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.