shooting wedding without flash

akobiheritageakobiheritage Beginner grinnerPosts: 2Registered Users Beginner grinner
edited July 23, 2010 in Weddings
I use Nikon. what setting is the best to shoot in church without flash
«1

Comments

  • BlurmoreBlurmore Goofy Grin Posts: 992Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 17, 2010
    I'll give you the standard answer for shooting with a hasselblad...(You'll need a tripod) 1/4sec f4 400iso. Laughing.gif...that worked 99% of the time....but seriously your questions is SO vague it is unanswerable...I will give you a hint though, your Nikon contains a VERY advanced meter you can view it in the bottom of the viewfinder if the camera is held in a horizontal orientation.
  • Moogle PepperMoogle Pepper Big picture in the sky Posts: 2,960Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 17, 2010
    Don't worry about pumping up the ISO. Just do it.
    Food & Culture.
    www.tednghiem.com
  • mmmattmmmatt Big Grimace Posts: 1,347Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 17, 2010
    Blurmore wrote: »
    I'll give you the standard answer for shooting with a hasselblad...(You'll need a tripod) 1/4sec f4 400iso. Laughing.gif...that worked 99% of the time....but seriously your questions is SO vague it is unanswerable...I will give you a hint though, your Nikon contains a VERY advanced meter you can view it in the bottom of the viewfinder if the camera is held in a horizontal orientation.
    Yeah, this question scares me! Part of me just wants to say "P" mode!

    When I shoot candid ceremony shots I like to shoot in shutter priority mode because I have a better chance of correcting exposure in post than I do motion blur. You need to find out what your personal minimum handheld shutter speed is with your various lenses and not go below that. The rule of thumb is 1/xxx, where xxx=your focal length. Keep in mind that if you are shooting a crop sensor camera then you have to multiply your focal length by your crop factor for the proper calculation. So if you are shooting a camera that has a crop factor of 1.6 and are using a 200mm lens, you should be able to handhold at a shutter speed of 1/320th without problem. If you really work at it you should be able to do better than that, but better safe than sorry until you are confidant that you can handhold at slower speeds. Also using a VR or IS type lens will allow you to reduce that a couple of stops. Regardless of any of that though, you have to be aware that subject movement will show as motion blur regardless of your abilities, so my default absolute minimum for shooting action under ambient light at weddings is 1/80th but I try to stay at 1/100th or higher if at all possible. Depending on what body you are using you may or may not be pleased with the results using the higher iso settings. I often find myself shooting at iso 1000 or iso 1600 in churches, but iso 3200 comes into play sometimes as well. The final factor and the "seperating the men from the boys" factor is the lenses you use. Fast glass is very helpful for two reasons. First it allows you to shoot at a lower f-stop setting such as f2.8 or f2 so you get more exposure at higher shutter speeds or lower iso, and secondly because regardless of what aperture you set your camera, the lens will focus at it's lowest f-stop setting and in a dim room many lesser lenses will struggle even to find focus. Having atleast 1 peice of fast glass to use will allow you to take best advantage of available light and allow you to focus quickly and efficiently when there isn't much light to work with.

    Hope that helps!

    Good luck,
    Matt
    My Smugmug site

    Bodies: Canon 5d mkII, 5d, 40d
    Lenses: 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f4.0L, 135 f2L, 85 f1.8, 50 1.8, 100 f2.8 macro, Tamron 28-105 f2.8
    Flash: 2x 580 exII, Canon ST-E2, 2x Pocket Wizard flexTT5, and some lower end studio strobes
  • QarikQarik Krazy Korean Posts: 4,938Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 17, 2010
    Sorry this a loaded question. Let me ask you...are you shooting officially for someone?
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • JeffroJeffro I'd rather be shooting... Posts: 2,062Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 17, 2010
    I use Nikon. what setting is the best to shoot in church without flash

    The one that gives you proper exposure without motion blur.

    Shooting at 1/60 sec. is probably safe for normal movement, set your camera there and see what f-stop it wants, if your lens is limited to 5.6 you're pobably going to have to bump up the ISO.
    Always lurking, sometimes participating. :D
  • Te AmoTe Amo just a guy with a camera Posts: 79Registered Users Big grins
    edited July 17, 2010
    how long is a piece of string?

    your question is very vague, and there really is no one answer for it.
    my first impression reading your question as written, is that youre not very experienced with this type of event. if thats the case, i would suggest not doing it at all.

    of course the simple answer is:
    fast glass (f/1.2-2.8)
    high ISO (800+)
    tripod
    IS/VR
  • JayClark79JayClark79 Major grins Posts: 253Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 17, 2010
    Why no flash? Not allowed? Or dont have one?
    Have you been told no flash?
    Who are you shooting for?

    There's ALOT more info needed then "I use Nikon"

    My Site http://www.jayclarkphotography.com


    Canon Rebel T1i | Canon 50mm 1.8 | Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 | Canon 75-300mm EF f 4.5 III | Opteka Grip | Canon 580exII | 2 Vivitar 383 Flash's and a home studio setup.
  • SurfdogSurfdog Woof woof Posts: 297Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 17, 2010
    ne_nau.gif

    "I use Nikon" means very little. Which camera? What lenses do you have?
    http://www.dvivianphoto.com

    Don't worry. I can fix you in photoshop.
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Wedding Photographer Posts: 3,394Super Moderators Major grins
    edited July 19, 2010
    Qarik wrote: »
    Sorry this a loaded question. Let me ask you...are you shooting officially for someone?
    Thanks Qarik. I'm gonna bite my tongue on this one...

    =Matt=
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogModerator of the Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • Chris GeigerChris Geiger Pro Photographer Posts: 36Registered Users Big grins
    edited July 21, 2010
    I use Nikon. what setting is the best to shoot in church without flash

    The setting should be you, and a professional photographer talking about hiring the pro to do the job and having you shot second (or third) for him. You have no business shooting a wedding.

    It's like a "Doctor" asking another doctor what knife he should be using to cut open a sick person. If the doctor does not know how to use the basic tools, the should not be doing operations.

    You should be reading books and taking beginner photo classes for a few years before you consider as assignment as difficult as, wedding photography is.
  • WillCADWillCAD Grinning Buffoon Posts: 722Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 21, 2010
    Whoa, guys... give the newbie the benefit of the doubt! I'm going to assume that he/she is simply be a person who is attending the wedding as a guest and wants to know how to get some pics of the ceremony without flash. After all, many officials prohibit flash during the ceremony, or prohibit flash except for the pro photographer.

    Akobiheritage, the answers that those who responded without yelling gave you are pretty good. Shooting indoor without flash means you either need a fast lens, or you'll need to show the shutter speed to let more light in. Of course, if you slow the shutter speed, you'll get motion blur, either from your body moving while you shoot, or from the subjects moving while you shoot.

    The brand of camera is totally irrelevant; Nikon, Canon, Sony, Sigma, Hasselblad, and any other brand of camera all work pretty much the same. What's important is the type of camera, and its capabilities. Are you shooting a point-and-shoot camera, or an SLR? Does your camera (or lens) have some sort of image stabilization system? What is the ISO range of the camera? Does it have manual settings or just pre-set modes (like Landscape, Sports, Portrait, etc)? All of these things are important to getting any shot.

    Conditions in the venue are also important. Indoor or outdoor? In sunlight or under cover? If inside, how brightly lit is the room? Natural or artificial light? Light from above, from the sides, or from behind the ceremony? Where will you be standing? Can you use a tripod? The answers to all of these questions will also influence what settings to use on your camera and what techniques to use when shooting.

    But most important is how well you know those capabilities and how well you can use them. Your camera may have features that could allow you to get great shots indoors in low light, but they're useless if you don't know what they do and how to use them.

    Always keep in mind: The camera doesn't take pictures - YOU take pictures. The camera is nothing more than a tool you use in the process.

    A lot of people make the mistake of trying to "learn the camera." But what they should be doing is trying to learn photography. Knowledge of photographic principles and techniques will apply to any camera, any situation, and when you have that knowledge, the settings you use on any particular camera to achieve your intended shot will become self-evident.

    Think of it like this - you play golf. You want to improve your golf game. If Tiger Woods suddenly loaned you his personal set of clubs, would your game improve over night? Maybe a little, if you were using really crappy clubs before, but not much. Which club to use in a particular situation is totally irrelevant if you don't know how to grip the club, how to swing, how to follow through, etc.

    Good luck, and don't be deterred by those who jumped on you in this thread; some photographers are a little too defensive because there are a lot of idiots out there these days who think they're pro photographers just because they bought a camera with interchangeable lenses, and those idiots are having a negative effect on the industry.
    What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
  • Te AmoTe Amo just a guy with a camera Posts: 79Registered Users Big grins
    edited July 21, 2010
    WillCAD wrote: »
    Whoa, guys... give the newbie the benefit of the doubt! I'm going to assume that he/she is simply be a person who is attending the wedding as a guest and wants to know how to get some pics of the ceremony without flash.

    If this is the case, then then answer is much simpler.
    The best setting for your camera is off.
    If you're invited to such an event as a guest, then show up in that capacity. Leave your camera at home, and enjoy being a part.of your friend/relatives once in a lifetime event. This is not your opportunity to learn how to shoot a wedding. Clearly they have hired someone else because your work is not up to snuff, or because they like the work of the person they hired. They have a job to do, and you have a party to enjoy. Simple as that.

    Also, this comes up on other boards sometimes, some wedding photographers have an "uncle bob" clause in their contract specifically because of people like this, and even the mere presence of your camera (flash or otherwise) can be a breach of the signed paperwork. between the hired photog, and the couple. Unless you can confirm with the hired photog that its ok, I wouldn't even chance it. It would suck to be the reason that key shots were missed, simply because you wanted to practice on someone else's clock.

    If you're not the hired photog. Leave your camera at home, if for.no other reason than professional courtesy.
  • JVPhotographyJVPhotography the edgy girl Posts: 6Registered Users Beginner grinner
    edited July 21, 2010
    A high ISO is the last thing to worry about in low light - a grainy photo you can at least turn to black and white to make it still look professional. You can't do anything if your shutter speed is too slow and the photo comes out blurry. Shoot wide open at a high ISO and your photos will normally be quite usable.
  • WillCADWillCAD Grinning Buffoon Posts: 722Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 21, 2010
    Te Amo wrote: »
    If this is the case, then then answer is much simpler.
    The best setting for your camera is off.
    If you're invited to such an event as a guest, then show up in that capacity. Leave your camera at home, and enjoy being a part.of your friend/relatives once in a lifetime event. This is not your opportunity to learn how to shoot a wedding. Clearly they have hired someone else because your work is not up to snuff, or because they like the work of the person they hired. They have a job to do, and you have a party to enjoy. Simple as that.

    Also, this comes up on other boards sometimes, some wedding photographers have an "uncle bob" clause in their contract specifically because of people like this, and even the mere presence of your camera (flash or otherwise) can be a breach of the signed paperwork. between the hired photog, and the couple. Unless you can confirm with the hired photog that its ok, I wouldn't even chance it. It would suck to be the reason that key shots were missed, simply because you wanted to practice on someone else's clock.

    If you're not the hired photog. Leave your camera at home, if for.no other reason than professional courtesy.

    Te, while you bring up some valid points, I think you're blowing the situation way out of proportion. And I think you're making some gross, unwarranted assumptions about the original poster.

    Certainly, focussing on photography at the expense of enjoyment of any event seems as crazy to me as it does to you. However, photography is a hobby, and a very enjoyable one, to most Dgrinners, even those who make their living at it. Bringing my camera to a wedding - or any other event - does not detract from my enjoyment of the event in the slightest; in point of fact, it does the opposite. Photography isn't some distracting chore to me, it's an activity that I enjoy every bit as much as the music, dancing, and personal interaction with my family and friends when I attend a wedding as a guest. I am smart enough, and a well-balanced enough individual, not to allow my photographic hobby come between me and my enjoyment of family and friends at a wedding and other event; there is absolutely no reasono to assume that the OP is NOT capable of the same restraint.

    Secondly, assuming that the OP's question means that he's trying to use the wedding as an "opportunity to learn how to shoot a wedding", is a baseless assumption not supported by any of the facts in evidence. I'm not saying he's NOT doing that, but he's only posted once, and assuming the worst from a single question is insulting and demeaning. He never said he's trying to become a wedding photographer, he just wants advice on getting better pics at a wedding.

    Your comment that "Clearly they have hired someone else because your work is not up to snuff, or because they like the work of the person they hired" is also an uncalled-for personal insult, for which I think you owe the OP an apology.

    I greatly support the Uncle Bob clauses in pro photographers' contracts. I have encountered Uncle Bob types at many weddings and despise that sort of behavior; not only is it horribly inconvenient for the pro, but it's extremely inconsiderate, rude, and disrespectful to the bride and groom, as well. However, I don't recall ever hearing about an Uncle Bob clause that completely prohibits any and all guests from bringing their own cameras to the wedding; such a provision is ludicrous, unenforcable, and just plain silly. What's the pro going to do if Uncle Bob or Aunt Marge bring their own camera - walk off the job just before the ceremony? Hold the deliverables hostage until the bride and groom fork over an Uncle Bob surcharge? Nothing would kill a wedding photographer's reputation faster than childish and reprehensible behavior like that, and I seriously doubt you'd find any Drinners who would ever consider it.

    On the other hand, you certainly have valid points about the Uncle Bobs interfering with the hired photographer's performance of his job. I will not defend the Uncle Bobs who do so. But advocating the complete absense of any cameras other than the pro's is a ridiculously extreme position.

    The OP asked a simple, basic question about photography. The question makes it obvious that he's a beginner; however, he never said or implied anything that would lead a reasonable person to believe that he's trying to shoot the wedding professionally, nor did he say or imply that he intended to do anything which might impede the pro photographer's ability to do his job, nor did he say or imply anything that might lead a reasonable person to think that he's trying to learn how to shoot wedding well enough to become a pro wedding photographer by ruining someone's wedding. All he wants to know is what settings work best for shooting a wedding with no flash.
    What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
  • Te AmoTe Amo just a guy with a camera Posts: 79Registered Users Big grins
    edited July 21, 2010
    Since you decided to write a book with your response, I didn't bother to read through it, however I will address your clear confusion on a key point.
    I have made absolutely no assumption about the OP. Rather, I addressed your previous assumption.
    I'm going to assume that he/she is simply be a person who is attending the wedding as a guest...

    After which I stated, if that were the case, then this is the solution. Never once did I imply any of it was actually the current scenario.

    Unlike yourself, I have not made any assumptions about the OP before even getting a response. Perhaps you should spend less time assuming. Your entire post is based on an assumption that I made an assumption about your assumption.
    I can see why you're confused.
  • BuddyLeeBuddyLee I love lamp! Posts: 71Registered Users Big grins
    edited July 21, 2010
    The bickering amongst the wedding photogs on this site at times makes me not want to ever be called a wedding photographer. The question is vague, and maybe not a very good question in the first place. But public forums are where people come to ask and learn. No need for personal disrespect. I'm losing my interest in dgrin more and more.
  • Moogle PepperMoogle Pepper Big picture in the sky Posts: 2,960Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 21, 2010
    BuddyLee wrote: »
    The bickering amongst the wedding photogs on this site at times makes me not want to ever be called a wedding photographer. The question is vague, and maybe not a very good question in the first place. But public forums are where people come to ask and learn. No need for personal disrespect. I'm losing my interest in dgrin more and more.

    honestly, any photography forum you go to - there will be the same kind of response. ne_nau.gif
    Food & Culture.
    www.tednghiem.com
  • IcebearIcebear Major grins Posts: 4,015Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 21, 2010
    Moderator?????
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • ImageX PhotographyImageX Photography Major grins Posts: 528Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 22, 2010
    Wow, is this for real? Someone just made a GIGANTIC ASS out of themselves and clearly has issues dealing with social situations. rolleyes1.gif

    OP, only an ASS assumes so I wouldn't waste your time with pure ignorant garbage. Don't let anyone tell you what to do. You go to that wedding if you want, bring your fastest lens, take lots of pics, and learn from it all. Have a good time and say hi to Uncle Bob for me!
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Wedding Photographer Posts: 3,394Super Moderators Major grins
    edited July 22, 2010
    Wow, is this for real? Someone just made a GIGANTIC ASS out of themselves and clearly has issues dealing with social situations. rolleyes1.gif

    OP, only an ASS assumes so I wouldn't waste your time with pure ignorant garbage. Don't let anyone tell you what to do. You go to that wedding if you want, bring your fastest lens, take lots of pics, and learn from it all. Have a good time and say hi to Uncle Bob for me!

    665151174_DEheN-M.jpg

    It is actually quite common for professionals to dis-allow other guests or photographers from "shooting in a professional capacity" at a wedding they're contracted to shoot. They have their reasons, and until you've been in their shoes, I guess you won't understand.

    Of course there are the insecure, oldschool shooters who're just intimidated and grumpy about losing print sales. And those guys can pound sand for all I care.

    But don't forget the "digital obsession" factor. I've shot plenty of weddings where "uncle bob" ruined some of my images because of a complete disregard for shooting etiquette, or even affected the bride and groom's own experience...

    So all I'm saying is, keep a level head. We all need to, amateur and professional alike. Don't walk backwards down the aisle, you might trip into a fountain. ;-) (Youtube it) Go ahead, bring your camera and play around. As a wedding photographer myself, I had a half-dozen guests with professional DSLR's at *MY* wedding, in addition to the hired pro. It was awesome. Just, keep a level head.

    Whether or not you agree with a contract policy, if you're a guest at a wedding you should respect the other guests, the bride and groom, AND the hired professional.

    (This is all assuming that the OP is a guest, not the hired pro. If the OP is a hired pro, then yes, I honestly would suggest NOT shooting the wedding as the primary shooter, considering the way the post was worded. You MAY need a lot more training and experience before shooting your first wedding. Of course a little clarification would go a long way!)


    =Matt=
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogModerator of the Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Wedding Photographer Posts: 3,394Super Moderators Major grins
    edited July 22, 2010
    BuddyLee wrote: »
    The bickering amongst the wedding photogs on this site at times makes me not want to ever be called a wedding photographer. The question is vague, and maybe not a very good question in the first place. But public forums are where people come to ask and learn. No need for personal disrespect. I'm losing my interest in dgrin more and more.
    Truly, Digital Grin is probably one of the nicest forums ever to brush on the subject of wedding photography. If THIS little spat is making you not want to be called a wedding photographer, what forum do you recommend that is more friendly?

    Actually, I personally think D-Grin is a bit soft when it comes to the responsibility and standards that go into photographing a wedding. Because the forum is mostly hobbyists, sometimes there is too much "nice photo, keep up the good work!" and not enough tough love, or brutal honesty. But that's just my inner critic talking.

    I can certainly be an ass sometimes. But I hope that the "shock factor" helps things stick in people's minds better than a soft-serve critique. We all could use a wake-up call every now and then...

    =Matt=
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogModerator of the Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • ImageX PhotographyImageX Photography Major grins Posts: 528Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 22, 2010

    It is actually quite common for professionals to dis-allow other guests or photographers from "shooting in a professional capacity" at a wedding they're contracted to shoot. They have their reasons, and until you've been in their shoes, I guess you won't understand.

    Of course there are the insecure, oldschool shooters who're just intimidated and grumpy about losing print sales. And those guys can pound sand for all I care.

    I definitely think a lot of it has to do with print sales and putting a monopoly on the wedding images.

    All in all though, who is the photographer to tell ANY of the family or friends that they can't shoot and they themselves are the only one allowed.... because they want to make more money money money money?

    If I were a wedding photographer, I would charge a flat rate for my shooting services, a print package, and a fee for the digital images. Hand them over on a disc and be done with it and stop worrying about selling more prints and or copyrights. I would have been hired and the pics belong to the couple, right? It shouldn't be any different than a newspaper hiring a photographer. Pics belong to the paper. Then, no one would have to care what Uncle Bob did as long as he stayed the hell out of the frame.... unless of course he wanted to ruin his bridezilla niece's wedding photos... like your pic above. That's horrible by the way. There has to be a nice way to get the word out about etiquette and giving the hired photographer the "right of way" as far as the shooting goes.

    Other than that.... the old school guys and their print monopolies can definitely go pound sand. Who are they to hold someone's wedding photos hostage??? Who are THEY vs loved ones of the family?? A photographer isn't a print lab and should only be concerned with selling their talent and not squeezing out more money with prints from images that should technically belong to the couple in the first place..... NOT the photographer. That's just my take on the matter.
  • Moogle PepperMoogle Pepper Big picture in the sky Posts: 2,960Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 22, 2010
    I definitely think a lot of it has to do with print sales and putting a monopoly on the wedding images.

    All in all though, who is the photographer to tell ANY of the family or friends that they can't shoot and they themselves are the only one allowed.... because they want to make more money money money money?
    .

    It could be about guarding the print sales, but it could also be, dependent on how civil the guests are with their cameras. Will they be civil and not get in the way or will they try to demand the attention from the B+G away from the paid photographer? On signing, no one knows if the guests will be civil, the B+G might say they will be but how sure are they?

    The recent wedding I did, the bro of the groom was shooting with pro gear too. I didn't care because he knew his boundaries. That's what matters to me. Whether or not the guests who come in with cameras know their boundaries. And on the flip side I was a 2nd shooter at a wedding, where one of the guests slipped by my attention to forcefully get the Bride's attention and wouldn't stop after myself or the main photographer asked him nicely after letting him shoot one image of what he wanted.
    Food & Culture.
    www.tednghiem.com
  • JeffroJeffro I'd rather be shooting... Posts: 2,062Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 22, 2010
    I don't think the OP even cares about the answer anyway, it doesn't appear the OP has been back.
    Always lurking, sometimes participating. :D
  • BlurmoreBlurmore Goofy Grin Posts: 992Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 22, 2010
    Truly, Digital Grin is probably one of the nicest forums ever to brush on the subject of wedding photography. If THIS little spat is making you not want to be called a wedding photographer, what forum do you recommend that is more friendly?

    Actually, I personally think D-Grin is a bit soft when it comes to the responsibility and standards that go into photographing a wedding. Because the forum is mostly hobbyists, sometimes there is too much "nice photo, keep up the good work!" and not enough tough love, or brutal honesty. But that's just my inner critic talking.

    I can certainly be an ass sometimes. But I hope that the "shock factor" helps things stick in people's minds better than a soft-serve critique. We all could use a wake-up call every now and then...

    =Matt=

    I agree with Jeffro I think the OP was a spammer...which is hilarious since we now have a two page thread to a spammer....and Matt...I thought you were a pompous jerk when you first started commenting here, but now I've gotten used to you :P Online personalities like IRL personalities sometimes clash...that is just a fact of life. So far as my advice, some people seem to think I was attempting to sabotage this poor soul by telling him to shoot 4/4/400 but honestly....that is how I shot a ceremony with a a Hasselblad and ambient light for 4 years when I started out. You had lift the mirror, use a cable release and wait for the still moments of the ceremony, and if you had an animated officiant, he was an impressionistic blur. But that is the way I was taught back in the day.
  • BlurmoreBlurmore Goofy Grin Posts: 992Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 22, 2010
    665151174_DEheN-M.jpg


    =Matt=


    HA I just saw this guy sitting there...SRSLY? Hilarious. My favorite overzealous guest story happened at an all day Indian Wedding at Lafayette Center in DC. During the morning Hindu Ceremony, almost NO guests were in their seats...they were all up around the altar where the bridal party was snapping pics. The best man, who was the biggest Indian dude I have ever met, well over 6'4" 230 whispered to me during the ceremony that if I needed these people out of the way I should tell them all to sit down. I responded that I wasn't about to make an ass out of myself and tell them all to sit during the ceremony, that would just cause more distraction. I told him I could still get my shots just jostling people on a need to jostle basis. Then I got a brilliant idea, I told him that if HE wanted to tell everyone to sit down, that would be fine with me. He quickly did, and they QUICKLY did as they were told...no issues for the rest of the ceremony.
  • mmmattmmmatt Big Grimace Posts: 1,347Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 22, 2010
    I just recently had an uncle with a video camera issue. He was in a ton of my comps and even tried to take over the formal session where he was shouting out commands and trying to pose the b&g. His harsh crappy video light was all over my soft lighting causing issues for me in post where our light colors clashed. It was a mess. I was mortified and the b&g's ultimate product suffered. As was said by most here, if people are respectful then that is great but from the standpoint of photography it is about me and the b&g and when an amateur or guest imposes on that or destructs that through a selfish display of obliviousness it is an issue and a big issue at that! Matt's picture shows this very clearly. Not only for Matt in this case but also for the ceremony in general... pros aren't that indignant to sit on the alter and snap shots of the bride! Here is a recent added disclaimer to my contract:
    LightCraft will be the only official photographer present at the event. Relatives, friends, or other hired professional will not be allowed to direct poses or otherwise provide input or direction to the official photographer or subjects being photographed by LightCraft. If the client chooses to have a photo session with photographers or videographers not representing LightCraft, it must be done after LightCraft is satisfied that their photo session is completed. At any time, other photographers and videographers may photograph the subjects being photographed by LightCraft as long as they are respectful of the space required by LightCraft and do not impede or impair the photographer’s use of that space or cause distraction in any way. Any photographers or videographers with intent on more than casual and occasional use of photo or video equipment on the day of the event must contact Matthew McCulloch of LightCraft Photography for approval prior to the date of the event. Noncompliance on these issues may result in LightCraft ending their services for the day prior to the completion of the event without providing any discount to the final contract price. LightCraft is happy to work with professional videographers, and the good ones know how to be unobtrusive.
    <o:p></o:p>
    My Smugmug site

    Bodies: Canon 5d mkII, 5d, 40d
    Lenses: 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f4.0L, 135 f2L, 85 f1.8, 50 1.8, 100 f2.8 macro, Tamron 28-105 f2.8
    Flash: 2x 580 exII, Canon ST-E2, 2x Pocket Wizard flexTT5, and some lower end studio strobes
  • Te AmoTe Amo just a guy with a camera Posts: 79Registered Users Big grins
    edited July 22, 2010
    Well put.
  • smurfysmurfy Major grins Posts: 343Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 22, 2010
    originally posted by ImageX:
    If I were a wedding photographer....[/QUOTE]

    Um....Then you can't understand how we feel when overzealous GWC's ruin the images that are important to our clients. Once in a lifetime moments, and they're gone forever. No disrespect intended, but you have to experience it to relate.
  • WillCADWillCAD Grinning Buffoon Posts: 722Registered Users Major grins
    edited July 22, 2010
    Blurmore wrote: »
    HA I just saw this guy sitting there...SRSLY? Hilarious. My favorite overzealous guest story happened at an all day Indian Wedding at Lafayette Center in DC. During the morning Hindu Ceremony, almost NO guests were in their seats...they were all up around the altar where the bridal party was snapping pics. The best man, who was the biggest Indian dude I have ever met, well over 6'4" 230 whispered to me during the ceremony that if I needed these people out of the way I should tell them all to sit down. I responded that I wasn't about to make an ass out of myself and tell them all to sit during the ceremony, that would just cause more distraction. I told him I could still get my shots just jostling people on a need to jostle basis. Then I got a brilliant idea, I told him that if HE wanted to tell everyone to sit down, that would be fine with me. He quickly did, and they QUICKLY did as they were told...no issues for the rest of the ceremony.

    If only this guy could attend ALL weddings!
    mmmatt wrote: »
    I just recently had an uncle with a video camera issue. He was in a ton of my comps and even tried to take over the formal session where he was shouting out commands and trying to pose the b&g. His harsh crappy video light was all over my soft lighting causing issues for me in post where our light colors clashed. It was a mess. I was mortified and the b&g's ultimate product suffered. As was said by most here, if people are respectful then that is great but from the standpoint of photography it is about me and the b&g and when an amateur or guest imposes on that or destructs that through a selfish display of obliviousness it is an issue and a big issue at that! Matt's picture shows this very clearly. Not only for Matt in this case but also for the ceremony in general... pros aren't that indignant to sit on the alter and snap shots of the bride! Here is a recent added disclaimer to my contract:
    <?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>

    Matt, that's a very well-written Uncle Bob clause. It's perfectly reasonable, states its reason for being along with the restrictions, and states the consequenses for non-compliance. I salute your fair and reasonable reaction to your recent Uncle Bob horror story.

    Just having tha clause in the contract, so long as you make a point of going over it with the clients and explaining why it's there and what it's for, may eliminate a lot of Uncle Bob moments, because the clients will often pass on instructions to their guests not to interfere with the pro photographer and videographer; I've actually seen that in a few wedding invitations I've received, and as a guest I never batted an eye at it - because I naturally stayed out of their way.

    But I also hope fervently that you never have to invoke that clause, because even though you'd be well withion your legal rights, you'd almost certainly get sued, and your reputation would unjustly ruined all over town.
    What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.