We seem to have this preoccupation that we need to cover everything the photog does - why?

That's not the point, you might not find the photoshoot important but others may, the point is that the photographer decides you cannot be a part of the photoshoot which I find unacceptable. The photoshoot, even if it's called like that, is not the exclusive domain of the photographer, a videographer can demand some time for himself as well because the photoshoot is the only time of the day you can have some private time with the couple to do some staged shots that might matter a lot for your style of shooting.

If the bride is ok with it, I agree with those that say let it go!
I'd agree that when you you first meet the couple and the bride asks you if it's ok for you not to join the shoot as she feels uncomfortable having too many people around then that's something you have to respect, but a photog going around your back to either shut you out of the shoot and determine positions at a ceremony and using the bride to get what they want is just unprofessional and here I would have a harder time letting go.

"*I do though frequently wonder why photographers seem to click away endlessly through the speeches when the couple are highly unlikely to want speech photos in their album or hanging on the wall."

I can answer this as a photographer. Clients feel they are getting their money worth based on the number of photos you take and that you are visibly working during all parts of the wedding even if you know the formals and ceremony are the only ones that really matter. Especially if there's no video it's the photographer's job to chronicle the entire day start to finish.

That's an interesting reply Pete and I can understand that. I also find that if I am filming something and the photographer is sitting down taking a break, he will immediately get up and start taking photos and I tend to do the same if the photographer is working. I suppose that both want to be seen giving maximum value and feel a bit guilty if one is working and the other isn't.

Since the majority of our weddings are now combined video and photography, I find it much easier being in total control and taking what I want when I want and always feel more relaxed not having to work round a photographer.

Roger

I don't do photo shoots - it's not in any of my packages. I do offer it as an option but I explain to the bride that we are better off filming the final preparations of the room, guests having pre dinner drinks etc. - all the things that are happening while they are off having their photos taken - and 99% of the time they are fine with that.

We seem to have this preoccupation that we need to cover everything the photog does - why?

A wedding is 2 people making a commitment if front of friends and family and then celebrating that commitment. that's what we are there to cover. If there was no photographer would they even have a photo shoot?

the photoshoot has traditionally been the domain of the photog - when I got married it was in a studio - locations shoots weren't even mentioned. Now that the location photo shoot is such a big part of the day, the photog has allowed sufficient time to get the shots he needs - he's not thinking about us. While most of us will be professional and work together - the ones that don't will stand out in his mind and create problems for all of us

I don't think it's a preoccupation covering everything the photographer does, it is covering all the basic things that happen during the day. With a modern wedding, romantic shots with just the bride and groom has become a time consuming part of their day and there is absolutely no reason why that should be just the domain of the photographer, any more than any other part of the day. Photography is traditional because it has been around since the mid 1800s, but much of the wedding day carries far more impact now with video and audio than a frozen posed photograph which used to be the only way of capturing a wedding.

Both media styles have an important role to play, but much of what is captured with still photography is stuck in the past based on setting up artificial poses and groups grinning at the camera. As we do both, we are more and more being asked to capture less groups and posed shots and more live action casual stills and video.

Roger

I suppose that both want to be seen giving maximum value and feel a bit guilty if one is working and the other isn't.

I only have experienced it once in all my years of shooting when there was a very long reception and I had more then enough close-ups from guests and shot all the details in the venue so I sat down, had a coke and waited. The bride came up to me at a certain point and said, "could you shoot the people that are present here" and I said "no" and explained to her I already did that and that is was of no use to shoot the same thing again and that I was on standby anyway until something happened.

My opinion is that It's not the quantity that matters but the quality, out of 16-17 hours I"m present I only work when I feel it adds something to the film, never to make the couple believe they are getting their moneys worth. I always sit down and wait in the venue when I have all my obligatory shots and wait until something happens that's worth shooting.

I think the Photographer does have some right even to a small degree to restrict or even ask for the Videographer not to be involved in the couples personal photo shoot. However I think in such cases they should make the effort to ensure we have sufficient time with the couple as well. Trouble is those who are of a mind to make such directives are not going to be so generous as to give us that time.

Such restrictions from the Photographer are not the norm however and most I work with are quite happy for me to tag along. It's frustrating that the directive is from the Photographer but backed by the Bride. So it's one to let go. I think Roger said it best that Video isn't a priority for the couple until after the Wedding and frequently we are sidelined because of it.

Until couples take video seriously and to he honest some do, it's our lot to make the best of being low priority in the eyes of the couple. Moments like this will always come up but I take comfort that as Roger says, our videos will be appreciated more in years to come.

Well i've just come back from the rehearsal (needed to attend as it's a Ukranian wedding so not familiar with the service) and the bride remembered and reassured me that i'd get my 15 minutes alone with them after the meal so it's not too bad

Don't forget to send a email to the photographer that your 'Personal Time' videography you have arranged with the couple is private and taking photo's is strictly not allowed.

Well the wedding came and went (a marathon with a service and speeches lasting 1.5 hours each!!!) and it turns out I've worked with the togs before, it was the first year of doing this so about 7 or 8 years ago and it was a civil partnership with 2 guys. When I started to tag along to film the photoshoot one of the togs asked me not to because the 2 guys wanted it private. I assumed at the time that it was maybe because it was 2 guys or something like that (not that it would matter) but I was naive and this was obviously the togs modus operandi. They remembered me too and we got on OK - I got my 10 minutes which (even though it was raining) is all I needed

All's well that ends well although the long service and speeches means my feet ache a little today

i'm glad all went ok, but this is ridiculous, on the day of nobody can tell, or even ask me what to do or not to do, except for my clients, i.e. bride and groom, or their parents, the rest are - 'excuse me? mind your own business.'

Glad it went ok! Still a weird way for them to operate though, if I'm honest!

Photogs always amuse me when they are taking more pics than they will ever even edit! I have had 2 of them standing either side of my tripod during speeches shooting as fast as the flash could handle it ...During the fairly short speech each must have exposed at least 200 frames. Yep, seems like the more you give the bride the better you are rated. 5000 shots at the reception means you are a killer photographer!

lol. Spray and pray. Years ago I handled logistics for a staff of 30 wedding photographers. They got 10 rolls of 35mm film, except for the occasional large Mexican wedding or quince where they may have been given 15. Our hand loads had about 38 exposures. They usually turned in a few unused rolls.

Hi Jim

That brings back memories ...yep ...10 rolls was about average in the later years of still shooting on film ..before that and using 220 roll film and a 6x9 format camera we used to be able to squeeze 16 shots per roll and quite often would take a little as 50 exposures on the Mamiya but it was almost extravagant when you also took the 35mm cameras out and really go crazy with over 100 frames exposed. We almost had instant preview too ..I used to leave my assistant at the reception and go back to the lab, develop and print the important stuff so guests could order prints before the wedding was even over ..Ah, the good ole days!

Guys, As a former media still shooter I can chime in and help you understand the speeches being overshot. Believe it or not getting a flattering still photo of someone talking into a mic is a very hard shot to get. No one looks good with their pie hole wide open and their tongue showing and of course that is exactly what they are doing. In this digital world with no cost per frame the inexperienced will spray and pray. That is not the right way to get the shot but that is what their doing. Of course they are not going to deliver fifty frames, they are hoping for one or two good ones. The proper way of doing it is to read the speakers "style and body language", that will teach you when you can anticipate the moment when you will be able to get the shot. With video our brains are forgiving of someone speaking because it is a natural thing we do. When you freeze the act of speaking into a single frame the result can be funny, unflattering, or downright disturbing.

And no, that shot is not going to end up in a frame on the wall. But keep in mind it is the job of every "good" photographer to deliver the story of the day. They do it without the benefit of audio. They must get the shot that speaks a thousand words.

On a side note not related to weddings I could always tell a professional presenter, politician, or celebrity. When I would show up squatting in front of the front row a professional would purposely "give me the shot" so I could get the hell out of there. They would pause for a few seconds while looking out at the audience, then look at me in case I wanted eye contact and then continue on. Bam, I would be out of there. The amateur would ignore me and keep on talking non stop so I had no choise but to stay until I thought I had a decent shot. It is not an easy one to get.

As far as a private photo shoot goes I don't think it is wrong if that is what he wants. But in this case his approach to it was harsh and wrong. If I was Peter I would have walked into the situation expecting in advance that the photog was going to be a PIA. That is not the right attitude to go in with, but Peter is a better man than me ;-)

I'm glad it turned out OK for him.

Steve

Hey Chris,

My 220 roll film camera was a Pentax 645. That motorized shutter was like a garage door opening and closing inside the camera!!! But what a thrill it was to lay a transparency that big down on my color balanced light table. Oh yea, the good old days......I would not want to go back to them for anything!!!

Steve