Was this inappropriate and was there a better way to handle the situation?

Hi all. I have posted a few times in the past, but I think my old account was wiped out. I hope to become more involved in the forums going forward. A few weeks ago, I had (what I think was) a minor incident with a pro photographer at a wedding. I am curious to know what you all think of this and whether there is anything I should have done differently.


A few weeks ago, I attended my cousin

Wow. That

Hmm... I know that a bit of the context of the situation is lost due to this post being in text, but the situation does sound kinda fishy. If the hired photog was THAT adamant about you not taking any pictures, I should think they would have said it point blank, but maybe they were a passive-aggressive personality type. I don

I shoot a lot of weddings and I

I vote don

I

If she had formated your memory card then handed your camera back to you it would have been a clear signal.


Otherwise I think you read to much in to it.

I was invited to a wedding of my friend

I think you are taking it too personally and reading a bit much into the gesture. She may have simply wanted to tell you the camera and flash were off so you wouldn

I agree with Barba - I don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

If the hired photographer is getting paid, what does he care if others are taking pictures?

---

I suspect it comes down to money, and it depends on the contract terms. Many times, the photographer expects to make money selling prints to the couple or to guests. If guests bring P&S or disposable cameras, that's one thing. But if the photographer sees a guest with gear capable of producing high-quality enlargements, there may be a perceived threat to the bottom line (i.e. Ben would give his digital files to the couple for free). Of course, it also comes down to confidence - the photographer should have been confident enough in her skills to produce well-composed and well-exposed shots even though Ben had similar gear. Now, if Ben had shown up with a pair of 1DsIII's and a bag full of L lenses...


In your case, Alan, it was a good thing you had your camera there! It sounds like whoever hired the photographer didn't do their homework. It's surprising that a 'pro' shot the wedding on film, since it must have been some time after 2006 if you had a 30D. My wedding was shot on film, but hey, digital cameras didn't really exist way back then... (ok, there was the Kodak DCS-200, but it was $30K). We went with a husband/wife team shooting medium format. We ended up buying the negatives from the shoot - close to 1000 shots for the wedding and reception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I suspect it comes down to money, and it depends on the contract terms.

---

Since the contract was between Ben's cousin and the photographer, not Ben, and the cousin did not mention to Ben that he should not be taking pictures, I would say Ben did nothing wrong. People bring cameras to weddings, unless they are told otherwise. If there is any problem here it is between the cousin and the photographer, not the guests.


I still think Ben read to much in to this.


Personally, if I were Ben in this situation I might refrain from showing or offering my pic's to the cousin until after the cousin completes his buisness with the photographer. The photographer is trying to make a living and I would not interfere with that. (unless the cousin had a photographer like Alan described then saving the day would be ok)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

If guests bring P&S or disposable cameras, that's one thing. But if the photographer sees a guest with gear capable of producing high-quality enlargements, there may be a perceived threat to the bottom line (i.e. Ben would give his digital files to the couple for free).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

It was in 2007 that I used the 30D at that wedding.


I know what you're saying about P&amp;S's or disposables, but a camera is a camera. Besides, I'm guessing that the people at that wedding I attended took better shots with their P&amp;S's than "Bud" did! With the guy shooting film (it was a photographer that the wife's side of the family knew from a long time back, so they sort of felt guilty for not asking him), he's getting paid for his work, regardless, and if someone else has better equipment, and ends up giving a bunch of superior photos to the happy couple for free, that's the way it is. This is a situation similarly described in other posts, where the guy just wants to photograph his daughter's soccer game, and he's got a 1DIV and a 600 mm zoom. He shouldn't be told he can't use his equipment because the hired gun has a pin hole camera. [:D]

Thanks for the comments all. I really didn

Hey Ben,


I had written quite a reply yesterday, but I couldn't get it posted [:(]


Anyway I'm with the don't mind too much guys. Before I would have done something like that you must have been trying to get in every picture that I try to shoot with you equipment showing. Or flashing directly from the other side of the couple or something. I imagine that wasn't the case so there can be some explanation why she put the camera and flash off. Anyway if she had a specific contract and she didn't want you to shoot. She had to communicate with the wedding-official/planner who in turn would have conversed with you. At least that's what I think is professional.


Don't sweat it, I hope you made some great shots [;)]


Jan

Thanks Jan.