I know some families are closer than others, but I can relate to this sentiment. I was in a similar situation when my first son was born. Imagine my surprise when my wife's parents invited themselves into the birthing room... her mom thought it was OK to sit there with her crotchet work and her dad with the newspaper. I had other ideas... like that was a "private time" and no matter how close her family is that was a bit too much closeness. Fortunately they left when I mentioned that there appeared no need for me there and I'd be waiting at a local bar.
Photograph as a permanent record of significant event
-
- Thread starter tkamiya
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy WTB: Pentax LX for parts, or.
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Voigtlander Helomar 240mm f/3.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Kodak TMax 400, expired, 150 ft rolls
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale FS: TTH Cooke Series V 12x10 Lens Eq. Focus 16.3 inch
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
I know some families are closer than others, but I can relate to this sentiment. I was in a similar situation when my first son was born. Imagine my surprise when my wife's parents invited themselves into the birthing room... her mom thought it was OK to sit there with her crotchet work and her dad with the newspaper. I had other ideas... like that was a "private time" and no matter how close her family is that was a bit too much closeness. Fortunately they left when I mentioned that there appeared no need for me there and I'd be waiting at a local bar.
Because the simple fact that you are there with a camera, are supplying the people with photography, and you are even insinuating that you are doing a better job is the reason.
In fact some pros do upload to social media, but they also want to make money off their work and not spread it around for free.
As I said before, in what other profession are amateurs allowed to be present, and offering their services while the pro is working.
I've had people try to bring along a friend with a camera, to outdoor family portraits I was doing. Naturally, I made them stand far away when I was working. But as I was leaving, I saw them do my setups with their friend, so that they could use those pictures for other things. Those other things are what can cut into my profits.
So if I am going to a wedding, where the bride and groom have asked me to take pictures, I should do what so that the pros are happy? Say no, just so that the hired photographer doesn't have any 'competition'? Excuse me while I chuckle. Any pro photographer that views me as competition needs to up their game, significantly.
I don't pretend to be a pro, so please don't go there, and I'm not eating into the profits of the hired gun - they still get paid. I am an amateur that happens to be decent with a camera, and I deliver something in addition to what the pros were hired to do - a print for the bride and groom, a gift from me to them to remember their beautiful day by. What is so wrong with that? I just don't see it. Perhaps you are stuck in your viewpoint a little bit too much here. There are other vantage points - that of the bride and groom, or whomever asked you to be there. What damage am I actually doing? What did the hired pro lose by me being there?
And believe you me I work in an industry where there are lots of hacks who pretend to be professionals. My line of work is in the HVAC industry, connected to all sorts of functions in industrial, commercial, and residential heating, ventilation, and airconditioning. A lot of people don't mind hiring people without proper accreditation to get the job done; friends, relatives, handymen that stretch beyond their capabilities - making mistakes in installations with things that can go boom, with burnt down homes or even apartment buildings as a result. What you talk about, with hacks doing the work of professionals, is everywhere; it isn't exactly confined to photography.
I don't pretend to be a pro, so please don't go there, and I'm not eating into the profits of the hired gun - they still get paid. I am an amateur that happens to be decent with a camera, and I deliver something in addition to what the pros were hired to do - a print for the bride and groom, a gift from me to them to remember their beautiful day by. What is so wrong with that? I just don't see it. Perhaps you are stuck in your viewpoint a little bit too much here. There are other vantage points - that of the bride and groom, or whomever asked you to be there. What damage am I actually doing? What did the hired pro lose by me being there?
And believe you me I work in an industry where there are lots of hacks who pretend to be professionals. My line of work is in the HVAC industry, connected to all sorts of functions in industrial, commercial, and residential heating, ventilation, and airconditioning. A lot of people don't mind hiring people without proper accreditation to get the job done; friends, relatives, handymen that stretch beyond their capabilities - making mistakes in installations with things that can go boom, with burnt down homes or even apartment buildings as a result. What you talk about, with hacks doing the work of professionals, is everywhere; it isn't exactly confined to photography.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are exactly the problem. You are a distraction. You by your presence "enable" others to join in. You are the proverbial "Uncle Harry" at the wedding. You secretly see yourself as competition. You think the pro is worried that your work may be better than his. You have a self righteous opinion that you deserve to be there. Your attitude is EXACTLY what pro's hate at their weddings.
Pretend that there were nobody there besides the pro with a camera. He could work unencumbered, with nobody stepping into his shots. No idiot firing off a flash while he is shooting available light. Because as soon as one person gets up and tries to take pictures, it emboldens others to do the same. Added people taking pictures are a distraction because the subject can tend to look around instead of looking where the pro is. Flash pictures can make people blink. Others people taking pictures get in the way and they also suck out time the pro could be using.
The pro can't really say anything to people with cameras because he doesn't want to poison the atmosphere, upset the wedding couple, parents etc.
He loses money from sales to family of extra prints. A known fact. Check with PPA.
So while you pretend you are there because the bride or groom asked you to, you are indeed disrupting the pro whether you choose to believe it or not.
And your example of hacks is not the same. Your example is about competition. Mine is about people on the scene while I'm engaging the subject. Completely different. Everybody has competition, no matter how professional they are. Your analogy would only work if someone was installing air conditioning at the same time, same place while you were and disrupting your work.
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree with you. But I don't want to argue with you, so I'm going to stop. It's pointless and waste of energy I should be spending elsewhere.
Sex.
Blansky, I see your point but I think you aim at the wrong target.
A professional photographer doesn't just make money out of the initial sum, but he (used to) expects to make other money from additional prints for relatives and friends. I understand this.
I also understand that the work of the hired photographer can be disrupted by other people photographing the scene: flashes, the couple looking in the "wrong" direction, the additional stress placed on the photographer.
My point is that in this day and age it is exactly the professional responsibility of the photographer to talk to the wedding couple about these issues and to make sure they iron those things out or revise certain of their expectations.
It's the wedding couple who must tell the guests not to use the flash, not to attract the attention of the couple, not to encumber the view of the official photographer, or more simply not to take pictures at all. As you say, the photographer is not in a position to do it.
If the couple doesn't feel like doing that kind of "breefing" to the invitees, for whatever reason, the photographer will price his professional performance taking into account all the diminished revenue and the additional stress. And he will warn the couple that if they look in the wrong direction this will show in the pictures. And he will insist on being paid in advance. Or he will give up the job.
If the couple asks Thomas to give a photographic contribution, then it is the couple responsibility to inform the official photographer, plain and simple. Thomas is doing a favour which his friends requested to him.
Even if Thomas had applied this kind of self-restrain of his own initiative, that wouldn't have changed much: somebody else would have being asked by the couple in Thomas stead, and nothing would have changed (besides that Thomas would have deprived himself of the possibility of making a nice favour to the couple). Or somebody would have come in any case with a prominent camera and everybody would have begun taking out their smartphones.
That's supposing that people really wait to be "enabled" by somebody else before taking their smartphones out.
The problem is the couple. The couple must be educated about this aspect of the business. Some people spend entire days trying on dresses, looking for shoes, rehearsing the entrance etc. and I don't think it would be asking too much to ask them to pay attention also to the photographic aspect of their marriage if they care about it.
A professional photographer doesn't just make money out of the initial sum, but he (used to) expects to make other money from additional prints for relatives and friends. I understand this.
I also understand that the work of the hired photographer can be disrupted by other people photographing the scene: flashes, the couple looking in the "wrong" direction, the additional stress placed on the photographer.
My point is that in this day and age it is exactly the professional responsibility of the photographer to talk to the wedding couple about these issues and to make sure they iron those things out or revise certain of their expectations.
It's the wedding couple who must tell the guests not to use the flash, not to attract the attention of the couple, not to encumber the view of the official photographer, or more simply not to take pictures at all. As you say, the photographer is not in a position to do it.
If the couple doesn't feel like doing that kind of "breefing" to the invitees, for whatever reason, the photographer will price his professional performance taking into account all the diminished revenue and the additional stress. And he will warn the couple that if they look in the wrong direction this will show in the pictures. And he will insist on being paid in advance. Or he will give up the job.
If the couple asks Thomas to give a photographic contribution, then it is the couple responsibility to inform the official photographer, plain and simple. Thomas is doing a favour which his friends requested to him.
Even if Thomas had applied this kind of self-restrain of his own initiative, that wouldn't have changed much: somebody else would have being asked by the couple in Thomas stead, and nothing would have changed (besides that Thomas would have deprived himself of the possibility of making a nice favour to the couple). Or somebody would have come in any case with a prominent camera and everybody would have begun taking out their smartphones.
That's supposing that people really wait to be "enabled" by somebody else before taking their smartphones out.
The problem is the couple. The couple must be educated about this aspect of the business. Some people spend entire days trying on dresses, looking for shoes, rehearsing the entrance etc. and I don't think it would be asking too much to ask them to pay attention also to the photographic aspect of their marriage if they care about it.
After 16.8 years of marriage we still have four (4) wedding photos on the wall or shelf (the album is under the coffee table in the parlor). Of those four on public display are three from the pro an done from a friend... who with a P-O-S POS took an "iconic" photo of us while the pro was doing something else. I really appreciate that the guests at our wedding/reception let the pro work without distraction/interference, but also took some of their own pics that were shared. Maybe things are different now but I don't think so... we had a fair number of guests who came with cameras of hteir own. Maybe they were just more polite than at other events, IDK... but it sounds like you, Thomas, are both discreet and polite.
Using a similar logic, Clyde Butcher should be complaining about all the amateur LF photographers. They can go to the same spot with same or even better equipment and take the "same" photograph.... Yet, his prints command high prices because he does something that's unique and valuable. His lighting skills, compositional abilities, waits for hours or days for the perfect shot. Not many amateur can claim that.
Doesn't wedding photographers bring the similar skills to the clients? Under pressure and constraints, return quality photograph to the client without fail? I'm talking about real pros here... not bought a camera 6 months ago kind of pros.
Sure, amateur can take similar or sometimes better photographs but often, it's by chance. He or she can't reliably do it every time and in adverse conditions. I don't claim to be a professional because I cannot promise I will give them their money's worth. If I have an event where failure isn't an option, I surely don't hire someone for free or for cheap.
Doesn't wedding photographers bring the similar skills to the clients? Under pressure and constraints, return quality photograph to the client without fail? I'm talking about real pros here... not bought a camera 6 months ago kind of pros.
Sure, amateur can take similar or sometimes better photographs but often, it's by chance. He or she can't reliably do it every time and in adverse conditions. I don't claim to be a professional because I cannot promise I will give them their money's worth. If I have an event where failure isn't an option, I surely don't hire someone for free or for cheap.
Same here. I actually had one wedding back in the 70s where the members of the wedding party had cameras and would move out of position at the altar during the ceremony to get their pics!
Classy to the end.But the usual scenario was during the staged group and couple portraits at the altar after the ceremony. (Do they even still do those? - I'm so out of touch... ) I would give a little speech to the assembly before we started; something to the effect that the bride's father was paying me a of of money and he expected me to get the pictures. Everyone was welcome to take their version of each individual shot immediately AFTER I took mine, but not before. Also, don't stand in the aisle as I will be backing up without looking. Then, I kept talking constantly, so that I had "command" of the room, as it were.
It almost always worked and I only backed into a few people.
As for the rest of the proceedings, such as all the hoopla at the reception, I tried to stay out of the way and nobody seemed to get in mine, either.
Today, when asked to do a wedding, I simply say "No".
I don't think the scenic analogy really works although on this site even scenic photographers have complained about idiots setting up in front of them.
The problem at events like weddings is a lot of what happens, down the isle stuff, kissing stuff, father handing off bride stuff etc, happens once, for a millisecond of emotion that can't really be staged again. You can have all the skill in the world but someone flashing when you have a stunning available light shot, or someone stepping in front of you when you have a shot framed that can't be duplicated.
Hey, I've shot over 500 weddings. I can handle nuisance photographers, I can cajole wedding party and guests but my point is, it's still is a major distraction and takes energy and often wreaks shots.
As for the advanced amateurs with the often underlying feeling that, "I can take picture just as good as the paid guy", well maybe you did nail a shot or two that he missed. But if you think you are pretty good at it, try doing a full wedding, with all the pressure to perform, with the mother of the bride fighting with the ex-wife of her husband and the brother of the bride drunk as a skunk, and the groom performing for his buddies and the pregnant bride trying to hide the fact, and bring it all together with a cohesive wedding album as good as the ones they expect and saw in your studio, which were actually of attractive people, then see how you fare.
There is nothing I disagree in what you said although I still think my analogy is good.... 
Here's a question. I understand they are nuisance and it can wreck the product or cause you to miss out the "moment." But hasn't that been true ever since the camera became affordable? I see there's more of it but that's really a problem with people becoming ME centric and generally not being aware of their surrounding, isn't it? Is someone who got a good shot and gave the couple his/her product really a new threat? (assuming he didn't obstruct you to get the image)
Here's a question. I understand they are nuisance and it can wreck the product or cause you to miss out the "moment." But hasn't that been true ever since the camera became affordable? I see there's more of it but that's really a problem with people becoming ME centric and generally not being aware of their surrounding, isn't it? Is someone who got a good shot and gave the couple his/her product really a new threat? (assuming he didn't obstruct you to get the image)
Age/maturity, self-centeredness, and "bubble-headed impulsiveness" are big parts of the issue, as I see it.
add to it, the need to update their facebook page right away.
There is nothing I disagree in what you said although I still think my analogy is good....
Here's a question. I understand they are nuisance and it can wreck the product or cause you to miss out the "moment." But hasn't that been true ever since the camera became affordable? I see there's more of it but that's really a problem with people becoming ME centric and generally not being aware of their surrounding, isn't it? Is someone who got a good shot and gave the couple his/her product really a new threat? (assuming he didn't obstruct you to get the image)
With the proliferation of phones/cellphone it probably gotten far worse, and as has been said, people are far more militant in getting their shots.
I never said it was a "threat". But it can cut into revenue.
As I said on another thread. With social media and everyone carrying a camera of some sort now, for a pro, the landscape has changed.
I have people now, who have expressed that they no longer want wall portraits. They want pictures they can put on their big screen and look at them when they want.
A wall portrait with frame 24x36 say, can sell for whatever maybe $1500- $2800.
So how do I price a file that they guy wants to use in facebook and display on his screensaver and use on his big screen TV. And if I give him the file he can use it to print his own 24x36.
Back in the analog days if you gave away a negative, heaven forbid, it was very doubtful anybody could print it as well as I could print it. (Or someone like me)
Now with a digital file, one retouched and tarted up, someone can use even a crappy jpeg and still find a lab to make a great print.
Last edited by a moderator:
MattKing
Moderator
Been there .....
Wedding photography management plus high quality results were the traditional measure of a wedding photographer's value, when compared to the result obtained by amateurs.
In today's world, the technical quality of what is produced by the amateurs is closer to the quality produced by the pro, because way more of the results are shared through screen images and small prints from similar labs.
When I did weddings regularly, I used to encourage all of the people with cameras to take shots after I had finished with a group or formal photo. That way they stayed out of the way while I was working, and in most cases the results I obtained through skills, experience, equipment, materials and excellent lab services enabled me to sell the results to people who had shots of their own.
Nowadays, the product that results isn't as obviously different to people.
The last wedding that I attended and shot on medium format film was one where I was a guest - the type that bugs blansky. The official photographers (two of them) shot 100s or 1000s of images. We visited the family after I had had the film developed and proofs printed (by my pro lab).
The couple had their "proofs" from the official photographers. Their response to the 45 or so shots I had had proofed was "they are so sharp and clear!"
That response was no doubt due to the fact that the quantity of shots "proofed" by the official photographers mandated a budget approach to post-production and the resulting proof prints.
I expect that blansky doesn't work that way - he probably turns out higher quality "proofs". The problem though is that their apparent quality will likely be closer to the apparent quality of the shots taken by others if the proofs are viewed on a screen - especially the screen on a phone!
I know how difficult it is to shoot weddings, and I'll bend over backward to not only avoid getting in the way of official photographers, but to help them if the opportunity or need presents itself. At the wedding I referred to above, I essentially concentrated on taking photographs of the people I was already close to, interacting in situations that weren't likely to be caught by the official photographers. I did pose one shot though, and it was funny how quickly the official photographers followed up with an attempt to duplicate it.
.
I haven't done weddings in a long time, but if you're still doing them good luck.
As for the quality of wedding photographers now, it probably as it always was only worse.
One good one to every ten trying to make "easy" money.
As for the quality of wedding photographers now, it probably as it always was only worse.
One good one to every ten trying to make "easy" money.
I *think* the "want" of the people who hire photographers has changed as well.
Of a few that I was aware, people wanted MANY photograph of every scene, not a great photos of key moments. It's more of a number game now. They numbered in high hundreds. They wanted them on CD so they can print them. Of a few I was aware, the quality of the images I've seen were awful. No attention paid to details, no background management, no care for lighting, etc, etc, etc. I was surprised the family paid as much as they did and the pro called himself/herself a "pro" and charge money for it. I was further surprised when family was satisfied with that result. I just kept quiet and kept my opinion to myself.
Of a few that I was aware, people wanted MANY photograph of every scene, not a great photos of key moments. It's more of a number game now. They numbered in high hundreds. They wanted them on CD so they can print them. Of a few I was aware, the quality of the images I've seen were awful. No attention paid to details, no background management, no care for lighting, etc, etc, etc. I was surprised the family paid as much as they did and the pro called himself/herself a "pro" and charge money for it. I was further surprised when family was satisfied with that result. I just kept quiet and kept my opinion to myself.
When the photojournalism aspect crept into portrait photography, there came with that a whole lot of people who could cash in on the snapshot aspect of it. Then came digital which brought with it the pray and spray and you have the perfect storm of supply and demand got awry. Don't get me wrong there are lots of great photographers that can do great photojournalistic quality portrait work, but thousands who don't have a clue.
With the more "posed" generation of photographers from the 60s and 70s, you had people who learned how to light and set people up in a flattering manner and how to correct "defects" in people. Not to say there weren't hacks there too but most had some idea.
With the snapshot/candid stuff that is floating around now there are tons of bad straight from the camera crap, a bunch of whiz-bang plug-ins added to create aged or holga-esque looking images and a lot of pretty awful stuff. And weddings attract this type of "weekender".
Why do amateur photographers as soon as they can operate a camera who don't need the money put themselves unnecessarily in the firing line in such a specialized area where you have to get it right first time by starting to do weddings ?, is it because for most people their only contact with professional photography has been at wedding and they want to validate their status as photographers, and prove their competence to themselves and others ?
Yes, I believe so Ben.
There are a lot of wannabes in photography.
In the first place Kodak started it with "you push the button and we'll do the rest"
For years the camera manufacturer's have stressed that if you use their camera you will shoot like a pro.
We have been taught in this society for years that the only qualification necessary for a photographer is the urge and a good camera.
Even photo journalists coined the cliche' f8 and be there.
Photographers have been portrayed as people who love what they do and have lots of fun.
Before I decided to go to photography school my concept was that you need a good 35mm camera and just live a fun life of taking photos of beautiful women.
Dennis
In the first place Kodak started it with "you push the button and we'll do the rest"
For years the camera manufacturer's have stressed that if you use their camera you will shoot like a pro.
We have been taught in this society for years that the only qualification necessary for a photographer is the urge and a good camera.
Even photo journalists coined the cliche' f8 and be there.
Photographers have been portrayed as people who love what they do and have lots of fun.
Before I decided to go to photography school my concept was that you need a good 35mm camera and just live a fun life of taking photos of beautiful women.
Dennis
The other part of it is "unfulfilled dreams". Ever wonder why some jackass drives crazy and runs you off the road... same thing, plus the possibility that "in their mind" they are a world-famous race car driver.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |