in your way, NOT to try and exclude uncle Joe from taking some photos from his seat. 

honestly, I cant think if ANY job where it is OK to actively get in the way of the hired person trying to do their job.  
why is it that it should be acceptable for someone to disrupt the photographer?


----------



## gsgary (Oct 20, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Have you ever seen a UK Premiur football match ? it usually happens to the ref every week


----------

