? for those who know a little bit about photography.

[Stephen J. Williams]

Well we all know the challenges that we face when working with photogs...
Yesterday we were forced to take some shots after the wedding during sunset.
I set up my camera to work with little light. We were already pressured on time so I knew that I wasn't going to be able to set any of the shots up that I wanted.
The thing that really p***** me off was when the photog told me I couldn't use my video light.
I was a little taken back by it since I have never had one tell me this before... Regardless of the conditions.
A flash from a speed light would definitely overpower my 25w bulb.

Well as you could guess this was absolute suicide for me....

I'm a very friendly guy to work with. I know that the most difficult part is breaking the ice with the photog. I cater to almost all of their needs and sometimes get taken advantage of by them. I'm kind of getting tired of it. This it for me...

Is there any reason why she wouldn't have been able to work around my light?

Steve

[Dave Blackhurst]

When shooting with my wife (who's shooting stills), the only thing we try to avoid is shooting directly into each others lens...

She WANTS me to have fill lighting on - typically if done right it will take some load off the photogs flash rig. I don't know what sort of flash setup your photog had, but unless she was shooting multi-flash with umbrellas, she should have been thrilled to have a little "fill" available, and directed you a bit to enhance her shots... although a single 25W is not going to add a lot, if diffused and/or properly directed it could help eliminate shadows.

The only other potential issue would be white balance, and I can see where a secondary light source that isn't a good match for the still flash could create a problem.

[Stephen J. Williams]

I was thinking possibly white balance as well... but outside it shouldn't have been a huge problem. She did have a multifalsh setup with 2 I believe... No umbrellas or diffusing of any type.

I have been in the same situation before... Same time during sunset with a multiflash setup with umbrellas with other photogs.... None of them even mentioned it could be a problem.

If anything I would think a little extra light could help focus in on a subject.

[Don Bloom]

IMO this was more a control issue than technical. Having BEEN a photog for many years before joining the video world AND having worked with many many many photos, old and new it I have never had a problem with anyone and my light especially now with my LED and since it's on'y 25W it's never a problem.

My answer to this photog would have been simply, "we both have a job to do-if you can't do yours because of my little light, why not go home."
IOW, go away don't bother me cause you WILL not run the show.
I get more than a bit annoyedwhen ANYONE tries that with me and since I'm THAT kind of guy, I WILL say something and might not be too nice about it BUT since something like that only happens once in a blue moon, don't worry about move on.

[Shaun Roemich]

Throw it back at him/her: your flash is messing up my shots. Please stop.

<tongue planted FIRMLY in cheek>

You are correct - his/her speedlight will blow away your on camera light and therefore, it's not an issue.

[Lukas Siewior]

Agree with others - She doesn't need flash as well - set shutter for a longer time :-) Or should told her, that you'll do your stuff first, then she can take over later.

[Stephen J. Williams]

Thanks guys for the input...

This is the kind of thing that throws me off of my game... I wrote her an email the day before the wedding letting her know that I was looking forward to working with her again (all though the first time wasn't a real treat either).
I went to the rehearsal and snapped a few photos for planning purposes. I hooked her up with those same photos in the email I sent to her. I knew that she probably wouldn't need to even look at them, but it's the thought that counts. She didn't write me back or anything.

Right now I'm just venting. The shots that I did manage to get my light on without fear of persecution looked great... Perfect exposure of the background with the sun setting and the faces of the subject. But these shots are few and far between.

Uhhggg.. I wish I had the oportunity to confront her and ask her her reasoning behind killing my shots (without the light). I agree 100% with everyone on this thread and couldn't come up with a solid reason why she couldn't have it on.

While most Photogs in my area are a huge pleasure to work with.. I know in the future that this one is not. I kept her well informed with what i was doing/wanted to do only not to see the same favors in return.

Thanks everyone for listening to me vent a little...

Steve

[Daniel Bates]

I help moderate a photography forum in my spare time, and you should see some of the rants photographers have about wedding videographers.

It goes both ways...

[Oren Arieli]

Unless that photographer was 'dragging the shutter', your light wouldn't have made a whit of difference compared to his flash. However, if he was going for a slow-sync exposure (and possibly not using his flash), then the accumulated exposure of your light over 1/15 or 1/8th of a second would register on the exposure. As a professional, he should have explained what he was going for..or barring that shut up and shoot. We're both there for the same reason, get good shots and make the couple happy. Its a shame that some people don't 'play nice' with others.

[Noel Lising]

Maybe he wants a silhoutte? But that's no excuse, he can let you take your shot before proceeding with his.

[Stephen J. Williams]

I'm definatly looking forward to seeing how the pics came out... I don't think she was going for a silhouette shot (even though I really wanted one)... All of this was for family photo's and photo's of the bridal party. Nothing fancy was being set up.
I also don't think she was shooting with a super slow shutter speed. She would have overexposed the sunset if that was the case.
I really don't get it. Maybe she liked the idea of being "power happy" and treating me like a second rate citizen.

[Lukas Siewior]

Stephen, looks like she wanted treat you like that from the day before already - lack of response for your emails should already set the tone to this event.

All you could do in such situations is confront the photog about the request, and/or inform B&G that you'll not be able to document certain parts of the day due to photog's disagreement. From what you said there was no logical explanation why you couldn't do it.

BTW: wonder what would happen if you kept on going with the light - you could always say - "I'm working here too - like it or not - my video is equally important for B&G as your photos."

[Philip Howells]

Originally Posted by Daniel Bates

I help moderate a photography forum in my spare time, and you should see some of the rants photographers have about wedding videographers.

It goes both ways...

Daniel I'd really like to hear some of this.

Nothing about you personally Daniel, but wedding photographers in my experience generally are the pits. They regard themselves as omnipotent, the majordomos of the event, shouting and organising like they're the reason everyone's there, not the bride and groom.

I've never seen or heard of a professional video person being thrown out of a church; I have seen a photographer told to leave. The video people are invariably static, tripod mounted and silent. Their technology demands it. In contrast, the modern digital photographers, freed of the sensible constraints of film, fire away like machine guns with unnecessarily noisy cameras, walking around regardless of the sanctity of the ceremony, often standing on chairs, pews etc to "get their shot".

They turn up dressed to stand out not, as we, to blend in - both our male cameramen wear Morning Dress if the groom is - that's the extent to which we're prepared to go.

Of course there are exceptions - I copied the Morning Dress thing from a pal who's a long time photographer, but generally most of them think they're jostling for a snap of some politician or a goal at a football match not recording a serious occasion with a number of solemn moments.

So, Daniel, of course I'm biased, but if I'm also completely wrong and biased and need correction, please do it. My own view is that there's a place for both disciplines at a wedding but photography is 19th century technology and only has a place.

Finally to Stephen - I think I'd have found something for the subjects to do and/or say so you could have had your own, illuminated, moment with them after the photographer had snapped their pictures and to Lukas - the one thing I would never do is to row with another supplier in front of the client, sorry.

[Jim Snow]

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

the one thing I would never do is to row with another supplier in front of the client, sorry.

Fortunately most photographers are reasonable to work with and a few are a pleasure but one way to deal with a really difficult photographer is to have a private word with the bride's father. Most father's are protective of their daughter and don't want anything to spoil her wedding day. There is a very good chance that he is the one who is paying the photographer which gives him considerable influence. But even this should be used as a last resort. It can cause problems instead - especially if the father has had too much to drink. The best first course is to do your best to work around the problem photographer. The minute you open your mouth is when things can start to become unpredictable - and blow up in your face.

[Tim Polster]

Stephen,

I have to wonder how much a 25 watt light used outdoors from a distance would have helped out anyway?

Was this the B&G or the entire wedding party?

If it is the wedding party you would be standing back 10 or so feet?

Also, what type of color temp light were you using 3200 or 5600?

True, photography science would tell us your light would not impact the scene, but maybe the photographer did not know your light was only 25w?

Or maybe some of the shots were going to be higher ISO to match the lower evening ambient light along with a large aperature for shallow DOF.

This would bring out less power from the strobes as the camera is not needing as much light.

Or maybe the photog just did not want to take any chances or even mess with it.

Were these the only formal portaits or extra photos?

Just exploring the devils advocate to see if there was a real reason or just ignorance involved.

A quick test is to have your light on the subject and have the photog shoot a photo without the strobes firing and see if the subjects show up. (looking at the LCD) If for some reason they do, your light is having an impact.