Is there middle ground here?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

This is basically a rant by a wedding photographer. When I got married recently, I had our officiant make an announcement now to take pictures during our wedding. Our intention was not to interfere with the photographer we hired, but we want the attendees of our wedding to enjoy the moment. I used to shoot weddings and I think there were always cameras at weddings before phone cameras. My view is let the guest take their shots during appropriate moments. This is a stupid rant and my question is what are photographers going to do about? Probably nothing within their powers.

http://petapixel.com/2015/11/07/ive-had-enough-with-wedding-guests-taking-pictures-with-phones/

 

[MattKing]

Back in the day, I used to have great success making available specific opportunities for guests to take photos, matched with requests that they not take photos at other times. And usually I went first.

For church weddings, the officiant usually announced restrictions, and people usually complied.

 

[blansky]

I can't imagine the mess it is today.

In the over 500 weddings I shot years ago, at each wedding we had to deal with a few people with instamatics and the odd SLR, but with every idiot at the wedding now with a camera it's got to be a nightmare.

On top of that people are far less respectful today.

A major clusterfuck I'm sure.

 

[gone]

I learned a long time ago that what other people do is out of my control and largely none of my business. Like the old 60's saying, don't sweat the small sh*t, and it's ALL small sh*t.

 

[ToddB]

Yhea.. I would agree with B.. I've shot a few wedding in my time and stopped doing it. I find that the Uncle Bobs in the background would take a photo then they would just give it to the bride and groom. I wasn't making any money cause they given it to them free.

ToddB

 

[Peltigera]

Last wedding I went to, the Registrar said that now would be a good time to take photographs. Not only did ALL the guests produce a camera, so did the bride!

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I sympathize with the photographer in the article. Not only that, I think the pervasiveness of electronic devices is making the quality of our lives worse because people or couples are constantly interacting with these devices instead of enjoying themselves and where they are. Even in restaurants now, each table has its own dedicated device. I say this not as a luddite, but as someone who's been in the computer / high tech industry for 40 years.

My only other comment is that I'd like to meet the pretty young woman in blue, on the far left.

 

[Nodda Duma]

When my wife and I got married, we placed disposable cameras at each table. They captured moments that the pro would have missed. After all, there was only one of her and many many guests. Good thing, too: the digital pictures from the professional photographer were lost when we lost our computers in a moving fire and then our backup drive failed. But the thousands of prints and negatives from those disposable cameras survived. We even used some of the leftovers on our honeymoon.

But forget the digital vs film archiving debate. On such an important day in MY life, I'm going to capture as many memories as possible. I'll hire a pro and gladly pay her, but if she had voiced a complaint about the amateurs I would have said I'm paying her to take better pictures than the guests!

So I can't see how his complaint is new or any different now with the advent of smart phone cameras.

 

[cliveh]

Yes, but we must move with the times and I think the shot shown on the OP is quite good. It is what happens now.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm wondering if the photographer wants to be the only one that does shooting because it's better for the bottom line? I don't care for his comment of "The guests’ photos are usually crap. I’m sorry, but it is true. " He's saying that "I'm the better photographer so don't waste your time".

 

[Doc W]

Photographs of a wedding are pretty much all about capturing the moment. In the distant photographic past, this was possible only with formal, posed photographs. Now, everyone has a camera. Everyone. And they all capture different aspects of the wedding moment, post it to facebook, and that is where people are these days. I have no idea whatsoever why a couple would hire a wedding photographer and then allow everyone in the building to get in the way. In any case, I have no personal experience of wedding photography, having never shot one. Do couples still want formal photographs after the ceremony?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The complaint, I believe, is about guests getting in the way and spoiling the shot as they hold up their electronic device. At least that's how I interpreted it.

 

[Jim Jones]

Yhea.. I would agree with B.. I've shot a few wedding in my time and stopped doing it. I find that the Uncle Bobs in the background would take a photo then they would just give it to the bride and groom. I wasn't making any money cause they given it to them free.

ToddB

If the wedding is staged for the benefit of a photographer, then that photographer has a right to control the photography. If it is staged for the couple and their friends, the couple should make any restrictions clear before the ceremony starts.

 

[MattKing]

I used to give advice and even a little help to the guests who wanted to take photos. In most cases, they were in return quite cooperative.

I still sold prints - to some of those guests as well.

 

[blockend]

The best wedding photographs are the most controlled. If you want photos that look like a glossy magazine cover, expect advanced control freakery from your photographer. Most people do not want Zvengali incursions into their Big Day, and the better wedding photographers manage to square the circle of herding the crowd without cheesing everyone off, and balancing a firm but sunny personality, with technical proficiency. At least that's how it was in the days I shot weddings professionally.

It must be a nightmare now. Customers want cutting edge production while people are firing off selfies left, right and centre. It's like free range narcissism.

 

[gzhuang]

I used to give advice and even a little help to the guests who wanted to take photos. In most cases, they were in return quite cooperative.

I still sold prints - to some of those guests as well.

This is what I call flanking the pro. Nobody loses.

 

[blansky]

When my wife and I got married, we placed disposable cameras at each table. They captured moments that the pro would have missed. After all, there was only one of her and many many guests. Good thing, too: the digital pictures from the professional photographer were lost when we lost our computers in a moving fire and then our backup drive failed. But the thousands of prints and negatives from those disposable cameras survived. We even used some of the leftovers on our honeymoon.

But forget the digital vs film archiving debate. On such an important day in MY life, I'm going to capture as many memories as possible. I'll hire a pro and gladly pay her, but if she had voiced a complaint about the amateurs I would have said I'm paying her to take better pictures than the guests!

So I can't see how his complaint is new or any different now with the advent of smart phone cameras.

That's the point. If fifty or a hundred people are getting in her way, no matter what you pay her, she can't control the people that ruin her pictures.

I don't think the reception is the problem since it's always been pretty much filled with cameras. The problem is the actual wedding with moments can't be redone or after portraits that interference is a time waster.

 

[blansky]

I used to give advice and even a little help to the guests who wanted to take photos. In most cases, they were in return quite cooperative.

I still sold prints - to some of those guests as well.

I think you're missing the point. We're not talking "used to" because it wasn't as bad then.

The point is we're talking now. When everyone has a camera.

Multiply what you ran into by, a factor of 20.

And with the mentality of every one taking pictures today, I don't think many people would be buying your prints.

I had many experiences with "nice people" who would come up during the reception and ask questions about their cameras and how to work them, and they were often the ones who kept stepping in front of me when I was working.

I can't imagine it now.

Go to a concert and half the people are watching through their cellphone while recording it. And blocking the people behind them.

 

[MattKing]

I think you're missing the point. We're not talking "used to" because it wasn't as bad then.

The point is we're talking now. When everyone has a camera.

Multiply what you ran into by, a factor of 20.

And with the mentality of every one taking pictures today, I don't think many people would be buying your prints.

I had many experiences with "nice people" who would come up during the reception and ask questions about their cameras and how to work them, and they were often the ones who kept stepping in front of me when I was working.

I can't imagine it now.

Go to a concert and half the people are watching through their cellphone while recording it. And blocking the people behind them.

Not really missing the point. Just commenting on how I handled a somewhat similar problem.

All of my wedding work happened long after Instamatics took the world by storm - in fact after SLRs became really common. So there were lots of cameras at just about every wedding I shot. And even then, wedding photographers were complaining about guests with cameras.

I'm just saying that if you have to herd cats, cooperation is one of the techniques that frequently works. And it is far easier to control disruptions if people know that they will have lots of opportunities to take photographs.

I agree though - I probably wouldn't sell many prints today. Because relatively few people value prints today.

The last time I documented a wedding (I wasn't the "official" photographer) it was the wedding of my wife's second cousin. The couple had hired a wedding photography team who shot voluminously on digital. I shot a moderate amount of medium format, and worked very carefully to avoid interfering with them in any way. Although they were happy to hitch-hike on the single shot I set up:confused:.

The family had a get together a couple of weeks later and people brought their photos to look at along with the proof prints (IIRC) from the "official" photographers. I brought the pro lab proofs that I had.

The couple looked at my proofs and exclaimed: "They are so Clear!".

I was reasonably happy with what I shot (composition, expression, timing, exposure, focus, etc.), but the one of the big differences between what I presented and what others had was due to the fact that I had edited more carefully (both before exposure and after development) and that the quality of presentation of my lab machine proofs generally exceeded the quality of presentation of the other prints and screen images available.

It is the acceptance of mediocre that brings rise to much of this problem. I don't know why blurred concert shots are given more value than clear memories, but I expect it has some connection with the desire to preserve.

 

[blansky]

Not really missing the point. Just commenting on how I handled a somewhat similar problem.

All of my wedding work happened long after Instamatics took the world by storm - in fact after SLRs became really common. So there were lots of cameras at just about every wedding I shot. And even then, wedding photographers were complaining about guests with cameras.

I'm just saying that if you have to herd cats, cooperation is one of the techniques that frequently works. And it is far easier to control disruptions if people know that they will have lots of opportunities to take photographs.

I agree though - I probably wouldn't sell many prints today. Because relatively few people value prints today.

The last time I documented a wedding (I wasn't the "official" photographer) it was the wedding of my wife's second cousin. The couple had hired a wedding photography team who shot voluminously on digital. I shot a moderate amount of medium format, and worked very carefully to avoid interfering with them in any way. Although they were happy to hitch-hike on the single shot I set up:confused:.

The family had a get together a couple of weeks later and people brought their photos to look at along with the proof prints (IIRC) from the "official" photographers. I brought the pro lab proofs that I had.

The couple looked at my proofs and exclaimed: "They are so Clear!".

I was reasonably happy with what I shot (composition, expression, timing, exposure, focus, etc.), but the one of the big differences between what I presented and what others had was due to the fact that I had edited more carefully (both before exposure and after development) and that the quality of presentation of my lab machine proofs generally exceeded the quality of presentation of the other prints and screen images available.

It is the acceptance of mediocre that brings rise to much of this problem. I don't know why blurred concert shots are given more value than clear memories, but I expect it has some connection with the desire to preserve.

The other thing in all these wedding conversations about "well my stuff was better than the professionals they hired" is the unfortunate fact that ANYBODY can call themselves a professional photographer. And a lot of people hire by price. The lower the better. It's amazing how often I hear from amateurs who take a few shots at weddings, always say, yeah, my stuff was better than the professionals that were there. Who's to say, could happen. And the number of wedding "professional" photographers who are actually amateurs who shoot a few weddings a year is pretty sad. But a lot of great professional photographers used weddings as their stepping stone into professional photography, and the wedding was actually their training ground.

Just like when I shot weddings there were the Uncle Charlies that came out every few weekends to shoot as a professional, and would give the bride and groom the entire mess he shot. All negatives and everything.

Now some of these types are giving the whole files of what they shot, and they are not edited, retouched or handled in any professional manner at all.

I wall say when I was shooting weddings that there were lots of wannabee photographers who got in the way and did have that mindset, (since they once took a decent picture), that their stuff would be as good as mine.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

More frequent in my experience has been the converse of quality situation, not the bottom feeder pricing situation.

In other words, the family decides the time has come to have a real family portrait made, since all they have are vacation snapshots and now the kids are getting older. So they seek out a professional studio that turns out to be one of those franchise operations that employ the less experienced and specialize in volume. They looked into the higher end, but that was out of reach, so they compromised.

They arrive at the appointed time and notice the waiting room is filled to overflowing with others just like them. The session takes only a few minutes. The photographer's contribution consists of a few barked orders. People are shuffled. Lights flash. And everyone is quickly ushered out as a new group is ushered in.

When the photos become available everyone looks, and winces. That doesn't look anything like me! Or more damning, that doesn't look anything like my kids! But an order is grudgingly placed, as that was the goal from the beginning. Then those highly anticipated professional pictures quickly end up in an album that next sees the light of day at the estate sale.

A few months after the session someone asks how did the pictures turn out? Well, we weren't very impressed for all of the money we spent. They're in an album at home somewhere. I think this upcoming Thanksgiving we're just going to ask Uncle Charlie to take a few pictures.

After all, cameras are his hobby and he's been doing it for years. He can't be much worse, and he certainly costs a lot less...

Perhaps the industry needs to police itself and its standards better? Maybe photography should become a licensed profession subject to qualifying exams, certifications, accreditations, and apprenticeships? Then not just anybody could call themselves professionals? And potential customers would have a more reasonable set of expectations?

Ken

 

[blansky]

More frequent in my experience has been the converse of quality situation, not the bottom feeder pricing situation.


Perhaps the industry needs to police itself and its standards better? Maybe photography should become a licensed profession subject to qualifying exams, certifications, accreditations, and apprenticeships? Then not just anybody could call themselves professionals? And potential customers would have a more reasonable set of expectations?

Ken

Unfortunately it may be the only profession that has no laws to govern who is a "professional". Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that almost all good photographers started out by being the amateur he rails against.

That being said, there are lousy doctors, lawyers architects etc etc. and they are all "governed".

I read somewhere that in Germany and perhaps other some European countries there are apprenticeships that must be followed to be a "professional". Not sure on that and not sure if it covers weddings.

Right now the customers 'expectations" are not the business card, but carefully examining the work. But in your scenario it was price that set the tone, not expertise. But it's always pissed me off that associations like the Professional Photographers of America will let anybody join, partly because it's an organization that has to make money to survive, and the more the merrier.

Tilting at windmills is a waste of energy.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But in your scenario it was price that set the tone, not expertise.

Actually it was the expectation of quality that set the tone and opened the door for Uncle Charlie. They knew the price in advance. And were willing to pay it because for that "professional" price they expected "professional" results.

They knew they weren't paying for high end expertise. But they expected more than a rank amateur in the guise of a professional. That was the compromise. That they felt they didn't receive those results caused them to hide the results and ring up Uncle Charlie.

In other words, had the quality matched their expectations as defined by the asking price, Uncle Charlie would never have gotten the phone call. But when that quality went lacking, not only did Charlie get a call, but likely the entire field of professional portrait photography became tainted in their minds. And in the minds of everyone to whom they subsequently related their tale of woe.*

Uncle Charlie wasn't the first step in the downward progression of quality. He was the last step. Not a cause. A consequence.

Perhaps Professional Photography needs its own Iron Ring...

"My Time I will not refuse; my Thought I will not grudge; my Care I will not deny toward the honour, use, stability and perfection of any works to which I may be called to set my hand." — Rudyard Kipling

Ken

* I am describing an actual family's experience here from the perspective of one of those subsequent.

 

[blansky]

Actually it was the expectation of quality that set the tone and opened the door for Uncle Charlie. They knew the price in advance. And were willing to pay it because for that "professional" price they expected "professional" results.

They knew they weren't paying for high end expertise. But they expected more than a rank amateur in the guise of a professional. That was the compromise. That they felt they didn't receive those results caused them to hide the results and ring up Uncle Charlie.

In other words, had the quality matched their expectations as defined by the asking price, Uncle Charlie would never have gotten the phone call. But when that quality went lacking, not only did Charlie get a call, but likely the entire field of professional portrait photography became tainted in their minds. And in the minds of everyone to whom they subsequently related their tale of woe.*

Uncle Charlie wasn't the first step in the downward progression of quality. He was the last step. Not a cause. A consequence.

Perhaps Professional Photography needs its own Iron Ring...

"My Time I will not refuse; my Thought I will not grudge; my Care I will not deny toward the honour, use, stability and perfection of any works to which I may be called to set my hand." — Rudyard Kipling

Ken

* I am describing an actual family's experience here from the perspective of one of those subsequent.

But the problem is still determined by the price.

Because in reality they thought that all professional photography is priced too high, so they went to a "franchised studio". Your example: franchise operations that employ the less experienced and specialize in volume. They looked into the higher end, but that was out of reach, so they compromised.

And they expected high end results. Which by definition in photography, good/great results. Because in any "art form" there really isn't OK. There is good and there is not good. Especially in something as subjective as the look of your family.

But this is getting far afield of the OP and it's your scenario so debating it's merits is sort of pointless.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I suppose my point is simply that Uncle Charlie exists not necessarily as a bottom feeder gleefully intent on destroying the profession of photography. He exists as a consequence of many in that profession's seeming inability to produce the quality results they advertise. He's a viable alternative in a bad situation, and a last resort.

And the one's who suffer most in the profession are those like yourself, who are capable of producing truly outstanding results,* but whose reputation gets tarred and feathered by proximity. Guilt by association—the most egregious form.

I might think you would be among the first to call for the obligation of a Ring...

Ken

* Not, as you already know, my personal cup of tea style-wise. But nevertheless on an absolute scale undeniably high-end beautiful work.

[Edit: If the perception of quality is such that a newborn's mother knows that she can get just as good of a result by hiring her girlfriend to take the pictures as she can by hiring a professional, and her girlfriend is happy with lunch and a chance to hold the new baby as payment, then why would she spend the extra money for the professional?

The problem here isn't that her girlfriend's pictures are really, really good and thus a threat, it's that the average professional's pictures aren't and thus leaves the door wide open. The best defense against encroachment is quality.]