Garry k wrote:
I think You mean "Amateur " not GWC - cus the later term refers to a person who purchases a camera to meet chicks

No. I mean, "GWC", which I mentioned in my post stood for "Guest with Camera".

Francisco Castro wrote:

No. I mean, "GWC", which I mentioned in my post stood for "Guest with Camera".

Oops Sorry - I missed that

I like your ( new ) term

Francisco Castro wrote:
I recently participated in a wedding, as a guest, so other than a point and shoot that stayed in my pocket during the ceremony, I was sans photography gear. I was there to party, not to work.

However I did notice another guest, a cousin of the groom I find out later, whip out some heavy duty gear right before the ceremony. The ceremony started and he made a mad dash for the prime locations, and more than once, totally got in the line of sight of the photographer the bride-groom hired. I could see the frustration on the photographer's face every time the GWC (Guest with a camera) would get in the way. I felt bad for the guy.

Now, I didn't know the GWC and it would be inappropriate for me to dictate the actions of another guest. So I just did what I could, slid over a few pews up, and whispered in the ear of someone I did know, the mother of the bride. "That guy is getting in the way of the photographer so you might not get as many good photos as you paid for.". I guess the idea of her not being able to re-live this very important day in her only daughter's life was enough to make her take matters in her own hands. She stood up, made a beeline for the GWC, and that camera was never seen again; not at the ceremony or at the reception.

You think hell hath no fury as a woman scorned? Consider pissing off the mother of the bride by getting in the way of a perfect wedding. If I ever decide to get into shooting weddings, (not likely), I might consider this approach should any guest get in my way, in addition of making "no guest photography at the ceremony" part of the contract.

Well handled. Back when I used to shoot weddings I had in my contract what I referred to as an "Uncle Bob" clause, which specifically stated that during key events such as the ceremony, cake cutting, etc.,  that I am not responsible for missed shots due to the efforts of someone else taking photos. I usually put this responsibility on the Maid of Honor to wrangle up stray photographers. I've been to weddings where they actually announce it prior to the ceremony starting to please put down cameras during the ceremony and that there will be ample time to take photos during the reception.

I had a friend of mine shoot a wedding a few years ago and one of the parties getting married was a photographer and so most of their guests at the wedding were photographers. She told me that they even wrote in the wedding invitations to leave their gear behind and just come and enjoy the wedding.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Tipping off the mother of the bride was a nice call.

Having a "no guest photography" clause in a contract is a bit much.  Guest photographers can be not so intrusive, can be in the middle of the party, and can produce some great images without getting in the way.  Let's remember -- the day's events are for the bride & groom & family and not for the benefit of the photographer.

It has nothing to do with the benefit of the photographer. I very much disagree with you on this. When a guest feels the need to interfere with a job that someone was hired to do, that causes conflict with the reason they were hired. Imagine you missed the first kiss because Uncle Bob decided that he would jump in front of you with his Canon Rebel and get a shot? It's funny...you don't see guests go into the kitchen and tell the caterers who to do their job, do you? So why do people feel the need to interfere with a paid professional doing his job with his camera?

And by the way, the reason so many photographers are now putting such clauses into contracts isn't for their egos, it's because brides are demanding refunds and suing photographers for missing shots that they couldn't take because everyone in the audience felt a need to jump in with their camera phones and interrupt the paid professional who is there to do a job.

When I used to shoot weddings I'd have the Maid/Matron of Honor announce to please put all the phones and cameras away during the ceremony and that the professional photos would be shared with everyone and that there will be more than ample time to get their own shots. Once I was done, I told the guests to go have fun shooting the bride and groom and everyone was happy. There are smart ways to take charge of the situation so you don't have problems, but it starts with putting it into the contract. When the bride, groom, and whomever is paying for the wedding is told that the photographer is not responsible for missing shots that they can't get because of guest interruptions, suddenly the get the picture real fast (no pun intended). Putting such a clause in a contract is just smart business.

Randall Holden Photography wrote:
I have wisely followed advise given to me back in the eighties when I first started messing with cameras - whatever you do, never become a wedding photographer.  He'd done (and still does) remarkable photography starting in the early seventies, and  while he does shoot weddings, he told me enough horror stories that I NEVER want to enter that field.  I know off-and-on he's stopped doing them and then does them again from time-to-time. 

I have been asked at several relatives weddings to do photos and I politely refuse, but will shoot candid photos for them before and after the ceremony, taking GREAT care to do so only when the hired photographer isn't taking photos or if I'm positive I'm not messing with his flash, lighting, or getting in his way. 

I don't think I'll ever shoot weddings, or babies, because I've just heard too many bad stories.

I'm so glad that I don't shoot them anymore. If there is one thing I've learned is that there is little difference between a $500 wedding, a $5000 wedding and a $20,000 wedding other than the Hors d'oeuvre being a bit better and the booze selection at the bar. Other than that, they all play the same fucking songs by the same types of DJs at every single one, they all have the same basic food that nobody likes, they all give the same toasts, and they all think that their wedding is so damn original, which it never is. To be honest, the best weddings are the ones where they have it in someone's backyard and just make a big party out of it for a few hundred bucks. It's so less pretentious and stressful on everyone that way and it's the wedding people will remember for years. The expensive weddings where people get gifts in fortune cookie boxes will be forgotten about by the time the guests walk to their cars at the end of the night.

Gerardo Martinez wrote:
A dude I know was getting married, he hired a wedding painter. I must say it was pleasant not hearing the click click flash flash constantly.

https://youtu.be/HLSDsyTgldY?t=1m6s

Randall Holden Photography wrote:
I have wisely followed advise given to me back in the eighties when I first started messing with cameras - whatever you do, never become a wedding photographer.  He'd done (and still does) remarkable photography starting in the early seventies, and  while he does shoot weddings, he told me enough horror stories that I NEVER want to enter that field.  I know off-and-on he's stopped doing them and then does them again from time-to-time. 

I have been asked at several relatives weddings to do photos and I politely refuse, but will shoot candid photos for them before and after the ceremony, taking GREAT care to do so only when the hired photographer isn't taking photos or if I'm positive I'm not messing with his flash, lighting, or getting in his way. 

I don't think I'll ever shoot weddings, or babies, because I've just heard too many bad stories.

I don't shoot weddings but I photographed my nephew's wedding with zero problems.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
That happened to me at a wedding I was shooting. The guy wouldn't stop so I gathered all my gear and left.  I hope they enjoyed that guys photos because I refused to give them anything I shot

Sure hope you weren't under any contract.  Even still, you didn't handle that very professionally.  But then again, I have no idea if you were actually "hired".

If your going to do weddings, especially these days, you have to expect it.  Whether it's outlined in a contract or not.  I'd rather deal with the asshole getting in my way then not fill my obligations as the professional they hired.  They, the GWCs,  have nothing to lose.  You have a reputation to protect and there is a financial stake at risk.  I wouldn't say walking out on a job is the best way to solve the problem.

Instinct Images wrote:
A few months ago I attended my friend's wedding and brought my Canon 5D Mark II and 70-200mm lens. I just wanted to get a few candid shots not shoot the whole ceremony. As the wedding started one of hired photographers made a rude comment to me (I was making sure that I wasn't in their way). I turned and said "Did you know the reason you were hired to shoot this wedding is because I recommended you to the bride?". The photographer looked shocked and never said another word to me.

My friend had asked for my opinion about a couple of photographers she was considering and I thought they were really poor choices so I spent time researching wedding photographers and made the recommendation that she went with. The images were great and everyone was happy.

I had a similar thing happen. I was asked to shoot a wedding but I was scheduled for surgery thirty days prior so I said I could not shoot it but recommended a couple people. They were booked so the bride brought me a couple other suggestions and we picked one together. At the wedding I just brought my SonyA6000 and took a few shots to make sure we had some for her right away. The photographer came up and said I have been doing this for years and you need  better equiptment to get that shot.  I said really.  Well it was in front of a Christmas tree and the lights outside and he flash bl w out all the lights and my touch of flash down 2 stops let the lights shine and the grooms jacket not look like a black blob.

Thomas Van Dyke wrote:
Many interesting reflections albeit sadly the lion’s share seems to have a negative focus… Perhaps less than happy marriages lurk beneath cynical agendas expressed?  Noticed dominance of gender bias in respondents i.e. male dominated… so not likely a valid sample group in my minds eye…

That said the OP’s keen awareness that the MOB is a key player in the mix… no disputing that inference… As a bridal makeup artist I can assure you that the check is likely drawn on the MOB’s financial institution… at least in my market… And yes there is a compelling desire to live vicariously in her daughter’s event… this has been so throughout antiquity… 

When there is revenue involved it brings out significant interest in photography forums… But unfortunately here there seems to be pretty much an unawareness that a wedding event is likely the most important day in a women’s life… to be cherished above and beyond all else… Each of my bridal clients is an absolute joy to work with and I find bridal makeup assignments the most rewarding of all my gigs… being able to instill an inter glow of radial beauty lifts a bride to heighten a level allowing her to grace her event in a fairy tale mode… 

btw, the finest wedding photographers I assist share the same reverence for this most precious day… and in fact are superb at choreographing key moments in the event… under their skillful caring direction the wedding parties are handled with finesse and grace… they are masters of direction… true ambassadors of a bride and groom's sacred ceremony...   As such I’ve grown professionally by orders of magnitude being their “stick man”.

Bottom line?  Of all who have brought cynicism to this thread I would suggest that you step back and ask yourself carefully… “Who is the wedding for/about?”  Only then might you get your head around what the very spirit and soul of this blessed event is and why friends and family have gathered together in this endearing celebration of life…

Food for thought: Trust that those who are seriously considering entering the wedding industry as an event photographer will ponder the merit & worth of following the tried and true path of assisting other tenured wedding shooters in your market… This has been the journey of many of the finest wedding event professionals…  This is one craft where apprenticeship is paramount…  enough said

That's all fine and good.  But what does that have to do with the OP's question or problem?  He had a "cousin of the groom" basically become a pain in the ass by disrupting HIS paid job.

I mean, if your doing make up on a bride, I'm pretty certain you don't want a cousin or anyone else putting their hands in the way of yours or somehow disrupting YOUR workflow.  This thread is about the huge problem these days of guests thinking they are wanna be wedding photographers and start shooting whatever and whenever they want.  Or everyone whipping out their iPhones during an important moment and you can't get a nice long shot of the bride and groom.

I think most on hear believe weddings are serious business.  And perhaps WHY we get so upset when other we can't control things like this and have people basically step into our realm and don't allow us to do the job we were paid very well to do.  Because as you said, it IS one of the most important days in any woman life.  We don't want a GWC to ruin it.

Garry k wrote:
I think You mean "Amateur " not GWC - cus the later term refers to a person who purchases a camera to meet chicks

He did explain the joke, and it was tolerably funny...

Francisco Castro wrote:
You think hell hath no fury as a woman scorned? Consider pissing off the mother of the bride by getting in the way of a perfect wedding. If I ever decide to get into shooting weddings, (not likely), I might consider this approach should any guest get in my way, in addition of making "no guest photography at the ceremony" part of the contract.

I did the very same thing when some distant member of the family kept using me as a bird-dog to get the best shots, while I kept getting the back of his head. I asked, I told, I demanded, I poked him with a finger to his chest (probably left a bruise), and finally I asked him if he'd like to explain to the groom's mother (a fairly scary woman) why all the shots she paid for had the back of his head, or if I should.

With one mention of the mother, he spent the rest of the evening on the far side of the crowd from me.

Francisco Castro wrote:
I recently participated in a wedding, as a guest, so other than a point and shoot that stayed in my pocket during the ceremony, I was sans photography gear. I was there to party, not to work.

However I did notice another guest, a cousin of the groom I find out later, whip out some heavy duty gear right before the ceremony. The ceremony started and he made a mad dash for the prime locations, and more than once, totally got in the line of sight of the photographer the bride-groom hired. I could see the frustration on the photographer's face every time the GWC (Guest with a camera) would get in the way. I felt bad for the guy.

Now, I didn't know the GWC and it would be inappropriate for me to dictate the actions of another guest. So I just did what I could, slid over a few pews up, and whispered in the ear of someone I did know, the mother of the bride. "That guy is getting in the way of the photographer so you might not get as many good photos as you paid for.". I guess the idea of her not being able to re-live this very important day in her only daughter's life was enough to make her take matters in her own hands. She stood up, made a beeline for the GWC, and that camera was never seen again; not at the ceremony or at the reception.

You think hell hath no fury as a woman scorned? Consider pissing off the mother of the bride by getting in the way of a perfect wedding. If I ever decide to get into shooting weddings, (not likely), I might consider this approach should any guest get in my way, in addition of making "no guest photography at the ceremony" part of the contract.

WELL played and likely saved many shots. Great enlistment of the mother.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
That happened to me at a wedding I was shooting. The guy wouldn't stop so I gathered all my gear and left.  I hope they enjoyed that guys photos because I refused to give them anything I shot

You were there in a professional context and think this is something to boast about???

Sourcelight Photography wrote:
Arrived late as a guest to my wife's niece's wedding and sat in the back row, perfectly happy to not be shooting it myself. When the bride started down the aisle, literally every single one of over a hundred guests turned to the rear with a camera/cell phone in his/her hands and started snapping the entrance. I turned to my wife and announced, "We're not shooting weddings anymore, dear." It wasn't a new thought--I'd started having the same experience described here in the OP almost every time out--but it did crystalize a developing awareness about the business: the immediacy of Facebook display has all-too-often virtually replaced the formal wedding album, and you don't need a seasoned professional to capture images that look passable on a 4" phone screen. No judgements here, but the business has been changing for a long time. "Combat photography," indeed. No thanks.

Back in the 1980's and 90's, I used to enjoy shooting weddings.  I could offer an engagement session for free with advanced bookings, for which popular items like a matted enlargement could be made available for guests to sign at the wedding, or perhaps party favors with their image on the tables for guests to take home. Shooting weddings & portraits was my bread & butter business while I did other fun photo jobs like models, cars & rockstars on the side.   Every wedding package included a wedding album of proofs, then later I added the negatives (I don't want to be storing more than I need to) and later even CD's or DVD's in the early 2000's.  I was doing my best to keep up with the changes, but since I'm a stickler for tradition as to what works for me, I continued to shoot film. 

Then things changed as the 1990's ended and the 2000's began.  I noticed that the prices that I charged that were considered "quite reasonable" back in the day were now "too high!"   Surprisingly to me, the expectations increased, while the demand for lower prices (usually because so & so got a photographer for cheap off Craigslist) increased as well.  Seeing these changes taking place, I still stuck to my system.   

Then something else happened that I'll never forget!  The first episode of Bridezilla aired on June 1, 2004.  It seemed like uneducated people became obsessed with these reality shows that are far from reality!  I had my first true bridezilla who attempted to get a group of her hood brothers to catch me somewhere and injure me so that I wouldn't be able to carry through on the contract that she so desperately wanted out of because she had found someone cheaper after signing the contract and paying the deposit which I did not have to give back if she broke it. 

That was it for me ..  I had seen the number of "guests with cameras" increasing, I had seen the desired packages change too.  With the improvement of digital cameras, the number of cheap shooters jumped into the market.  The tradition wedding & portrait studios were closing up around me.  (I had two studios during the 1990's)  but the bridezilla really did it for me.  Shooting weddings was no longer enjoyable.  I no longer shoot wedding ... unless someone proves that they really want me by paying a rate of $20,000.  As crazy as it seems, that was not an unheard of rate for weddings shot back in the 1990's.  Otherwise, I'm done!

So I am enjoying shooting models, cars and rockstars again.  I've got quite an archive of thousands of concerts going all the way back to 1980. I can make money at this.  The business plan has changed as I use the Internet now.  It's good to be here! 

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Sourcelight Photography wrote:
Then something else happened that I'll never forget!  The first episode of Bridezilla aired on June 1, 2004.  It seemed like uneducated people became obsessed with these reality shows that are far from reality!  I had my first true bridezilla who attempted to get a group of her hood brothers to catch me somewhere and injure me so that I wouldn't be able to carry through on the contract that she so desperately wanted out of because she had found someone cheaper after signing the contract and paying the deposit which I did not have to give back if she broke it. 

That was it for me ..

Man, all I had happened to me, was I woke up in the morning, and most of my cameras were gone after I got "Roofied."

The Dallas Police Department said, "Meh."

That's when I started answering the door with a 40 cal pistol.

With one in the chamber.

Word got around quick after that.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Then something else happened that I'll never forget!  The first episode of Bridezilla aired on June 1, 2004.  It seemed like uneducated people became obsessed with these reality shows that are far from reality!  I had my first true bridezilla who attempted to get a group of her hood brothers to catch me somewhere and injure me so that I wouldn't be able to carry through on the contract that she so desperately wanted out of because she had found someone cheaper after signing the contract and paying the deposit which I did not have to give back if she broke it. 

That was it for me ..

Natural Light on Location wrote:
Man, all I had happened to me, was I woke up in the morning, and most of my cameras were gone after I got "Roofied."

The Dallas Police Department said, "Meh."

That's when I started answering the door with a 40 cal pistol.

With one in the chamber.

Word got around quick after that.

Gun laws are tighter here in California.  Three dudes with baseball bats could've broken enough bones on me to put me out of commision from shoot the wedding, but I'm a great talker!  I don't get in situations where I might get roofied" either.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
That happened to me at a wedding I was shooting. The guy wouldn't stop so I gathered all my gear and left.  I hope they enjoyed that guys photos because I refused to give them anything I shot

You quit!  That is not something to be proud of.  No matter how bad the conditions might get, from the heat to careless wanna be shooters, I knew how to deal with all the situations.  I never left a bridal couple hanging.  Deal with it.   Do the best you can, but don't quit!