Andy Durazo wrote:
I was told I couldn't take any pictures at my cousins wedding because I had brought my Hasselblad. The paid "professional" threatened to leave if I took any pictures.

I usually bring my Hassy to outdoor weddings.  It's a fun camera to use, and I'm only going to take 20-30 photos tops anyway.  But some photographers are pretty tetchy about that stuff, and all you can do is remember that it's not YOUR day, and hope you brought along a pocket camera.

I once went to a destination wedding for my then-girlfriend's bother.  She and I had a lot of vacation time saved up, so we packed the car and made a week of it.  As I was getting out of the car at the ceremony, the photographer was walking past, and noticed my D70 and my 80-200 f/2.8, and told me she didn't want anyone else using a professional camera.  I pulled out my F4, and asked if a film camera was okay.

So I took snapshots at the wedding with my F4 and an 85 f/1.4.  MUCH less professional.  But I stayed out of the way, didn't get involved even when I thought it could be done better, and even though I thought that my images were better than the pro's, I didn't send them to the couple.  Why piss in their Cheerios?

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

I'll amend that a bit.

"Individuals who are self-conscious about their penis size and photographic skills should compensate for that by spending more money on their equipment and vehicles."

This was a couple pages ago, but I still wanted to comment on it.  You really should dress well and care about your appearance - it's not an ego thing.  But there is a limit.  You shouldn't ever be better-dressed or flashier than the groom, or the bride if you're a woman.  That means for guys, no tuxes unless it's an incredibly formal wedding.  No three-piece suits, bright pocket squares, pocket watches, or other flashy jewelry unless it's a formal wedding, you're doing it for your friends, or both.  I'm not sure what the rule is for ladies, but I should think that wearing a skirt, instead of pants or a dress, is probably the way to go.

The car isn't as important, since more often then not nobody is going to see it.  It doesn't need to be flashy, but it should be something that would fit in at a professional office parking lot.  You'd look like a jerk showing up in a Bentley (assuming anyone even saw you), but at the very least all the body panels need to match, and there shouldn't be any rust or peeling paint.

It's not your job to impress people.  It's your job to fit in.  And since most people dress up for weddings and wear some of their nicest clothes, that means that you should too.

twoharts wrote:
supposedly the x-pro1 is based on a leica which is not a toy camera so far as i understand it.

Of course Leicas are toy cameras!
Just look at the size of the M9 vs  the D4 or D600 with a battery grip on it, how can you call it anything but a toy camera?
On top of that have you seen those tiny little lenses?

Faces2Die4 Photography wrote:
You couldn't pay me to shoot a wedding. 

+1000,   been there, done that, not again.

twoharts wrote:
shot a wedding last night and one of the guests noticed the wife's x-pro1 and showed off his new fuji x-e1 and then said his normal camera was a D-800 but he didn't feel like bringing that along. i asked him if he shot professionally and he said he did it just for fun. he didn't interfere or anything but it's hard to outgun the guests these days unless you have like  a D4. during the cake cutting there must have been 20 guests shooting although they did let me get my shots.

we did some shots with a Bel Air in the dark and the x-pro1 again outperformed my canon 5D MK II at ISO6400. and it's not even full-frame. fuji did something special in making that sensor.

just seems like within a few years if everyone is running around with X-E1 class cameras then they can get good shots in the dark, too. so a "pro" will have to distinguish themselves through other means than camera technology. but maybe that has always been the case.

I think that has always been the case, although I also think pros have been able to differentiate themselves with technology. It's only now that guests are starting to be able to shoot in very low light.

In terms of tech though I still have the lenses - 50L, 135L, 15mm fisheye in particular - that give my shots a very different look, in good or low light. Off camera flash is one other differentiation.

But still it's about the photographer and what and how they shoot. Social photography will always be about this.. getting the most from people.

Photosbycj wrote:
I'm actually a little shocked at the number of photogs in here who take any of their gear to a wedding they aren't paid to shoot. Maybe I'm different but I wouldn't do it because I don't want to carry around gear when I don't have too lol.

The last wedding I was at - a relative of my wife's - I left my gear at home.  The 'official' photog was young, much the same age as the bride and groom.  He was more interested in smoozing with the large number of great-looking girls who were there having a great time.  It was excruciating watching all the wonderful opportunities for memorable shots being passed by.

Andy Durazo wrote:
I was told I couldn't take any pictures at my cousins wedding because I had brought my Hasselblad. The paid "professional" threatened to leave if I took any pictures.

Funny! Yes indeed if you want to stand out bring a Hasselblad, especially a V series film Hassy with  bare bulb/reflector style flash. I've done it and the paid digital photographer drooled and his photography major college student assistant was all over me with questions and photography talk whenever she got a break.

I shot three rolls of key moments, he shot 1500 frames.

A Bronica is good too and easier to handle.

Photosbycj wrote:
Wedding guest crack me up at times. I had one bust out a D4 on me and tried talking up his gear over mine while in front of the bride and groom. He was an uncle through marriage to the groom so I played nice with him even after he kept claiming how crappy the shots from my D700 would be. He even went as far as telling the brides mom not to buy an album because he would give them one free (from his amazing camera) as a wedding gift.

During our print order consultation they brought in the "wedding album" he gave them. Now I do not talk bad of anyone's work ... ever. I won't start today but I will say that thanks to his album I sold three of my own that day lol.

I liked this story.

Photosbycj wrote:
Wedding guest crack me up at times. I had one bust out a D4 on me and tried talking up his gear over mine while in front of the bride and groom. He was an uncle through marriage to the groom so I played nice with him even after he kept claiming how crappy the shots from my D700 would be. He even went as far as telling the brides mom not to buy an album because he would give them one free (from his amazing camera) as a wedding gift.

During our print order consultation they brought in the "wedding album" he gave them. Now I do not talk bad of anyone's work ... ever. I won't start today but I will say that thanks to his album I sold three of my own that day lol.

While gear is important your story illustrates that we are hired for our talent, not our equipment. Uncle Bob is always a possibility. and more and more, can be counted on.

twoharts wrote:
i got caught with the wrong lens on for the garter toss (they had told me we were going outside to shoot the car in the dark so i put on my 50f1.4 and then suddenly they announced the garter toss) and they didn't wait for me to put back on my wide angle lens. weddings kind of take on a life of their own and with so many guests shooting now (sometimes as many as 20) maybe they don't even notice if the "official" photographer is missing.

It sounds to me like you just need some more experience shooting weddings. When I shoot a wedding, I let the planner, parents, bride & groom, or whoever else thinks that they're in charge that I am in charge of the pacing. The only aspect I don't control is the actual ceremony, but after the bride is kissed, it's my show. You shared your experience about the garter toss. Well, if you control that situation, you wouldn't have had the wrong lens choice. I also tell them that i know family members like to take pictures themselves and I agree to let that happen but my lighting comes first. If there's excess flash it will affect my photos, and that's not acceptable. I let the different aspects (garter toss, cake cutting, etc.) happen naturally, but before it happens, I'm in position because I'm in control.

Also, a good planner is your friend. Or if there's no planner, my assistant will handle that and I usually designate a family member that's not part of the immediate bridal party to be in charge of rounding people up, and letting the party know what's happening. Be assertive. another good thing is reminding them that they booked you for some reason and if there's 20 people besides you getting in the way or throwing light everywhere it will affect your chots and they won't get what they're paying for. Hang in there, we all go through it.

Stephen J Moss wrote:
I'm a student at the New York Institute of Photography. They have a saying at NYIP... "It's not the violin, it's the violinist." Point is: If you know composition, and take good photos, your work will outshine other peoples gear.

Even composition doesn't matter. All that matters is knowing what to shoot.

Deciding how it's shot is fun and interesting to see different styles, but it's the choice of what to shoot that determines what makes a good photo.


Antonin Kratochvil is an excellent example of that - http://www.antoninkratochvil.com

Randy Henderson Images wrote:
I don't shoot many weddings any more, but I used to consult with the couple a few weeks in advance, and advised them that the quality of the pictures was in direct proportion to the courtesy of the guests.  I recommended that this accompany the invitations.

"We are thrilled for you to share our special day with us.  We have hired a professional photographer to record every aspect of what we think will be a magical experience.  With that in mind, we ask our guests to be courteous with their use of personal cameras and recording devices.  Bear in mind that raising a cell phone camera over your head during the ceremony, or positioning yourself behind us during a special moment may interfere with the contracted photographer.  We ask that our friends keep their personal photos discreet."

That seems reasonable. How often do people do that?

I'd go about it slightly differently. The subtext of that message is don't shoot. I think saying that the photographer will announce times when it it's appropriate for guests to take their own photos. Maybe not that exact wording, but I think the idea is more inclusive.

I also think that there's a way to use guests as second shooters. If you have an assistant or a photo station with one of those hyperdrive that automatically downloads the photos, you could allow guests to contribute their photos to the official wedding album. Just take all of those photos and do exactly what you'd do if they came from a second shooter. There are a couple of issues to deal with - download time, and copyright, but they are addressable.

It's the digital equivalent of putting a disposable camera at each table.

There's probably a way to make a private Instagram account where people can upload shots and then the photographer can make selections from there, or even instructions on how to email or FTP photos later.


We're not too far from cameras with an ISO of one million. After that will be two million and at some point the dynamic range will expand to the point where you only need to be within three stops of the correct exposure to have no loss of quality when you fix it in post. Plus, metering will continue to get better.

At that point, with the exception of the ceremony and formals, a wedding photographer will be unnecessary. All that will be needed is a wedding photo editor.

You could even become a wedding photography service where the couple rents cameras from you and sends them back after for you to download the photos and edit. You could "shoot" multiple weddings simultaneously.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:

I think that has always been the case, although I also think pros have been able to differentiate themselves with technology. It's only now that guests are starting to be able to shoot in very low light.

In terms of tech though I still have the lenses - 50L, 135L, 15mm fisheye in particular - that give my shots a very different look, in good or low light. Off camera flash is one other differentiation.

But still it's about the photographer and what and how they shoot. Social photography will always be about this.. getting the most from people.

I don't even think how matters, just what to shoot. And it's what you get from people rather than "the most". I can see the point that that's what "the most" means,  but I don't think you necessarily have to influence people, just know what the album should like and then shoot the photos as you recognize them.

That's pretty much what Jeff Ascough does. Somewhere he's got a blog post that says he uses a 1D3 in P, with exposure compensation and bracketing. That's beyond spray and pray.

What makes him successful is his perception of what should be captured.

Randy Henderson Images wrote:
We're not too far from cameras with an ISO of one million. After that will be two million and at some point the dynamic range will expand to the point where you only need to be within three stops of the correct exposure to have no loss of quality when you fix it in post. Plus, metering will continue to get better.

At that point, with the exception of the ceremony and formals, a wedding photographer will be unnecessary. All that will be needed is a wedding photo editor.

All you'll get are well edited facebook snapshots. I guess thats better than the poorly-edited facebook snapshots I see lots of wedding photographers putting out these days.

Kenny Dion wrote:

It sounds to me like you just need some more experience shooting weddings. When I shoot a wedding, I let the planner, parents, bride & groom, or whoever else thinks that they're in charge that I am in charge of the pacing. The only aspect I don't control is the actual ceremony, but after the bride is kissed, it's my show. You shared your experience about the garter toss. Well, if you control that situation, you wouldn't have had the wrong lens choice. I also tell them that i know family members like to take pictures themselves and I agree to let that happen but my lighting comes first. If there's excess flash it will affect my photos, and that's not acceptable. I let the different aspects (garter toss, cake cutting, etc.) happen naturally, but before it happens, I'm in position because I'm in control.

Also, a good planner is your friend. Or if there's no planner, my assistant will handle that and I usually designate a family member that's not part of the immediate bridal party to be in charge of rounding people up, and letting the party know what's happening. Be assertive. another good thing is reminding them that they booked you for some reason and if there's 20 people besides you getting in the way or throwing light everywhere it will affect your chots and they won't get what they're paying for. Hang in there, we all go through it.

You may be right about the OP needing more experience...but most of the other stuff is pure fantasy...

The photographer isn't being paid to control the flow of the wedding. It's your job as a professional to be ready and capable of catching as many memorable moments as possible. If there is a planner present, she or he is just gravy but I've never heard of any pro depending on one. They are working too and don't have time to spoon feed you. Have your own shoot list with the general flow of the day. That's how you know where to be and when. The schedule may go off side here and there but that's why you are a pro, and have a second shooter if it's a larger wedding than you can handle solo.

As for not having the right lens on...well that's pure bad planning. always carry two bodies with enough FL between them to cover the general situations.

You think that you are gonna tell 20 people not to take pictures on their compact cameras and cell phones with full on flash so you can control your lighting?? dream on...

MC Photo wrote:

That seems reasonable. How often do people do that?

I'd go about it slightly differently. The subtext of that message is don't shoot. I think saying that the photographer will announce times when it it's appropriate for guests to take their own photos. Maybe not that exact wording, but I think the idea is more inclusive.

I also think that there's a way to use guests as second shooters. If you have an assistant or a photo station with one of those hyperdrive that automatically downloads the photos, you could allow guests to contribute their photos to the official wedding album. Just take all of those photos and do exactly what you'd do if they came from a second shooter. There are a couple of issues to deal with - download time, and copyright, but they are addressable.

It's the digital equivalent of putting a disposable camera at each table.

There's probably a way to make a private Instagram account where people can upload shots and then the photographer can make selections from there, or even instructions on how to email or FTP photos later.


We're not too far from cameras with an ISO of one million. After that will be two million and at some point the dynamic range will expand to the point where you only need to be within three stops of the correct exposure to have no loss of quality when you fix it in post. Plus, metering will continue to get better.

At that point, with the exception of the ceremony and formals, a wedding photographer will be unnecessary. All that will be needed is a wedding photo editor.

You could even become a wedding photography service where the couple rents cameras from you and sends them back after for you to download the photos and edit. You could "shoot" multiple weddings simultaneously.

Why do guests need to shoot photos? Isn't that why they hired a pro? I think the couple requesting an unplugged wedding is a wise idea.

Randy Henderson Images wrote:
I don't shoot many weddings any more, but I used to consult with the couple a few weeks in advance, and advised them that the quality of the pictures was in direct proportion to the courtesy of the guests.  I recommended that this accompany the invitations.

"We are thrilled for you to share our special day with us.  We have hired a professional photographer to record every aspect of what we think will be a magical experience.  With that in mind, we ask our guests to be courteous with their use of personal cameras and recording devices.  Bear in mind that raising a cell phone camera over your head during the ceremony, or positioning yourself behind us during a special moment may interfere with the contracted photographer.  We ask that our friends keep their personal photos discreet."

I do this as well when I shoot weddings, but mine is like this:

"Thank you so much for considering sharing our special day! To commemorate the occasion we have hired a professional photographer. To not interfere with the capturing of this once in a lifetime experience we ask that you not stand or hold cameras or phones over your head during the ceremony. We also ask that you do not use flash photography at any time during the event"

twoharts wrote:
shot a wedding last night and one of the guests noticed the wife's x-pro1 and showed off his new fuji x-e1 and then said his normal camera was a D-800 but he didn't feel like bringing that along. i asked him if he shot professionally and he said he did it just for fun. he didn't interfere or anything but it's hard to outgun the guests these days unless you have like  a D4. during the cake cutting there must have been 20 guests shooting although they did let me get my shots.

we did some shots with a Bel Air in the dark and the x-pro1 again outperformed my canon 5D MK II at ISO6400. and it's not even full-frame. fuji did something special in making that sensor.

just seems like within a few years if everyone is running around with X-E1 class cameras then they can get good shots in the dark, too. so a "pro" will have to distinguish themselves through other means than camera technology. but maybe that has always been the case.

Simple to remedy...just go get a Hasselblad or Mamiya with digital backs and dare the wannabees to shell out the cash to keep up.