Wedding Photos Contract

[Mr Darcy]

My Daughter is getting married later this year (in New Zealand for some reason only known to her!) One of the photographers she is looking at has a clause in the contract that states:

Family and friends of the bride and groom may photograph the wedding as long as they do not photograph poses arranged by our photographer and on condition that the photos are for personal use only.

Is this normal?
Does this mean that if I, or any guest, take a photo of groups that have been put together by the photographer (a fairly normal practice at weddings I have been to) I am in breach of contract?
If I set up my own pose, then post the picture here for comment, am I in breach of contract?

Are such clauses, if they are common, ever enforced. It would appear unenforceable. After all, a pose, to me includes the angle and the lighting. Any other photograph will not have these the same, and thus would not be the pose set up by the pro.

I can appreciate that the "arty" photo poses would and should be the sole province of the pro, but the "with Guest" and "outside the venue" shots. I can't see it.

[gstark]

I agree that this is totally unenforceable, but for different reasons than those that you have given.

They are expecting that your daughter is going to tell this sort of thing to her guests, and to then try to enforce that.

That, to me, is totally unreasonable, as well as unenforceable: the guests are not a party to her contract with the photographer. It's not simply unenforceable, it's bloody stupid, and it demonstrates, to me, a level of incompetence in the photographer to the point of a lack of confidence in their own abilities to complete the job.

I mean, seriously, are they that concerned that guests might be stealing their business? Give me a bloody break!

Tell her to look elsewhere, or to seriously question the 'togs on exactly the lines of my concern.

She should ask them, specifically, how they expect to enforce a contract upon individuals who are not parties to the contract. I'd love to know the answer to that one.

[Mr Darcy]

Thanks Gary,
I did think of that as well, but the photographers don't need to sue the guests. All they need to do is say the Bride & Groom have not met the contract & withdraw their services.

Trouble is, My daughter lives in Wollongong, so is doing her research via the web. That particular Tog has far and away the best photos, as displayed on the Web, in the area (Wanaka).

I am, of course, open to any suggestions of other Togs who would cover the wedding.

I have passed on the link to this thread to my daughter so she can follow the discussion.

[kalindriel]

I guess it comes down to just how much one is prepared to compromise to secure the artist. And whether it is worth having an 'artist' to do the photos rather than any old with a camera.
To their credit, when I explained that I would be sending back a marked up version of their "terms and conditions" they seemed quite relaxed about it.
Still, its interesting that Gary thinks that the decision ought to be made based on their drafting technique rather than the quality of their photos.

[BullcreekBob]

Family and friends of the bride and groom may photograph the wedding as long as they do not photograph poses arranged by our photographer and on condition that the photos are for personal use only.

I can sort of see what the 'tog is perhaps getting at here, perhaps to avoid the situation where he creates the 'perfect shot' and then you go buy a framed print taken by someone else.

I've not seen the whole contract but presumeably he's hoping to make most of his dosh from print sales (ie you're not being given all the files), therefore he is trying to maximise his sales to you.

I'd just ignore the clause, as stated, he can't impose conditions and obligations on guests not party to the contract. And should your daughter buy or be given a great print buy one of her guests, I'd happily not disclose it to the 'tog.

If he does good work and much better than the others - go for it. If his ego needs a little managing, then it's (sadly) probably worth putting up with if the jump in quality is there. But if he's of a similar standard to other 'togs, tell him to shove it, and why.

Bob

[jdear]

This is what the AIPP puts in their 'example' wedding photography contract...

To avoid disruption to the photographic coverage and to
allow the Studio to fulfil it’s contracted duty, other
photography by family and friends will be at the discretion of
the Studio’s photographer.

and this is what appears in my wedding photography contract...

Vibrant Photography shall be the exclusive photographer retained by the Couple for the purpose
of photographing the wedding day. Family and friends are encouraged to take photographs at the
wedding as long as they do not interfere with the duties of Vibrant Photography.

... I have seen like contract clauses to the one originally posted lots of times. I agree some of them are a bit retentive.

I think it is more pretaining to someone tagging along to the location shoot - taking photos that the pro has setup and then posting the photos (even sometimes taken with their lighting control - (reflectors etc), their arrangements etc etc) on their websites, on-selling them etc. I know this wouldn't make me happy.

Certainly uncle bob may be at the reception / ceremony etc and heck - he should be able to pop off all the photos he likes - even if he has a shiny-new-d3. Just don't get in the way!

They are expecting that your daughter is going to tell this sort of thing to her guests, and to then try to enforce that.

I really don't think they are expecting that at all. This is not about the photographer suing guests, uncle bobs etc if they get in the way. It is a clause to protect the photographer in the event of someone completely irrational and un-co-operative guests decide to crash the photography and then the couple try to sue the photographer because they are disappointed. (Ive heard of such)

In most cases - us photographers are completely reasonable and just ask us what it all means and why we have it in there. Don't make assumptions and write them off without talking to them. The reason these clauses and such exist because of brides (and grooms) from hell - even if they are a bit retentive. Ask them if they would consider re-wording a clause if you are particularly uncomfortable about it.

in short - communicate!

Jonathan

[Mr Darcy]

My point is that the contract, as worded would appear to preclude the happy snappers from taking photos of the bride & groom if the Pro said "Stand on the steps of the church". This seems totally unreasonable to me.
Dealing with Happy Snappers is one of the perils of being a Wedding Photographer. I don't think the contact as stated is the way to deal with it. Vibrant's wording seems much better to me.

I fully understand and would agree to a Pro saying "No you can't come" on one of the location shoots where they do the fantasy photography. I would also understand and agree if I was asked to move because I was interfering with their shot. BTW I'm pretty sure Kalindriel is my daughter, so I will hand over further discussion to her, and yes Gary, I have asked her to put in a meaningful location.

Thanks for your input

[jdear]

BTW I'm pretty sure Kalindriel is my daughter

In that case - congratulations Kalindriel on your upcoming wedding!

- thats all

[kalindriel]

Thankyou.
I see you are from the Illawarra like me. I liked your website.

I have spoken to them about amending their terms. They did seem ok about me making some alterations. I guess it just feels like a very negative kind of set of terms. Your wording is so much more positive and still seems to achieve the same practical effect. (I hope you dont mind me stealing your wording when i send them my marked up agreement.) They also seem very controlling of the process. For example, they say "No other wedding suppliers, whether attending in a professional capacity or as guests may take photos of the couple without written consent from Alpine Image Company." Which would be very unfortunate for anyone who had a mother that was a florist etc.
I know that I am being literal. And that surely no-one in their right mind would actually try and enforce a term in those circumstances. But i certainly don't need extra worries on the day, "will the photographer yell at my nanna because she is snapping away..."
Finally, the dealbreaker for the ... tog's.... is their packages rather than their terms and conditions. So perhaps all this discussion is really just moot.

[gstark]

Hi, and welcome.

Still, its interesting that Gary thinks that the decision ought to be made based on their drafting technique rather than the quality of their photos.

No, I don't think that at all. I'm merely addressing the question that was raised.

If you believe that the tog's work is acceptable, then that should be the overriding point that you consider, but this wording, to me, seems to be an entirely useless, and unacceptable, piece of BS.

I guess it comes down to just how much one is prepared to compromise to secure the artist.

With respect, this is wedding photography we're talking about. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it is not art; it is, at the end of the day a business for the photographer (he's charging you for his services, right?) and you are securing his business's services. And the point of discussion here is his contract: were this true art, he would be doing this for the love of the work, and there would not be any contract at all.

Wedding photography is formulaic in its nature. Some of it may look artistic, and I am truly not trying to be a narc here, but no, it's not art.

You may like what he is doing, and what he is doing may be presented in a somewhat artistic manner, but it's still not art.

I have actually been called a whore by a well known Sydney radio personality - who is also an accomplished photographer. We were in the same shop, looking at stuff and talking, and he asked me what sort of photography i did. I told him, and that was his response.


Jonathon's quoted wording ...

Vibrant Photography shall be the exclusive photographer retained by the Couple for the purpose of photographing the wedding day. Family and friends are encouraged to take photographs at the wedding as long as they do not interfere with the duties of Vibrant Photography

seems to me to be entirely appropriate, and conveys exactly what I would consider to be a reasonable expectation on the part of a pro photographer.

He is actively encouraging others to join in the photography; more on this in a moment.

This is not about the photographer suing guests

I would hope not, but we can only go upon the wording as it has been quoted.

It is a clause to protect the photographer

Again, that may well be its intent, but that is not how it is worded. Your wording, IMHO, exactly expresses this in a competent, professional, and concise manner. The quoted wording - that is under discussion - is a dog's breakfast, unenforceable, and as a result, meaningless bullshit.

Bride & Groom have not met the contract & withdraw their services.

Greg,

How do they demonstrate this? I have no control over what others may, or may not, do at a wedding. Should I, as the groom, physically prevent them from making their images? Roll on Dimboola!

Withdrawing their services would be unprofessional, and, I suspect, cost them more than continuing. That is not a viable option.


...
...

Please remember that this is an area within which I have more than just a little bit of experience. The number of weddings I have shot would extend to well over a thousand, so this is an issue that I have encountered, but it has never been a problem.

First of all, let me refer again to Jonathon's contract, wherein he encourages them to engage in their own photography. I did too, often helping others with their settings and with their poses. I would often pause in my work, permitting others to get their shots, before I made mine. How long? Hell, that might hold me up all of fifteen seconds. Big bloody deal!

I consider any other behaviour to be unprofessional and unacceptable.

I relied upon my better framing, my higher print quality, etc to ensure that I made adequate sales from the event. That I was helpful and friendly, rather than reducing my sales, often helped me not simply with sales from that event, but also with referral weddings or portraiture shoots. To me, that is a far healthier and more desirable outcome.

If a guest is becoming a bit of a nuisance, all it takes is a couple of nice words to that person, asking them to be considerate towards the B&G's choice of professional photographer. It's not that hard. And if the nuisance persists, as a pro, you simply point out to the bride or groom that X is making it a little difficult for you to complete your tasks, and could they please ask them to cooperate with you to help make the day go smotthly for all.

I think I may have had a nuisance guest once or twice; that's all.

I did have a problematic venue once though. I was working for another studio, they warned me that the venue would be problematic: they wanted to use their son - sorry, I meant in-house photographer - to photograph the reception. The studio advised me to handle it as I saw fit.

The reception lounge approached me not long after my arrival, called me into the office, and told me that I would not be permitted to take any photos at the venue. I responded that this was fine by me, but that I had been engaged, through the studio, by the B&G. As a result, I informed them that they needed to advise the B&G of their decision, and the the B&G then needed to tell me. I also gave them the contact number for the studio, along with a name for them to speak with.

I then thanked them, and continued shooting. As I left, I heard the boss telling somebody "no drinks for the photographer". No big deal; when I needed something to drink, I just asked the best man to get me something, not that I drank a lot of alcohol while working. Again, that comes back to being a professional.

In summing up, I would offer them something based upon Jonathan's wording, and see what they say.

[devilla101]

As I left, I heard the boss telling somebody "no drinks for the photographer".

Man that is so f***** juvenile!

[gstark]

As I left, I heard the boss telling somebody "no drinks for the photographer".

Man that is so f***** juvenile!

Ron,

Yes, I know. Controlling, juvenile, and completely ineffective.

And unenforceable.

[TonyH]

Here's one to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons......

The airfares to NZ are not that expensive...... depending on what you have been quoted, it may be in the realms of possibility to
"export" a local guy to do the shoot for you.....

There are a considerable number of more than capable 'togs on the site here......

[Mr Darcy]

Lots of good points raised. I will let Kalindriel deal with most. But this is addressed to me:

Greg,

How do they demonstrate this? I have no control over what others may, or may not, do at a wedding. Should I, as the groom, physically prevent them from making their images? Roll on Dimboola!

Withdrawing their services would be unprofessional, and, I suspect, cost them more than continuing. That is not a viable option.

I agree that any Tog who tried this would likely be out of business fairly quickly, but remember I am the father of the bride. My concern is not the likelyhood of something happening, but rather the fear of a bride that it might happen and "We won't have anything. Sob" (Actually if you knew K you would duck, not look for a hankie ). Hopefully this discussion will alleviate that fear, especially as it is coming, in large part, from professional wedding togs, not just from dumb dad.

Back to the point raised. They don't need to demonstrate it. All they have to do is withdraw - or even just threaten to - their services and the B&G will be bereft. They WILL get sued in that case. (There will be at least one lawyer at the wedding), but the damage will have been done.

[MSF]

I attended a wedding on the weekend and I offered the B&G (who know that I enjoy photography) to take pics - whilst NOT wanting to be the official 'tog.

They explained that their pro photographer that they hired had that clause and that I shoud discuss it with him to make sure there are no problems etc.

After chatting with the 'tog, it made perfect sense to me as to why he requests that and he was more than happy for me to tag along etc as long as I understood the reasons..

1. Possible lost sales when he is shooting on a "print sales" contract.
Very valid given the quality of consumer cameras nowadays

2. If Auntie Kodak is trying to get the same pic as the pro and the subjects of the photo are distracted by her or others, it makes his job harder
There is always someone in the photo who will look away if given half a chance to be distracted.. removing them from the equation makes sense

3. Extra time it takes with many more people wanting to get their own photos etc.
eg, Auntie who is in the photo stops the shoot to hand her camera to someone to make sure she has a copy on her little P&S etc)

4. He often walks around and gets different angles and others may get in his way.

The 'tog they hired had been doing it for about 16 years and was actually good friends with the B&G anyway, so the lost sales were not a major concern as he was doing the shoot on the cheap for them anyway, but the other reasons were certainly valid from what I witnessed. So much so that he often sets up a few "dummy" poses to appease the rellos so that he can concentrate on his own stuff later.

[jdear]

"No other wedding suppliers, whether attending in a professional capacity or as guests may take photos of the couple without written consent from Alpine Image Company."

Wow that is pretty harsh. I havent seen a clause like that before. I guess they want to be able to supply the other vendors with images from the wedding for a fee. - eg: makeup, hair, flowers etc.

I dunno, I prefer to give away my photos for free to vendors (with the B+G's permission) I figure we are helping each other out - they get great looking photos to promote themselves and they credit me where possible.

Finally, the dealbreaker for the ... tog's.... is their packages rather than their terms and conditions. So perhaps all this discussion is really just moot.

What do you mean by this K?

(I hope you dont mind me stealing your wording when i send them my marked up agreement.)

... steal away

J

[gstark]

They explained that their pro photographer that they hired had that clause and that I shoud discuss it with him to make sure there are no problems etc.

The clause as quoted by the NZ 'tog? it doesn't quite sound like it.

After chatting with the 'tog, it made perfect sense to me as to why he requests that and he was more than happy for me to tag along etc as long as I understood the reasons..

Nobody here is arguing with, nor failing to understand, the underlying reasons. There is an accepted need to protect the time, efforts and IP of the 'tog.

It's the way that those needs are being expressed within the contract, and the potential relationships and conflicts that those wordings might engender.

The first wording provided - which is the wording in question - is very confrontational and controlling. I personally would not entertain imposing that sort of wording upon any of my clients, and I would not accept a contract that contained that sort of wording.

As I noted in my first comment, it actually gives me cause for concern as to the actual abilities of the 'tog: controlling behaviour is a sign of insecurity, and I am bothered that the 'tog has so little faith in his or her ability that he feels a need to have this form of wording in his contract. Perhaps he has never considered any other wording and this is a matter of poor business sense, poor advice, or immaturity. I can accept that, and the 'tog should be encouraged to amend the wording to something more acceptable.

But the wording, as it now stands, is not something that I could work with.

But let me address the specific points that were raised ...

1. Possible lost sales when he is shooting on a "print sales" contract.
Very valid given the quality of consumer cameras nowadays

Maybe, but so what?

It is not the camera, but the 'tog that makes the images. A good photographer does make a difference in the images, and this should show through.

2. If Auntie Kodak is trying to get the same pic as the pro and the subjects of the photo are distracted by her or others, it makes his job harder
There is always someone in the photo who will look away if given half a chance to be distracted.. removing them from the equation makes sense

This one is absolute garbage. The photographer should be able to handle these issues with ease and grace, and at the worst, might delay the photgrapher in any one image by maybe a few seconds. If someone has looked away, you reshoot the bloody image. I used to do that at weddings shooting film stock (== real money - my money - expended) and this was never an issue. With digital, you can reshoot till the cows come home, for no added cost.

3. Extra time it takes with many more people wanting to get their own photos etc.
eg, Auntie who is in the photo stops the shoot to hand her camera to someone to make sure she has a copy on her little P&S etc)

See above. It's a few seconds. Where else is the photographer going to go? Maybe he has to perform emergency brain surgery? In many such instances I've actually taken the camera from Auntie Mabel and made the image myself.

4. He often walks around and gets different angles and others may get in his way.

He's at a wedding. There are people there. People will get in the way; it's a fact of life. Those people may, they may not, be taking photos, and they will get in the way. Sounds a bit precious to me.

What the hell does he expect? Happened to me all the time at weddings. Still happens to me all the time at other stuff I shoot. What to do? Deal with it.

This one has less than nothing to do with any contract that the photographer might wish to have with his clients. As noted, the people getting in his way may not even own a bloody camera. Sorry, but it's a load of crap!

that he often sets up a few "dummy" poses to appease the rellos so that he can concentrate on his own stuff later.

That is what he should be doing. Rather than looking for excuses and being negative, you create a positive atmosphere within which everyone can enjoy the photographic experience. There are people who worry about it (does my bum look big in this?), and not everyone has a ready smile. Set the images up, let everyone else get their stuff done, and then make your image.

If you really feel a need to exclude the guests from shooting what you're shooting, bring some studio lights along to the event. Set them up, and turn on to full power. If people ask, you have a ready excuse: your lights will cause them problems: their images won't turn out properly.

If they don't ask, your lights will absolutely cause them problems and their images will be blown.

[jdear]

their images won't turn out properly.

that or give the subject some strong backllighting... watch the P+S shoooters go crazy .

I quite enjoy P+S shooters shooting alongside me. They facebook their photos and the odd arm / lense / head of me gets in the photos and I get tagged in it Also the images compared to mine... make the couple often appreciate my work more

[devilla101]

2. If Auntie Kodak is trying to get the same pic as the pro and the subjects of the photo are distracted by her or others, it makes his job harder
There is always someone in the photo who will look away if given half a chance to be distracted.. removing them from the equation makes sense
.

I can relate to this. But does it make my job harder? I have to say no. As Gary mentioned you shoot again. Me personally I shoot multiple frames. If I see people shooting the group then I just lower my camera and wait till everyone have taken their photos. Then automatically the group would look at me again and I'd shoot more frames. Its no concern.

Back to the point. Speak to the photog and clarify any issues. It may read rather harshly on paper but I don't think he/she would be so anal about it. Its a wedding for pits sake!! ITS SHOULD BE BLOODY FUN DAY TO THOSE INVOLVED!!!!

[gstark]

If I see people shooting the group then I just lower my camera and wait till everyone have taken their photos. Then automatically the group would look at me again and I'd shoot more frames. Its no concern.

Exactly.

ITS SHOULD BE BLOODY FUN DAY TO THOSE INVOLVED!!!!

And that includes the photographer.

I quite like Tony's suggestion, btw.

[kalindriel]

Good Morning all,

Firstly I wish to defend my suggestion that wedding photographers are "artists". I expect that this is a definitional problem rather than an actual disagreement. I reject the idea that what distinguishes artists from other people is that artists will do the 'work' whether they get paid or not. The mere fact that someone gets paid is not a reason to deny that what they do is art. Yes artists will tend to produce work regardless, but I imagine you lot, wedding photographers included, take photos you dont get paid for.
Nor do I think the subject matter is a relevant difference. If a photographer is an artist as a result of a portrait s/he shot, why should they lose the title when a wedding is involved? They shouldnt. They dont.

I am not so naive as to imagine that my wedding (with blimpy little me) will produce ART photos. However, you all admit that the person behind the camera affects the overall quality of the image, so surely my meaning in suggesting that the tog was an artist stands. The same point would stand if i said "what is it worth to have a better business person shoot the image..." assuming that by better business man i meant the person pedalling the best merchandise. Perhaps you would have felt less need to attack the statement had I phrased it like that, or referred to the most skilled candidate.

“Finally, the dealbreaker for the ... tog's.... is their packages rather than their terms and conditions. So perhaps all this discussion is really just moot.” – by this I mean that my teeny weeny wedding of 20 people, with a 10K budget doesn’t leave much room for a photography budget. Therefore, the package that gives me the most of what I want for my 1000 bucks is going to be the one for me. So the real question, is whether I am happy with 70 images, or do I feel I want more?

We all know the contract is complete crap, which sways from nonsensical to unenforceable. But they aren’t going to try and enforce it lightly, because it will cost too much. – I would make VERY sure of this.

My own interesting twist – I think – is that the deal I am after will not be a print sales deal. Because its an international affair, we are only looking at packages which give us high res digital copies so we can print them ourselves when we get home. But lets face it, how many of you have individually drafted agreements for each different package you offer?

One other thing I might ask is that they have another clause saying that they will enter any pics they take in whatever competitions they like. How would any of you feel if you were asked to advise the Bride(zilla) if this was to occur. Not get permission mind, just let her know?

Any words of advice as to how I can avoid being a bridezilla on the day?

Thanks for the suggestion on the export photographer, but unless any of you want a tax deductible trip to NZ, getting paid a pittance (see above $1000 budget) I think the export concept is out of my price range. Any offers….?

[gstark]

Hi there

I thought that my statement about artists might raise your eyebrows a little.

Firstly I wish to defend my suggestion that wedding photographers are "artists". I expect that this is a definitional problem rather than an actual disagreement.

Rather than a definitional problem, perhaps one of terminology?

Many photographers are also artists. Whether they're professional or not (meaning that they may charge fore their work or services) is largely not relevant. What is relevant is the work that they perform: an artist, whether a painter, sculptor, photographer ... whatever ... will produce their work because they feel a need to do so. Sometimes that will be under a specific commission (say a portrait of a sitting Prime Minister for the Parliament House), but more often it will be due to an emotional need of the artist.

What's important here is that the work comes from the heart, and that the outcome is considered to be art. Look in any art gallery that you choose: please count for me the number of wedding photos that you see. I already have a pretty good idea of what the number will be.

Wedding photography rarely comes from the heart. It is formulaic, and it is not art.

Now ... the person behind the camera may well be very good, and in that regard he might be considered to be an artisan or a craftsman, rather than an artist. No different from a good carpenter or furniture maker, really. I think your dad will well understand the deliniation that I'm suggesting here.

I reject the idea that what distinguishes artists from other people is that artists will do the 'work' whether they get paid or not. The mere fact that someone gets paid is not a reason to deny that what they do is art. Yes artists will tend to produce work regardless, but I imagine you lot, wedding photographers included, take photos you dont get paid for.

That was not my point. The issue of payment is largely irrelevant. While it may be incidental, it is often indicative. But the concept of coming from the heart is vital.

Nor do I think the subject matter is a relevant difference. If a photographer is an artist as a result of a portrait s/he shot, why should they lose the title when a wedding is involved? They shouldnt. They dont.

But this comes to a number of points.

A wedding is formulaic. So to is a Kylie Minogue song. Consider for a moment the photos that you believe you must have from the event. Which images would you be happy to have NOT taken on the day? A wedding photographer has a checklist of images that simply must be taken on the day. It may be written down, or it may exist only in his head. It may vary from wedding A to wedding B in terms of its specifics, but as a general rule, there are images that must be made.

It is formulaic, and therefore, by definition, it cannot be art.

I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentitive, but merely trying to help you understand that it's it's ultimately a commercial exercise.

I am not so naive as to imagine that my wedding (with blimpy little me) will produce ART photos.

It has nothing to do with who the individuals being photographed are. it's to with the fact that she's gone to the expense of buying an horrendously expensive wedding dress, and needs to have the event recorded.

However, you all admit that the person behind the camera affects the overall quality of the image, so surely my meaning in suggesting that the tog was an artist stands.

No, not at all. Artisan, or craftsman, yes.

Artist? Perhaps, but that would not be an assessment one might make from their wedding work. Indeed, any of their commercial work would be likely to be excluded from an artistic assessment of their skills.

The same point would stand if i said "what is it worth to have a better business person shoot the image..." assuming that by better business man i meant the person pedalling the best merchandise. Perhaps you would have felt less need to attack the statement had I phrased it like that, or referred to the most skilled candidate.

This one is fun.

A better business person may, or may not be, a better artisan. The likelihood is not. Most serious artists don't give a damn about financials, beyond what they need to survive. A better business person will have a different mind completely - totally different brain functionality - than how an artist may think, and (importantly) how an artist may see things.

A business person may look at a tree and see a tree.

An artist may look at that very same tree and see a hundred different images.

It is a rare event that those two mindsets coexist within the one headspace.

And how do we define "the most skilled candidate" ? Is that the technician? The person who has studied his camera's manual and knows it inside out? The question I would ask is can that person make a good photo?

What defines a good photo? beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

So the real question, is whether I am happy with 70 images, or do I feel I want more?

So this is ultimately a budgetary constraint. That is always the ultimate reality for the purchaser.

One other thing I might ask is that they have another clause saying that they will enter any pics they take in whatever competitions they like. How would any of you feel if you were asked to advise the Bride(zilla) if this was to occur. Not get permission mind, just let her know?

This bothers me, but not for the reasons that might seem obvious. I have no issues about the concept of advising the B&G of this; I think it is reasonable, and a common courtesy.

I do have an issue however with their need, as it were, to even think about entering competitions. This, for me, exhibits a common trait within these people, one of ego stroking and an issue of self confidence. Why do they even want to enter a competition? Of what benefit is it? What is there to gain? If they are good, and they know that are good, then this sort of crap simply doesn't happen.

Why do they not have confidence in their ability to sell their images on their own merit, but choose to restrict potential competition through their contract?

Why do they not have confidence in their own abilities and thus the feel a need to enter (and hopefully win) a contest?

I'm starting to get very worried about them.

Any words of advice as to how I can avoid being a bridezilla on the day?

Just be you, and try to relax on the day. It's going to be stressful because of its importance to you. Take it easy, and have lots of Veuve.

For medicinal purposes, of course.

[who]

Wedding photography rarely comes from the heart. It is formulaic, and it is not art.

Exactly. I am in the year of weddings, being at that age where many friends are all rushing to get the ring and the thumbprint on the forehead (for the guys).

3 in just over 2 months, with one more in just over a week. Different "pro" togs for each event. I have also been there with the D200. I actually find it a worry to have the pros work to accommodate me, I'd prefer to be in the background.

So far, the respective parties have liked my shots but I technically can critique most of my shots and haven't seen any of the pro images yet to contrast to my photos. I know one wedding, the "pro" was shooting film in an old Pentax body, with a 28-80 variable apeture lens And I was struggling with the light with D200, SB800, 28-70 f2.8. Said "pro" also didn't take many images during the reception to the disgust of the B&G.

Other weddings have been better, I mainly only aim to take images when the "pro" knocks off, of the remainder of the evening and of the people.

This last wedding, I am tempted not to take any camera gear and just attend and eat, drink and be messy, oops merry.

[Mr Darcy]

It is formulaic, and therefore, by definition, it cannot be art.

I took my rant on this to a more appropriate place. See
http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=31756

[BullcreekBob]

Any words of advice as to how I can avoid being a bridezilla on the day?

For most of the involved parties (bride, groom, wedding party, rellies, friends) the day will bring more than it's share of hopes, expectations, emotions and stresses related to those things. This is normal and it will happen.

The one person who should not be stressed is the 'tog - they've been there many times, done that (and done it well) and they know what to do and when and how to gently steer a b&g. This more than anything is the main skill of wedding photographer - to manage the flo of the day and direct the events, to see that that what should happen does happen. As Gary has said, many of the images are formulaic just requiring suitable tools and a mastery of them to cope with adverse lighting or timing.

So to answer your queston about how to avoid being Bridezilla - get a good 'tog who has a good rapport with you, understands your requirements and know how to smile and how to make you smile. The 'artistry' of a wedding 'tog is not what will provide the best memories and images.

[gstark]

Wedding photography rarely comes from the heart. It is formulaic, and it is not art.

Exactly. I am in the year of weddings, being at that age where many friends are all rushing to get the ring and the thumbprint on the forehead (for the guys).

Point of order, Ian.

You're in Tassie. Aren't balls and chains the order of the day?

Said "pro" also didn't take many images during the reception to the disgust of the B&G.

Failed to follow the formula? Death by a thousand bridezillas!

[kalindriel]

Ah, I think I see the problem.

Mr Stark, you seem to be having an argument with yourself. It is vitally important if you want to have a meaningful argument, to actually engage with what the other party is saying. You don't seem to be doing this. So, i conclude that we actually agree, but are having a breakdown in communications.

I gave you a definition of what I meant when I used the term business man. I didnt mean someone who is very good at making lots of money, and taking calculated financial risks to pay off. I defined the term as being - and I apologise for my unsophistocated phrasing - the best photographer. I see you trying to warp my argument to refer to the best "business man" or reducing 'technical' to the point where you are suggesting that I mean the person who has read the manual best. You have to know that this bears no relation to what I actually said.

I can imagine that you are about to jump off your tree to argue that 'best photographer' is a subjective thing and beauty is in the eye of the beholder and before you do, take a breath. Try and import my meaning to the words, rather than running to the dictionary and being pedantic on the literal meaning.

Can I take back the word 'artist' and 'business man' and "technical" and say instead, "the one who's work i liked best"? My meaning hasnt changed, but perhaps you won't take such issue with me. I simply dont have the vocabulary to have this kind of discussion in terms of exposures and shutter speeds and.... i dont know. Framing?

For the record, the only difference i see between a problem of terminology and an problem of definition is perspective. If i use the word wrong, its a terminology problem. If you take the wrong meaning from my word its definitional. Same problem. (but maybe i have misdefined your terminology here too...) I suspect that you know this and ARE just being argumentative for fun. Just like my Dad.

I dont think I agree with your definition of art, (or that for some cruel reason you exclude Ms Minogue ) But MILLIONS of words have been spent on that subject and no one really agrees. And I see the distinction you are trying to make between Artist and Craftsperson, and I think really its about what you call yourself rather than what others call you. I know plenty of ceramic handbuilders who call themselves artists, and plenty of other who would only call themselves craftspeople.
Though... if you were painting a portrait of the sitting PM, could the result end up as art? Surely not. What about a garment. Can fashion be art? Isnt there a certain formula with fasion, bits it must cover etc. Anway, I am happy to quietly (or not so quietly) agree with you in practice, even if you take issue with my expression.

Thankyou by the way, for dispelling all my naive preconceptions that the wedding photographer was not engaged in a commercial exercise, and that my wedding photographs would be a true opportunity for a tog to get creative with his/her camera. Its lucky you spotted that bubble and burst it before it got any bigger. We brides to be are so wrapped up in the magic of our moment, its very easy for us to forget that there are some people out there who use our weddings as money making opportunities. Not.

K.

[gstark]

So, i conclude that we actually agree, but are having a breakdown in communications.

Probably, but, with respect, possibly because the business of photography is something that is very complex, and a mixture of a number of very diverse disciplines.

I gave you a definition of what I meant when I used the term business man. I didnt mean someone who is very good at making lots of money, and taking calculated financial risks to pay off.

Sorry, but business is business is business is business is business.

A business - regardless of what the business may do - exists to make a profit for its owners. You engage a good business man to run a successful business.

I defined the term as being - and I apologise for my unsophistocated phrasing - the best photographer.

I truly have no concept whatsoever of what that term - best photographer - might mean. Now, please forgive me: I'm a qualified accountant, and I've only been involved in photography for about 30 years, so yes, I'm still very much a beginner, so please describe to me exactly what this term means to you.

Please refer to my earlier comments about the business of photography being very complex. As I've said, the business side is very important, and a photographic business needs to be run ... as a business. Fail to do that, and your photographic business - your business of any type - will fail.

Next you need to know photography. How to use a camera. Cameras, actually. You should have several. That's technical. Very technical, and it requires some fairly advanced understanding of applied mathematics.

You need to know how to operate your camera under extremely high pressure situations: there are few photographic tasks that are higher pressure than wedding photography, in fact: what happens if the 'tog fails to get the images? A reshoot is out of the question. It must be done right, first time, every time.

You need to be able to think fast, on your feet. Something breaks on the camera: what do you do?

None of which has anything to do with the quality and nature of the images captured. Anyone can grab a camera and make a well exposed image. Anyone. That's kids' stuff these days.

Posing, composition, use of light ... Now we're talking about stuff that separates the photographers from your Aunt Bessie.

Getting back to my question to you: which set of talents, and to what extent, do you believe one needs in order to be the "best photographer"?

I see you trying to warp my argument to refer to the best "business man" or reducing 'technical' to the point where you are suggesting that I mean the person who has read the manual best. You have to know that this bears no relation to what I actually said.

No, I am warping nothing. I am merely trying to understand what you are trying to say. I have 30 or so years of experience with cameras in my hand. I have a certain level of competence in a number of areas, but I would never dare to suggest that I'm even a good photographer, let alone something beyond good.

I really don't know how one can be classified as such. That's with my level of experience and expertise.

You are trying to describe something to me; perhaps defining a concept. I am not understanding your terms, but that's not a failing in your communications. I think it's perhaps because you don't have a full appreciation for what's actually involved.

And that is not a failing in you either: as I am trying very hard to illustrate, the business of photography is a very complex one. Way more complex than most give it credit for.

I can imagine that you are about to jump off your tree to argue that 'best photographer' is a subjective thing and beauty is in the eye of the beholder and before you do, take a breath. Try and import my meaning to the words, rather than running to the dictionary and being pedantic on the literal meaning.

Me??

In a tree???

ROTFLMAO!

There's a concept to make the mind boggle.

Please, again, simply read my words. Try to tell me what a "best photographer" is.

Please.

Can I take back the word 'artist' and 'business man' and "technical" and say instead, "the one who's work i liked best"? My meaning hasnt changed, but perhaps you won't take such issue with me. I simply dont have the vocabulary to have this kind of discussion in terms of exposures and shutter speeds and.... i dont know. Framing?

Ok ... now you're starting to make - to me - more sense. "the one whose work I like best" is a valid and reasonable concept.

To that you might also like to add something along the lines of "somebody with whom I have a connection".

Let me illustrate this concept: your fiance, and your best girlfriend. I'll be willing to bet that you have a great rapport with both of those people. The relationship is natural, casual, and perhaps in some respects almost telepathic: you finish sentences for your fiance, or your best girlfriend maybe finishes your sentences for you.

Contrast that with the last parking cop who wrote you a ticket because you overstayed in a parking spot by just three minutes. How unfair was that? How uncomfortable were you discussing that with him?

There will be a relationship between yourself and your chosen 'tog. Of the two extremes that I've just illustrated, which do you think would be the one to have?

I suspect that you know this and ARE just being argumentative for fun. Just like my Dad.

Me??

Heaven forfend!

I dont think I agree with your definition of art, (or that for some cruel reason you exclude Ms Minogue )

But I have not set out to define art. I never have, and I never will.

All that I have said is that wedding photography is not art.

Regarding Ms Minogue ... please do not make the mistake of confusing popularity with quality. I readily accept that she is popular.

I see the distinction you are trying to make between Artist and Craftsperson, and I think really its about what you call yourself rather than what others call you.

This is a different argument again, and is one that one needs to be very wary of. Your point is almost the same as saying "I saw it on the internet so it must be true". Nothing could be further from the truth. Many people believe their own publicity. I am wary of self-generated statements of any kind, and prefer to use peer review as a source of reference.

Though... if you were painting a portrait of the sitting PM, could the result end up as art? Surely not.

I have already stated that this could well be considered art.

But the question that I believe I have raised is not "what is art?", but "is wedding photography art?".

And that is more correctly the subject of a different thread.

[Matt. K]

Mr Darcy
I think Wanaka is mis-spelt in relation to this photographer. Tell you daughter to find someone else. Gary is spot on with his comments.

[who]

Point of order, Ian.

You're in Tassie. Aren't balls and chains the order of the day?

Ha ha ha except im on a leave pass to sunny qld. And posting on a n 95

Failed to follow the formula? Death by a thousand bridezillas!

That was a tas wedding so the tog was probably related.

[gstark]

And posting on a n 95

Which is how you know you're in Queensland, right?

[who]

And posting on a n 95

Which is how you know you're in Queensland, right?

Nope, the slight difference in temperatures is how I know

As is the fact I don't have to attend work everyday. As is the fact I have to deal with traffic whenever I go anywhere.

Just a lot slower and harder work to post from the N95.

[surenj]

The airfares to NZ are not that expensive...... depending on what you have been quoted, it may be in the realms of possibility to
"export" a local guy to do the shoot for you.....

There are a considerable number of more than capable 'togs on the site here......

I know a friend who 'exported' a wedding tog - 12 hour flight - $2000 ticket. He is not that rich either...