I read a report on another forum about a photographer who was so upset with the videographer's 5D and 7D cameras that he walked off the job accusing the videographer of taking photos. Have you ever encountered this?

have to say that to me THAT sounds more like and ego problem than a picture problem. Perhaps the photogs name was Prima Donna.

He probably had "Lens Envy".

I always make sure I talk to the photographer and explain that we're only there for video - no photos - and that I have no reason to take photos because that's what they are being paid for and I'm being paid for video.

Yeah but when you walk in with the same or better gear than the photog and that photog has lens envy, is a prima donna or just has a self esteem problem they will always feel threatened that you're doing stills while doing video with your new HDSLR. Whether you are or not isn't the point the threat is there in the photographers mind and that's all that he/she sees or thinks about.

Regardless, I always talk to the photogs as well but since I'm not shooting HDSLRs and I've been working with a lot of the same folks for at least the last 10 years we're more likely to really help each other out than worry about who's shooting what.

Jim,

I absolutely had this problem with a photog last summer when we met at the rehearsal. He saw the 5d and started blaming me for the couple reducing their package from 6k to 3k. He actually said he didn't want me covering the photo shoot with the camera (5d), so I agreed to use my XL H1 only for that part.

Whenever I read reports like these I am more firmly convinced that the future prospects for still wedding photographers are severely time-limited and that the complainants recognise this.

What will they do when video cameras have such high spec imaging devices that the couple can choose from any of 25/30 pictures a second to have enlarged to any size they wish?

I think the main difference will remain in the lighting. Photographers usually light with strobe, but they only have to light for an instant. of course, video requires a longer duration.

As a photographer, I would not be intimated by someone showing up with better gear than me. It actually happens more often than I'd like to admit. The difference is usually in their knowledge of lighting. Even if they have an external flash, it's aimed right at the subject so they achieve that nice deer-in-the-headlights look, all the while chuckling at me for not having my flash aimed straight ahead (I usually bounce the flash or light off-camera or a combo)..

It boils down to this: as long as the folks with the DSLRs are not shooting over my shoulder, firing off my strobes with their own Pocket Wizards, it's all good!

Here's another question: as a videographer, would you be intimidated by a photographer showing up with a video rig?

I look forward to an affordable 'super cam' that will adequately fill both requirements for still and motion. It should level the playing field quite nicely, but I don't see how it will eliminate the need for two distinct approaches to coverage

photographer who was so upset with the videographer's 5D and 7D cameras that he walked off the job accusing the videographer of taking photos. Have you ever encountered this?
It is absolutely unprofessional and irresponsible to walk away from the job, looks like the guy is working hard on destroying his own business. Mistakes like this can cost you years of your company reputation recovery; and I know examples here in Toronto when people lost about 75% of their jobs after one big screwdup.
I always make sure I talk to the photographer and explain that we're only there for video - no photos - and that I have no reason to take photos because that's what they are being paid for and I'm being paid for video.Same here, and even when family members seeing me with photo camera ask me to take a picture I never do that, even though 80% of the cases my equipment is more advanced, , I politely explain them that I am a 'video guy' and refer them to photographer.
photog last summer when we met at the rehearsal. He saw the 5d and started blaming me for the couple reducing their package from 6k to 3k. He actually said he didn't want me covering the photo shoot with the camera (5d), so I agreed to use my XL H1 only for that part.Never happened to me, but that would be very interesting discussion with photographer about what equipment I should and shouldn’t use in my production, I use one or another camera because i think it is more appropriate for the situation and to get a shot that i need, and not because photographer want, or doesn't want me to use itWhat will they do when video cameras have such high spec imaging devices that the couple can choose from any of 25/30 pictures a second to have enlarged to any size they wish?Theoretically, I believe it'll be possible soon, but not without photography background and deep photoshop knowledge, a lot of 'magic' is done in postHere's another question: as a videographer, would you be intimidated by a photographer showing up with a video rig?
No. Equipment i use is good, but sometimes I work with photographer that brings RED along with his Nikons and Canons; last summer big Indian wedding he had 2 REDs on set, and he is not just a guy with expensive camera, to make things worse, being amazing photographer he is miles better camera man than I am, but I just do the best I can and if there is an opportunity to learn - I always try not to miss it.
sorry for such a long and messy post:)

But most importantly i wanted to thank everyone in the community for invaluable knowledge I find every time on this forum pages,
and wish to everyone Very Very Merry Merry Christmas and Happy 2011 season!

I

Here's another question: as a videographer, would you be intimidated by a photographer showing up with a video rig?


IMO, this scenario can not be reversed . we all know that videos are the ones catching up in terms of bride's priority, prices, and quality relative to photography.

the reason why photographers are intimidated because they are not used to it yet. i.e. dslrs, glidecams, sliders and cranes on a wedding. Ones they do, I think we can all work together as a team instead of competing.
Merry Xmas!

Jim,

I absolutely had this problem with a photog last summer when we met at the rehearsal. He saw the 5d and started blaming me for the couple reducing their package from 6k to 3k. He actually said he didn't want me covering the photo shoot with the camera (5d), so I agreed to use my XL H1 only for that part.

You let the photographer determine which equipment you used?? I'd tell him to kiss my...

sounds like the photographer is being too in-confidence in his photography skill and knowledge.

By the same token, similar thing happened to me not too long ago. I was the videographer for a wedding, but sometime I do take pictures during the wedding even through I was only paid for the video job. But the photographer came up to me and insist that he is the only photographer for the wedding and I do not have permission to take pictures, and if I want to use his picture, he can give it to me with his logo on it. I just laughed at it and said sure, whatever.

The funny thing is that almost half of the guest have their dslr or powershot taking pictures. Well, but what bother me is that while I was following the couple's limo to a picture site, I was waiting outside the limo so I can capture that moment. However, the photographer was inside using his 5d filming the wedding party dancing in the limo. I was quite upset but I didn't say anything because he was using a 70-200 zoom lens on a tripod. Even for a Limo, the 70-200 is over kill in such a tight space, all he could capture is the couple. Fortunately I have two cameras ready, one with Tokina 11-16 and Canon 16-35 on a crop.

On the other hand, thinking from his perspective, he was just doing his job and trying to make the best of it. Also, while many people know how to take pictures, but for video, not everyone has the time and patient to edit the footage. And there is no reason for me to make him an enemy.

But honestly, sometime photographers are quite difficult to work with even through their job is usually a lot easier and more mobile. Many times they have no idea if they are blocking and standing in front of the camera for mins.

The key with this situation, as always, is communication. If you're going to be working with a photographer you haven't worked with before, then a quick call to them before the wedding can solve all sorts of issues. I've been advocating this approach for years. It's an effective and professional approach and will make your life so much easier on the wedding day.

As for any situation where a photographer was threatening to leave or refusing to allow me to cover any portion of the day or attempting to dictate what equipment I could or couldn't use ... let's just say that would not happen. Extend a professional hand to other vendors but do not allow them to walk over you.

The key with this situation, as always, is communication. If you're going to be working with a photographer you haven't worked with before, then a quick call to them before the wedding can solve all sorts of issues. I've been advocating this approach for years. It's an effective and professional approach and will make your life so much easier on the wedding day.

As for any situation where a photographer was threatening to leave or refusing to allow me to cover any portion of the day or attempting to dictate what equipment I could or couldn't use ... let's just say that would not happen. Extend a professional hand to other vendors but do not allow them to walk over you.

Travis hit the nail on the head.

At the start of each wedding i make a point of introducing myself to the tog and explaining the fact im using dlsr for video, reactions vary, but I've only had one make a fuss

(he later apologised stating the previous wedding's videographer had an assistant who was taking stills with a dslr and later tried to sell an album to the B&G)

I know about 70% of the togs in market now, but I still bump into the odd one I've never met.

A bit of a pet peeve of mine, the tog NEVER makes the effort to come and introduce him/herself to me, NEVER.

I've experimented a few times and held back my instincts to go and say hello first, thinking they'll eventually make the effort, how naive i was.

And I'm a pleasant, approachable guy!

I believe the pendulum will swing as far as the standing of the videographer versus the photographer as the quality of video work continues to improve. As more and more people recognize this, things will change. Unfortunately there will be some who will wake and say, "What happened" as reality soaks in.

Weddings are just a small part of what I do but I am really looking to add the photography component when booking. That is, work with a regular photog or two and offer a package deal. Otherwise we will keep banging into each other, even though I really do get along with most of them. But I have noticed a big change when I show up with a DSLR vs. a traditional video camera.

In my case, I told the B&G about the incident, and they told me that they wished that they hadn't booked the photog at all.

Most photogs biggest threats come from their own kind. I was at a Bridal show last year where practically every second booth was a photog. One photog had a deal of $899 for a wedding package including an engagement shoot. As one hi-end photog told me, that's not sustainable. But with the digital revolution comes change. A semi-pro can blast off 2,000 shots and is bound to get a few good ones.

I was one of only two video guys at each bridal show I attended, and my best advertising came from the poor quality of the other guys work.

Ken, my experience with bridal shows is that those photographers at every other booth meet with a bride before me and they usually offer video or have someone they refer...so do the DJs. So, you may think you are 1 of 2 videographers at the bridal show, when in reality there are possibly 10 vendors offering video.

the tog NEVER makes the effort to come and introduce him/herself to me, NEVER.
I've experimented a few times and held back my instincts to go and say hello first, thinking they'll eventually make the effort, how naive i was.
And I'm a pleasant, approachable guy!
That's strange, but i noticed that too, I am always introduce myself first,
I also would like to think that I am pleasant and approachable :)

I shot a wedding last September and it was actually the reverse for me. I had 2 photogs with the 5d, one was shooting videos and one was doing stills. Did I walk-out and feel threatened? No. They were kind enough to ask permission. I guess that is the key, communication. Have to agree some people are prima donnas. These 2 photogs are award winning photographers from what I gathered and they have no sense of "royalty" whatsoever.

My 2 cents. Merry Christmas everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Strange
the tog NEVER makes the effort to come and introduce him/herself to me, NEVER.
I've experimented a few times and held back my instincts to go and say hello first, thinking they'll eventually make the effort, how naive i was.
And I'm a pleasant, approachable guy!

That's strange, but i noticed that too, I am always introduce myself first,
I also would like to think that I am pleasant and approachable :)


I'm always the first to introduce myself too. This past wedding season, I finally held out and waited for the photog to say Hi first..it took him about 1/2 hour at the brides house before he finally did.

I read a report on another forum about a photographer who was so upset with the videographer's 5D and 7D cameras that he walked off the job accusing the videographer of taking photos. Have you ever encountered this?

But I did have a photog turn up to a client meeting telling me he was going to mount a video camera on legs in a location where I told the client I would stand. He told me not to worry (not even thinking about my location space) and said I can edit and add music to mine.

I told the client they already had someone to shoot their video and left.

I still get photogs calling me "love" (to many older people here in the UK it's a term of endearment, but it's a term often used to patronise). So I kindly ask them to call me Claire Love.

It's getting pretty clear that "imaging" should be done by one vendor. Especially with the increasing ability to extract high quality stills from video.

One problem the photog has is that many still have an undetermined profit based on sales of proofs. If he's nervous about money he may believe that the better job the video guy does, the less he will sell. That thinking is not necessarily rational, but people can get strange about money.

I believe one can hope for cordial relations with other vendors, but should expect professionalism.

I have not read every reply here but will chime in anyways.

I am a photographer who does some basic video, since there are no videographers with in an hour of us, so I have LOTS of experience in photography, a little in video.

Photographers make their living selling images, and just like the video guys have a lot of stress on a wedding day.

I have worked both as a photographer only, with a video crew, and as video only with another photographer. Communication saves so much trouble, just mention you only need a few shots for menus and covers.

As far as equipment goes, dont think because you have prime lenses you are better. Do your cameras write to two cards at once? If you walk into a restaurant with an expensive apron and chefs knife can you cook better than the chef?

I have been noticing DJ's getting into the game now, started taking stills to add to their DJ business, now with a 5D II, adding video.

Imagine how you would feel walking into a reception and having a dj set up with a couple 5d II's on video tripods. Thats how photographers feel until some sort of communication is established. They should be fine as soon as they realize what your doing.

As the market gets flooded with lower priced electronics, professionals will be a little edgy trying to protect their profession.

Our contracts states we are to be the only photographer taking pictures. We have never stopped guests from taking pictures but 1 time in 8 years told a DJ if he did not stop we would sit down until he was finished, pulled out a contract that was signed by the bride so he could see for himself. I explained he would be responsible to provide professional images if he got in our way again. I had many photos of his bald head between us and the bride and groom.

Our contracts states we are to be the only photographer taking pictures. We have never stopped guests from taking pictures but 1 time in 8 years told a DJ if he did not stop we would sit down until he was finished, pulled out a contract that was signed by the bride so he could see for himself. I explained he would be responsible to provide professional images if he got in our way again. I had many photos of his bald head between us and the bride and groom.[/QUOTE]

hey Denny. Now with DJ's taking photos, the videographers job is even more difficult. I've had 2 DJ photographers and 2 regular photographers on the dance floor at one time with me being the only video. Honestly, I don't know why the photographer even needs two people for the dancing that takes place later on in the night.

The need for 2 photographers becomes more important as more guests and DJ's take positions during the reception. It becomes more and more difficult to get clear shots of the bride and groom. I just love it when the DJ announces part way through the first dance the cake cutting is next and to go get a good spot for pictures.

We know that the bride does not care to hear that someone stood in front of us (both photog and videographer) They only care that they get the shot.

I mean for real, point and shoot cameras, and cameras with on camera flash step in front of you when you have off camera lighting setup and clearly were hired to do a job.

Its probably going to come down to enforcing the contracts.

as far as why 2 photographers to take pictures during the dancing, its usually due to not wanting to just sit around. Hard to have DJ's shooting, to videographers shooting and having one of your crew just sitting. I always tell them to at least look like your taking pictures, but hard to just stand and hold a camera.

Again I have been on both sides, and both sides can stink, or it can be a fun experience for both. Even have done some video of the photogs working for their websites and taken some stills of the videographers for their marketing. I go by the golden rule, "Play Nice"

I just love it when the DJ announces part way through the first dance the cake cutting is next and to go get a good spot for pictures.

We know that the bride does not care to hear that someone stood in front of us (both photog and videographer) They only care that they get the shot.



I always brace myself when the DJ says that because I know I'm going to get hammered. I recently was shooting the cake cutting and a small but determined lady plowed right into me as I was shooting the B&G feeding each other the cake. So right at the wrong moment, there is a big jolt on my video when she plowed into me, She couldn't have cared less that I was the official videographer. The only thing she cared about was her point and shoot camera photo.

That's one of the things that I'm going to add to my list of things to discuss with the DJ prior to the reception. There is NO good reason for him to say this. When a few people jump up and run over by the cake when he says this, it also blocks the view for everyone else in the room. Why does a DJ say this!? Is that the only thing he can think of to say?

I have also had the DJ say a similar thing just before the B&G's grand entrance at the reception. The result is a couple of dozen people rushing over to the door with their beloved point and shoot cameras which blocks the view of the entrance for the photographer, videographer as well as the rest of the guests. Why!?

[
as far as why 2 photographers to take pictures during the dancing, its usually due to not wanting to just sit around. Hard to have DJ's shooting, to videographers shooting and having one of your crew just sitting. I always tell them to at least look like your taking pictures, but hard to just stand and hold a camera.

Hmm..that kinda stinks then because at that point the photographer is making my job more difficult than it has to be. There's some exciting dance footage going on that really makes great video and i'm usually elbow to elbow with a photographer who's photos will never even make the album. Now that I know he's really just there so he's not bored is a little more disturbing.

Hmm..that kinda stinks then because at that point the photographer is making my job more difficult than it has to be. There's some exciting dance footage going on that really makes great video and i'm usually elbow to elbow with a photographer who's photos will never even make the album. Now that I know he's really just there so he's not bored is a little more disturbing.

Well couldn't this be said about using 2 video cameras for the reception also?

If only one photographer and one videographer were working less people getting in the way. Wanting different cuts of the toast is no different than wanting different shots of it for the photographer.

Also, since there is no continuous shooting of stills, a second shooter is the "back up"
For me the second shooter is getting the creative shots, wide angle guests etc, while I get the "Must Have" shots.

Remember for every time you get annoyed with the photographer, there is a good chance they were feeling the same way.

Well couldn't this be said about using 2 video cameras for the reception also?

If only one photographer and one videographer were working less people getting in the way. Wanting different cuts of the toast is no different than wanting different shots of it for the photographer.

Also, since there is no continuous shooting of stills, a second shooter is the "back up"
For me the second shooter is getting the creative shots, wide angle guests etc, while I get the "Must Have" shots.

Remember for every time you get annoyed with the photographer, there is a good chance they were feeling the same way.

This sounds like a justification for having one organization provide both photo and video services. I don't mean one who "also" offers the other service. I'm describing an organization that provides both and gives them equal billing - and skill. That way, these 'issues' are easily resolved because they are just personnel problems with one boss to make the decisions.

There have been times when I realized intuitively that the photographer did not wish me well. Why? Because he feels that the better the video coverage is, the more it crowds his turf. It's human nature. He truly doesn't want to hear later from the B&G how "wonderful" the wedding video is. The real professionals deal with this much better because they are established and have nothing new to prove. Some of these guys are great to work with. It's the 'wanna-be's' that you have to be careful with.

This sounds like a justification for having one organization provide both photo and video services.

Absolutely not, was replying to the post about why a photographer needs two photographers during the dancing.

I have not heard that comment about why have two video cameras going during the dancing.

I like to shoot with two videos cameras during the first dance as well as the father/daughter and mother/son dances for two primary reasons. The first is lighting. With two cameras each with low wattage on-camera lights, each camera is a fill light for the other. I like to position the two cameras on the side of the dance floor usually one on a back corner and the other in the other back corner or along the back side. Out of consideration for the photographer as well as the guests, neither camera moves. There are some great shots that you forgo when you don't move but just how much of a sideshow do the B&G and guests want!? Usually the photographer(s) are circling round and round and round during the entire dances. I don't want to add to this distraction. Four cameras circling round and round a dancing couple is ridiculous - frankly, so is two. It would be great to move around and get some low angle shots, some dutch angle shots and even some flying stabilizer shots but how much is too much? With two cameras as I describe, I can usually cut from one camera to the other and get rid of the circling photographer in part of the footage as well.

I really make an effort to stay out of the way of the photographer. In the above example, I (we) are on the side of the dance floor and we don't move around even at the expense of some great shots. It's less disruptive to the guests and it also minimizes getting in the way of the photographer. All to often, the reverse is not true. For example, at the last wedding I shot, I was asked to be sure to get the limo departure shot from the church. But what happened!? As soon as the couple approached the limo, the photographer positioned himself between me and the couple. Then, when they got into the limo, he jumped into the front seat and started taking pictures of them in the back seat. And if that wasn't enough, as soon as the limo started to pull out of the parking lot, he pulled his car between me and the limo. Am I supposed to like that? Is that OK? Absolutely not. If it were a single organization providing both photography and video services, that sort of stuff could be controlled much better. I'm telling you, some of the blocking of shots is deliberate.

Jim, I agree with you.

When we are doing photography we stay on the same side as the video cameras so we are not in the shot, we do not want to be in the video, we also realize how bad it looks to be blasting away with flash. I often use the video light for my lighting so I can shoot with out flash and the music keeps the camera shutter from being heard.

I feel that it very unprofessional to have an issue with other vendors at the wedding. Its always common sense, or lack of.

I also agree some intrusions are intentional, this is why regardless of doing video or photography you like having a second camera.

When doing video, and going down to one camera for just the dancing and as the night is winding down, I hate it when 1 or 2 people decide to get RIGHT in front of the camera and act like they can dance. I often turn the LCD around so they can see whats being recorded, sometimes it helps, sometimes it makes it worse. Times like this I would love a POWERFUL light and just blast them with it.

Thanks Denny. I'm sure it would be a pleasure to work with you. You wouldn't believe some of the things I see and I'm sure you have made similar observations.

Thanks Denny. I'm sure it would be a pleasure to work with you. You wouldn't believe some of the things I see and I'm sure you have made similar observations.

Oh I know, I guess being on both sides helps but I was always respectful before doing video.

I deal with Video wanabees too, trying to do flying with a tiny handicam, laying on the ground, circling the b&g on the first dance etc But after all these years have learned to expect anything and realize thats why they are never going to be professional, they just do not have a clue.

Well couldn't this be said about using 2 video cameras for the reception also?

If only one photographer and one videographer were working less people getting in the way. Wanting different cuts of the toast is no different than wanting different shots of it for the photographer.

Also, since there is no continuous shooting of stills, a second shooter is the "back up"
For me the second shooter is getting the creative shots, wide angle guests etc, while I get the "Must Have" shots.

Remember for every time you get annoyed with the photographer, there is a good chance they were feeling the same way.

Denny, I agree..no need for 2 videographers during the dancing part of the reception. After the Best Man's toast, the other videographer can leave. ( I personally shoot one videographer all day..by myself). I'm really just talking the last hour or so of the reception, where the photographer is taking "another" photo of people dancing and that photo doesn't look much different than one he took 2 hours earlier. With video, it's different because we are recording audio so you know it's a different song that people are dancing too.

Denny, I agree..no need for 2 videographers during the dancing part of the reception. After the Best Man's toast, the other videographer can leave. ( I personally shoot one videographer all day..by myself). I'm really just talking the last hour or so of the reception, where the photographer is taking "another" photo of people dancing and that photo doesn't look much different than one he took 2 hours earlier. With video, it's different because we are recording audio so you know it's a different song that people are dancing too.

Trust me do you think I want to edit more photos after a long wedding, but how do you not keep taking photos when the bride hired you for 10 hours and its only been 9. Its like killing yourself twice, having to hang around watching drunks dance, plus more files to download.

The dollar dance kills me, what a waste of time. I really have thought about putting in my contract we will stay until the dollar dance starts, at least make them do that at the end.

In my area there is a photographer that offers video with his photos for $200. He has a kid with a video camera stand in the back and shoot video. I have seen the videos and they are not worth the $200 he is charging. The problem is the bride has no idea what she is going to get and thinks it is a good deal. I was very tempted to offer photos for $200 with my video package. I can assure you my photo product would be a far better deal than what he is offering with his video. The only reason I did not do it was I got hired to shoot commercials and have not shot a wedding since.

Less is sometimes more. I've done weddings with 3 photographers, 2 videographers, and a DJ who has his own photographer and videographer. All I can say is, the dance floor gets very crowded with everyone on it. At some point, the question has to be asked, "How many different angles does the client need of the cake being cut?".

Chris highlights the issue with photographers/videographers. Too many makes everyone look bad. DSLRs compound the problem because few DSLR shooters are confident shooting live action/non repeatable footage without a back-up cam to hide the focus glitches.

Chris highlights the issue with photographers/videographers. Too many makes everyone look bad. DSLRs compound the problem because few DSLR shooters are confident shooting live action/non repeatable footage without a back-up cam to hide the focus glitches.

I"m a DSLR shooter and I have no idea what you are talking about.

I really make an effort to stay out of the way of the photographer. In the above example, I (we) are on the side of the dance floor and we don't move around even at the expense of some great shots. It's less disruptive to the guests and it also minimizes getting in the way of the photographer. All to often, the reverse is not true. For example, at the last wedding I shot, I was asked to be sure to get the limo departure shot from the church. But what happened!? As soon as the couple approached the limo, the photographer positioned himself between me and the couple. Then, when they got into the limo, he jumped into the front seat and started taking pictures of them in the back seat. And if that wasn't enough, as soon as the limo started to pull out of the parking lot, he pulled his car between me and the limo. Am I supposed to like that? Is that OK? Absolutely not. If it were a single organization providing both photography and video services, that sort of stuff could be controlled much better. I'm telling you, some of the blocking of shots is deliberate.

Jim, I'm with you all the way here. I did a wedding at a catholic church a few months ago and I swear the photographer was deliberately spoiling my shots. Like you, he managed to get himself between me,the car and B&G at every possible moment. If I moved, he moved too.

When he wasn't taking photos of the B&G he went and stood so close to them looking through his shots that it was impossible to get a shot of the B&G without him in it. In the end I had a word with him and his reaction is "I'm here to get photos, I don't give a f... about you, I don't like videos".

As others have said, communication is key - provided you have a corporative photographer! I go out of my way to introduce myself and my team to any photography team that may be shooting. Some are great people, others give you the cold shoulder and try to speak to you as little as possible.

For the first dance I like to set up cameras similar to Jim, 90 degree angles either side of the DJ so we get the benefit of their lights and our lights too. We even get to see the guests in the background watching. I even go as far as to tell the photographer I'm using lights AND what colour temperature those lights are in case they are shooting JPEG instead of RAW and can set their white balance to match.

However, I hate it when the photog runs around the dance floor to try to get a shot (which we already had ;)) only to find they are too late and the couple already moved, so they move again. Arrrrgghhh!!

The other thing that I really hate is when photographers insist in firing off bursts of shots (e.g. a Nikon D3 in fast burst mode) all the way through the vows and exchange of rings (not to mention speeches!). They don't shoot when the celebrant is talking.... nooooo.... that would be too nice to the video guy...... they shoot while the B & G are saying their vows so all I can hear is click-click-click-click-click in the audio track that I want to pull out for the highlights! What I don't understand it why they want shots of the Bride with her mouth open (i.e. while speaking) instead of a smile on her face (while the celebrant is speaking). Friggin' Crazy!

Up until now we've mainly done video for weddings (we do commercial photos). But I've now made the decision that if some one wants the full combined photo/video package I'm no longer going to turn them down like I used to. There ARE some great photographers around me, and I get along with them very well, but I'm so glad when some of the other no so nice ones bug out about 5:30pm (see they even get a shorter working day!) and we are left to capture things without interference.

In terms of cutting the cake, I do feel sorry for the (nice) photogs that end up with shots of the Bride's white dress completely covered in red (or even green!) focus assist bands from people's point & shoot cameras. OTOH I've had a couple of photogs spoil the video completely and then I don't have any sympathy at all ;)