Pro equipment and I quit!
catspaw
Registered Users Posts: 1,292 Major grins
Talking to a friend about her upcoming wedding, she was looking over the contract with the photographer and discovered something that surprised me greatly.
If anyone else at the wedding had 'pro' equipment, it would be grounds for immediate termination of the contract.
Have you ever seen this before? am I just ignorant or is this REALLY unusual? I mean, I know people who have D700s (pro level by all accounts) cameras just for taking photos of their kids -- and yes they'd take it to a wedding.
Interesting the clause was very specific to the EQUIPMENT, not whether the person was a professional or not. So I could still take a 'prosumer' camera (as a pro) and take photos without violating the contract. (don't worry, I promised her I'd look clueless and stay out of the pros' way and act like a friend w/ a camera, not a pro).
So, anyone else seen this? unusual? or am I just sheltered, not having read through many wedding contacts in my lifetime? (ya know, 9th marriage and all that :rolleyes )
If anyone else at the wedding had 'pro' equipment, it would be grounds for immediate termination of the contract.
Have you ever seen this before? am I just ignorant or is this REALLY unusual? I mean, I know people who have D700s (pro level by all accounts) cameras just for taking photos of their kids -- and yes they'd take it to a wedding.
Interesting the clause was very specific to the EQUIPMENT, not whether the person was a professional or not. So I could still take a 'prosumer' camera (as a pro) and take photos without violating the contract. (don't worry, I promised her I'd look clueless and stay out of the pros' way and act like a friend w/ a camera, not a pro).
So, anyone else seen this? unusual? or am I just sheltered, not having read through many wedding contacts in my lifetime? (ya know, 9th marriage and all that :rolleyes )
//Leah
0
Comments
If anyone shows up with better equipment than you, YOU'RE FIRED!
Seriously, that sounds very subjective. As you say, it's not the equipment that is professional, it's the photographer. If it were me, I would look for another photographer...
http://www.arkreations.com
Nikon D700 | D300 | D80 | SB-800(x2) | SB-600(x2)
Nikkor Lenses: 14-24 f/2.8 | 24-70 f/2.8 | 50 f/1.8 | 85 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8 VR II | 70-300 VR
Crowd control is a necessary skill. Sounds like this photographer is trying to control the crowd by elimination.
I don't envy wedding photographers. Their job is often much more difficult than most wedding parties realize. Too bad its not really as easy as Ashton makes it out to be
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Bwhahahahahaha. So true. If *equipment* is so important to this Photog..... something's askew.
Mostly I'm totally bubuzzled over the business implications of this.
And really, who would walk OUT on a wedding when they've already been paid upfront and risk a lawsuit/small claims/whatever over whether the other person had 'pro' equipment or not. Sounds like a shitty scare tactic to me.
It is never to late to become what you might have been.
www.behindthezoom.com
It may be the photographer is a little "old school" in that he's not charging everything he/she expects to get from the gig up front but is relying, in part, in print sales. Eliminating the possibility of decent (noise-free, high-resolution) could positively impact his print sales.
I say "old school" because these days, a very good dSLR is easily affordable by many individuals. Even shooting with, for example, a Canon XT and kit lens, someone who knows just a little could, potentially, produce a shot to rival that of the professional.
A better approach, I believe, would be for the photographer to "allow" any equipment to be at the event, but then protect vantage points. A guest can't get a photo that rivals the professional's if that guest can't get to the better vantage points.
An adjunct to that practice would be to talk to the "Uncle Bob" before things start rolling and coordinate with him/her to make sure that he/she stays out of the way - like during the processional/recessional. This is just one more way to "protect" the good spots and it doesn't pi$$ anybody off if done tactfully and quietly.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
I also wonder if it is specific to the camera system.
Pro gear would certainly consist of more than just a camera. Reading the other responses, it could go either way. The photographer could be insecure or simply attempting to control the situation through a poorly worded contract.
I know that with events, my contract states that I am the only photographer allowed during the direct portrait sessions (if applicable). This isn't a fear of other photographers, but does allow me to control the lighting and distractions during those specific shots.
Of course I would not threaten to walk out, but if other flashes are popping, or the person / people are posing for their friends during my session, the photos will suffer and I will not be held responsible for missing or eliminating that particular shot.
Now during the rest of the event, I could care less how many people have cameras or what system they use.
Website
I do it this way (and I tell the bride this at the contract signing) because I'm there to get the job done but, ultimately, my time is her time and if she wants to accomodate her guests it will impact on the number and quality of the shots I can get. So far, I've only had to deal with extra shooters a couple of times 'cause the bride wants to get the shots and get out of there and to the party.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Wow. that's danged nice of you! I figure that much of the set up of portraits is done by the photog (including managing light, etc) and intruders are not welcomed. Should I go the wedding photog path, I admit I'd probably kick out anyone lurking around and only once I was done IF the wedding party wanted to stay posed for them (usually they're ravenous and want to leave at this point), they could take photos.
As for the rest, I know at least this photographer is selling a package up front ($1700 I happen to know, $1000 pre paid) so they aren't concentrating on resales of photos.
I suspect they just (dumbly) copied an online contract that someone spotted and mentioned earlier, without really *thinking* about the ramifications of the clauses. Because YES it is the Bride's day and she is paying (or someone associated with her) and if she wants a secod shooter or Uncle Bob to snap some photos with his 'pro' camera .... it should be allowed.
I find this both reassuring and terrifying. Ugh. And THIS is the person i have to politely deal with so one of my best friend's weddings goes smoothly. great.
i have seen this and also been asked to leave with my gear, when I arrived at various Cathedrals waiting for this wedding to end and the beginningof mine......
I have also seen contracts that state in BOLD......ABSOLUTELY NO CAMERAS ALLOWED........
When I confronted the photogs myself it was always said to be a way to keep the others from ruining their shots by flashing during the main photogs exposure.......
I have always allowed anyone to shoot but I limit it to after I make my exposure to when I start to repose a shot(like Scott Q. during formal portraits ).......Iknow I have been shot with only my big butt sticking up as I was bent over getting the train adjusted and such.....
As for the posing and lighting. Yes, the photographer does 99% of the posing and 100% of the lighting. However, none of the Uncle Bobs have access to the same quality of lighting I have. It hasn't happened yet, but I wonder what I would do if one shows up with a PW?
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
My clause restricts the bride from having any other paid professional photographers at the event. A frequent issue these days is the DJ or videographer taking stills. Sometimes the caterer will have a pro come to take images. I do not want to have others taking photos that are purported to be mine.
For the formals, selling the images are part of my bread and butter. If the Uncle Bob shows up and shoots over my shoulder then I lose the potential to sell those images. And yes, eyes averted because there are too many people present is an issue for the photographer as is the flash of the digicams of guests. I bring over $20,000 worth of gear to a wedding to shoot it. It's unfair to the photographer to have others shooting the event. I have attend several weddings as a guest this year. I wouldn't think it was appropriate or courteous to show up with my 5dMk2 and 70-200 or even my G10. At one of those weddings, the Mother of the Groom, who invited me asked my opinion about it and guests were actually asked to leave cameras at home. I had a great time dancing and celebrating.
And for those who have a fantasy that they are going to save the day, well...most of the time, it's a fantasy if the bride and groom have done their homework on who they've hired. I say extend a courtesy to the professional and let them do their job. Go to a wedding, have a good time and have class.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
(and yes I've read the forums around here long enough to know a dozen different ways to get out of the 'way' of the primary photog and not cause any issues)
Very sensible. If they want a second shooter, they should arrange it WITH you, not outside of your efforts.
What about an UNpaid pro?
If the bride had a friend who was a professional photographer but hired me, i'd not be very happy about it. Why didn't she hire you to begin with would be my first question. And then as a professional, I would not want to shoot at a friends wedding - if she didn't think highly enough of my skills to hire me (and I would do it for probably a reduced rate) then I think it's more appropriate to go and celebrate with your camera at home. It's like being invited to dinner at a restaurant by a friend and bringing your own cooked meal. It's just not right to do that.
All that said, I would also not include any images in a slideshow or album but mine, the images I produce are not finished with standard papers or in standard sizes so there would be a big variantion in the finished goods as well.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
well, in this case I *enjoy* taking photos at such events. Also gives me something to do other than being a wallflower. She's also seen the photos I've done for two other mutual friend's weddings and knows I shoot well - but she did not want to place the *entire* burden of the wedding on me, which I truly appreciate. Instead, I get a chance to have fun taking photos but also relax and enjoy the wedding party without having to worry about covering *everything*.
The photos ARE my gift to her for the wedding, as they have been for the other two mutual friends. So she does value exactly what it is that I'm providing. And she did disclose my existence in the party (w/ camera) to the photographer when said photog was hired. She didn't protest.
For me, it's being invited to dinner at a friend's house but only having to bring dessert, not the full course. Less burden, more fun.
The clause is pretty routine in most wedding contracts. I know of several photographers who would walk out. I tell the bride and groom that during the portrait session portion of the wedding that I am the only photographer to be at that part of the wedding. I would let the bride know that while she is free to have a friend shoot parts of the event, they would not be allowed to shoot along side of me. That would be very inappropriate.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Oh I was never ever suggesting butting in on the portrait sessions. I was the one above who was surprised Scott allowed it. However, for the reception and wedding itself? I guess every wedding I've been to so far has been filled with friends/family with cameras that forbidding ANY seems rather drastic, like Art indicated. Even forbidding 'pro equipment' (which is more and more common these days) at any part of the wedding (we're not talking just portrait sessions -- banning other photos there makes SENSE to me) just seems like professional suicide.
I agree. A couple of years ago I attended two weddings in which one of the best photographers in the area was photographing both weddings. At both weddings, the topic of several conversations during the reception was how rude the photographer was. These were conversations by people who previously used this photographer and who typically spend a lot of money on their children's portraits. They said they were using someone else from that point on. I had even used this particular photographer for pet portraits. I wondered at the time how much longer this photographer would be in business. I definitely won't be using her again.
Some of my favorite photos of my own wedding were candid shots taken by guests. There's no way a photographer can be everywhere in the wedding and some of the shots by guests can capture special moments that the photographer misses.
Further, I don't know how one could make the bride and groom accountable for ALL the guests' behavior.
There's GOT to be a nicer, more positive way for photographers to get their point across.
I'm definitely not a professional, just a photographer wannabe, and I thought I'd share my personal experience.
Joie
There is no excuse for rudeness on the part of guests or photographers. And as a professional, you need to know how to handle people. Everything we do in and out of the studio reflects on us as business people.
But as a guest who is photographing, you always need to be aware that the pro might be shooting the bride coming down the aisle while you are turning around to grab the shot so enthused by the moment that you get in every frame. You also need to be respectful that someone is there working and doing a very difficult job that you might be interfering with. My very first wedding, a guest stood up during the kiss blocking me and my camera. Fortuantely, they kissed twice. As a pro, I won't get in your way of viewing the wedding. But, please realize that I am not there to miss my shots because you must have yours.
As they say about PS'ing all your pictures, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
if i were you,... i would use that image to show the value of not allowing others to do any snap shooting...those people are there to enjoy a wedding not to photograph a wedding.
Kat was it a great shot of the back of his butthead...err, i mean head?
But in this very thread you've read (haven't you?) that for some of us amateurs (and even pros?), photographing a wedding is part of the enjoyment of going to a wedding.
I absolutely do not try to block any of the paid photographers shots, nor do I seldom even leave my spot in the pew (although I like an aisle seat for the recession).
But with the prevelance of camera phones, pocket cameras, and more affordable DSLRs, you'd be hard-pressed to find a wedding guest who *didn't* snap a photo at the wedding. And presuming they're not in the paid photographer's way, I think it'd be a damn shame if the couple didn't get to see those "amateur" views of their wedding day.
Why do you think couples buy those crappy disposable cameras for each reception table? Why do some couples set up a "download station" at the reception for people to dump the contents of their cards (if they desire)?
My "job" as a guest at a wedding isn't just to sit there. Or to eat. Or to dance. >:-/
yes it is....otherwise known as someone making it fun for the bride and groom.... not someone sitting there distracting the wedding photographer ruining their framing choices, otherwise know as compostions, and over all flow of things...
and the stupid cameras on the tables are for taking pics of everyone else, Not the B&G....
My wants? I almost always post the "good shots" to an album for the bride and groom. It's not for me man.
If the bride and/or groom are friends of mine, when they see that wide shot, they'll think "Oh look, there's Darryl with his camera" (and yes, maybe "what a dumba$$"). But I mean, they knew what they were getting when they invited me.
And I challenge you to find a wide shot of the audience (congregation, witnesses, guests?) during a wedding kiss that *isn't* full of people with all manner of P&S, camera phone and yes, DSLRs all trying to capture that moment on film or digital media.
Non-professionals have been snapping photos at weddings for a long time. I can't believe that you'd purport to convince us that doing so is wrong.
Really? I didn't know they had special B&G filters. I didn't know the paid photographer had *exclusive rights* to shooting the B&G at all times, even when they're at *my* table for a table toast?
Hey, like I said. I'm not going to barge in on the post-ceremony wedding party shots or the big shots with the friends/family (although I'd hope you'd be more civil in trying to manage Aunt Marge trying to sneak her own shot of the B&G with her little pocket camera).
I'm just saying, there's a place for everyone to be shooting the happy day. Within reason. And I'd think a professional photographer would recognize that and act accordingly.
just another dollar taken out of the pros income....
ohhh, look darryls shot looks almost as good as this one from the photogs...and its free...yaahoo.....
So before it was about making you miss a shot. And now it's about money.
I thought it was about "making it fun for the bride and groom".
Well, trust me on this one -- my shots suck. I'm sure yours are much better. My friends will not be taking mine *over* yours. Maybe they'll take them "in addition".
Examples:
"Hey, look, that flower girl is sticking her head under the bride's dress while the pro photographer was moving his lights! That's cute! Glad somebody caught that!"
"Hey -- while the bride and groom were getting their post-ceremony shots, the groomsmen made funny faces off to the side."
Sure, if the couple was rich enough, they'd hire a two photographers. But for normal folks, the "extra" photos don't replace the professional ones. They augment them.
Ok? And yes, I'll stay out of your shot when shooting the groomsmen. And is it ok if the B&G are in the background of that shot, blurred out with a 2.0/f aperture? I mean, I know you're the only one that's supposed to be shooting them and all. :P
if its in the contract then, YES
Sure. Although I really think Uncle Bill is going to be disappointed when you tell her to put his new Digital Rebel T1i away. Or wait, does that really qualify as professional equipment? I don't know, it was under $1000. Well, maybe as long as he's not using L glass? ;-)
But I believe the point of this thread was actually, *is this a good thing to have in a contract*?