I'm not a professional videographer, wedding or otherwise, but since many of you here are this is the perfect place to ask a question about what I would call "decorum." I was at a wedding recently that employed two photographers and a videographer. It was an Indian wedding, so the ceremony was quite involved and rather long.

Naturally, many of the wedding quests were taking pictures of the event. (I was shooting video.) Or I should say "trying". The problem was that the three pros were doing such a thorough job covering the event that few photos could have been taken that did not include their backsides. They're all over my video shots, certainly. Since they constantly orbited the proceedings (I do understand they need to move around) there was no location where one could avoid them even part of the time. Quite often all three of them would converge to get closeups - and I'm talking a few feet from the wedding couple - and all _anyone_ in the audience saw in those moments was their backsides. (In case you are wondering they did the same thing at the reception to cover the first dance, cake cutting, speeches, etc.)

This behaviour struck me as more than a bit rude. Speaking with other quests at the end, I was not the only one who thought so. I realize that the photos and video they were taking were extremely important to the wedding couple. I'm sure serious money was paid for that service. But when you invite guests to your wedding ceremony you presumably want them to see something of it. Prior to this I had never seen this kind of behaviour from photo/video-graphers at a wedding. They were always far more discreet.

PS. I should also mention that the videographer's technique appeared to be influenced by the Bourne movies. He was almost never standing still while he shot and he did a lot of "zooms" by walking closer or farther away. His motions were for the most part very quick. Quite often I observed him tilting the camera's horizon by tens of degrees. He also tended to stop shooting before the end of defined portions of the ceremony, thus missing what I thought were important parts of them. I am really curious what the final, edited result will be. Since I'm not a professional videographer I can't really judge his technique, but I can say my instinct would not have been to cover that particular event in that particular way.

Hi Alen

We always try to stay "out of the way" but there are situations where you just need to be "in the way" to get the footage that the bride expects!!

With speeches where we are, they are done from the lectern, usually to the side if the bridal table and I have a camera and softbox light set up in the middle of the dance floor so yes, when I'm at that camera, the guests DO see my backside while I'm shooting and the tripod and camera do block some views. I think that most guests do put up with the visual blockage because they do realise that it has to be done and I can only remember one instance where a guest complained about my camera blocking their view.

If you add 2 photographers and 2 videographers to the mix then it does appear to be blocked off for the guests a lot more!! We obviously try to be as unobtrusive as possible but sometimes you just have to block some guest's views and most do understand that you are not doing it to be annoying!!!

Chris

Alen, the best thing you could do would be to find out the names of the photographers and video man and tell everyone you know who's getting married NOT to book them. Just because these hacks take money doesn't make them professional.

There are plenty of people like Chris who don't impose on the wedding.

I don't think Chris was one of them but ask yourself how many cameramen of the scores involved you spotted at the recent Royal Wedding.

...most do understand that you are not doing it to be annoying!!!

"Rude" was probably the wrong word to use. I do realize they don't do it to annoy the guests! They do have to "get the shot." That's what they are paid to do. However in this particular instance I personally think they went overboard and were not giving even a single thought to what everyone was seeing in the process. Or how, by becoming active participants in the proceedings they changed the event (or at least the experience of the event) for everyone else. Akin to how a quantum event is changed by the act of trying to measure it.

Just because these hacks take money doesn't make them professional.
I was being kind. :)

We do our best to keep out of the way but sometimes that backfires badly - guests with cameras video or otherwise can be a giant pain and block shots at the worst moments.

"sorry about missing the kiss after the cake but uncle Joe must have got a great shot, perhaps we could use that?" as the bride looks at the back of Uncle Joes head filling the screen.

I'm beginning to hate iphones that seem to come from nowhere blocking my shot, like the hand moving out into the middle of the isle as the bride walks up.

every Tom, Dick & Harry has a digital camera / video camera and has no concept of 'being in the way' I even had to compete with an 8 years old wielding an throw away instamatic as I circled a couple on their 1st dance with a steadicam.

I had a bridal entry to the reception ruined by relo's with cameras - there were 7 of them standing and shooting away oblivious to the fact that they were blocking both operators.

I now ask the MC and the celebrant to mention that there are professional photographers and videographers employed by the couple and to please let them get the shots they need.

I do however agree that we should not become 'active participants' we are there to record not to intervene.

In 12 months or 2 years the bride & groom & family want to enjoy quality photos and video - that they paid for.

in 3 months the 'snaps' that guest take will have been downloaded, viewed/emailed and deleted.

this is a bit of a rant but gee it pisses me off sometimes.

Hi Paul

I must admit that the MC's I work with will always convey the correct message when prompted..ie: Let the professionals take the cake cutting without interuption and then you guests are more than welcome to take as many shots as you want to.

Normally works quite well but you always get the enthusiastic amateurs that spoil it!! I had two photogs (guests) either side of my camera (and actually blocking my movements at some stages) shooting probably 1 frame every second during a speech ...heaven knows what they were going to do with 200 +++ exposures of someone standing behind a lectern !!!!

I guess it's part of our job to put up with them??? I usually try to cover enthusiastic photogs during the ceremony who are constantly in frame with cutaways but if it becomes too bad, I whisper a gentle warning in their ear and if that doesn't work, I leave them in the frame (and let the bride know that Uncle Joe blocked my field of view almost constantly)

It's the cross we have to bear!!! and as Alen can now see, it's quite often the other way around at weddings where guests are not only in the way of the other guests but also block both video and photo pros!!!

Chris

I was shooting a large Muslim wedding a few weeks ago where none of the three photographers appeared to have a lens longer than 24-70mm so spent the entire time clustered around within a few feet the action. I had a better view than most as I was operating a camera up on a crane from the back but all the guests must have had a very obstructed view. Doubtless the photographs will be great but at the expense of the event.

I try to stay out of the way of the guests as I know how frustrating it can be to have someone suddenly appear in your viewfinder (or LCD screen)...HOWEVER...I am getting paid by the couple to document their day and I WILL get the footage I need to do that and if it takes blocking aunt Sally and keeping her from getting "her" shot so I can get mine, I guess aunt Sally will have to get hers later or not at all.
Don't take this wrong, I am as genial, cordial and easy to work with as anyone and really do try not to block out the guests but when 1/2 the congregation has either a camera phone or some sort of digital camera and without using the common sense they were given at birth I get a bit put off as it were. the same holds for receptions, cutting the cake is by far the worst. It seems that everyone wants to get into the act. I have been blocked by "relatives and friends" enough times over the years to know they aren't being malicous, mean spirited or deliberate they are just being stupid, moronic and downright dumb. They know I am there as well as a professional photog, hell, they've seen us pretty much all day, so it's not like we just suddenly appeared, they have seen us shoot the intros/entrance of the bridal party and bride and groom, and as they (the B&G) make their way to the cake to cut it and the DJ is playing Sugar Sugar by the Archies (I really have a dislike of that song) and the guests crowds around the cake as the photog and I try to elbow our way in to do what we are being paid to do, you bet your bippy I'll do what it takes to get in there including telling the B&G to "STOP" and not in the name of love either. I've had so many people crowd around the cake that I have had to use my drill instructor/ father of 3 voice and make a simple satement..." Make a hole, make it big". People look at me like I'm crazy but folks I have a job to do and by gosh, I'm going to do it. If I get in your way I'm sorry but I think the B&G will be more interested in my footage than the picture you are trying to take with your IPhone, the picture that will never leave your phone, will never get emailed to the B&G, the picture that will die a lonely death in your phone.
So if I get in your way to do my job, lay it off to my time doing news and fighting for position, or the fact that I'm only 5'6" tall and perhaps have a touch of little mans syndrome, or the fact that I'm old and forget to say excuuuuuussssse me everytime I have to move to get a shot and I get in your way or maybe I'm just plain rude. In anycase, get the hell out of my way, I got a job to do.

Evidently this discussion has touched some nerves and what is coming out is not so pretty. Interesting to see so much rage against wedding guests bubbling to the surface. I appreciate that they can be a big PITA. However, in this case the guests did not get in the way of the photographers, or at least only infrequently. In the case of the ceremony everyone was seated, including me. No one could possibly have been in the way of the photographers there. At the reception, again, people taking photos were either seated or standing at the periphery of the dance area - no one was blocking the photographer's shots.

The issue here shouldn't be amateur vs professional. The issue is, rather, as a wedding photo/video-grapher can you get your shots without blocking the audience's views of the event most of the time? This is what happened here. Speaking of the cake cutting, since it has been used as a specific example, I can guarantee you that almost no one saw the actual event. The three photogs were clustered so close all most of the guests would have seen was them. The wedding couple was almost hidden from view. Speaking as a hypothetical _customer_ (been there, done that already) I want you to figure out how to cover my wedding without being a major part of it (sorry, you're not in the wedding party). Yeah, it's what I'm paying you for.

Please understand that first, this type of thing doesn't happen as often as people might think. 25 years ago, yeah because the vidguy was new and a real novelty to most people at a wedding. Today it's a lot better but it does happen and while I really do try to be polite to guests sometimes you just have to take the bull by the horns so to speak. Second, guests do get in the way more at the reception than the ceremony but it does happen and there you have little chance of moving or correcting for it. If anyone thinks it doesn't happen, then you haven't shot a lot of weddings. At the repception for the most part simply asking them to move slightly works if there is no where else for you to go. Thirdly I'm not the big bastard everyone thinks I am, if I were I wouldn't have been around and self employed for 39 years with 27 in video.
However, again I must say that if I do happen to block aunt Sally's shot of whatever, well I'm sorry but that's how it goes sometimes. As for not being a part of the day, well, hells bells man, I AM a part of the day. I've been hired and paid, they know I'm there to do the job THEY want me to do and they know that I am NOT a fly on the wall. AM I obnoxious and interfering? 100% emphatically NO but I am a part of the day, just as the photographer is. Never have people spent more time and energy watching me than the bridal couple. If they want a fly on the wall, then they, the bridal couple, should hire one.
Everyones style is different, what works for me might not and probably wouldn't work for someone else. It's MY style and MY personality so I use it. If people don't want it, hire someone else, a weekend off now and then is kind of nice.

If anyone thinks it doesn't happen, then you haven't shot a lot of weddings. I do not doubt you and I haven't shot _any_ weddings! Actually, I did "shoot" one very recently. The couple hired a photographer but not a videographer. When they heard I would be bringing my camcorder they requested copies of the video. Naturally. Since I wasn't there as an official videographer I was not accorded ANY leeway in terms of blocking, etc. I still managed to record the important bits, although obviously not with the skill that you guys here do. I'm not keen to give the couple copies of the unedited clips. I will have to mount the NLE learning curve (Sony Movie Studio Platinum 10, DVD Architect 5, Soundforge, etc.) and see what I can accomplish. I'm very new at this (although I have shot and edited a couple 10-minute "movies" for a film class back in the days of Super8) so I will no doubt be asking for advice from the experts here and in the other forums from time to time on my journey.

As for not being a part of the day, well, hells bells man, I AM a part of the day. I've been hired and paid, they know I'm there to do the job THEY want me to do and they know that I am NOT a fly on the wall.I think we're agreeing. I said a "major" part of the wedding, and by that I mean my guests should not be looking at your backside ALL of the time during the important bits. You are not the event nor are you even directing it (although in my experience attending weddings photographers do often direct certain portions - "now pause as you take a bite of the wedding cake...got it"). But neither would I expect you to be a fly on the wall. It sounds to me like you strike the right balance, if sometimes it makes your job much tougher. You are to be commended. It's unfortunate that the "pros" at the event I described didn't have your attitude. I should add, just to be clear, that the wedding was still a success and a wonderful experience and I was very honoured to be invited, but it could have been even better.

Hey Alen,
I wasn't aiming at you and sorry if it sounded like I was. You happened to bring up some valid points and I responded as if it was directed to one person and it wasn't. I just felt those points needed to be addressed in a general manner. Again nothing aimed at you or anyone in particular for that matter.

When I shoot the cake cutting, I usually kneel down or get down low so that people behind me can see what's happening.

Alen, the best thing you could do would be to find out the names of the photographers and video man and tell everyone you know who's getting married NOT to book them. Just because these hacks take money doesn't make them professional.

There are plenty of people like Chris who don't impose on the wedding.

I don't think Chris was one of them but ask yourself how many cameramen of the scores involved you spotted at the recent Royal Wedding.

Unlike the Royal Wedding, here in the States the guests hold their cell phones in the aisle to take photos. The guests here would block many of those Royal cameras. Philip, did you see the Royal reception footage or are you only commenting on the Royal ceremony? I'm sure the Royal reception would have every camera angle perfect too..unlike a real wedding.

There are really TWO separate issues here - the first as raised by the OP is that of less than professional "media" types that got a camera and jump into the business with little sense and a little gear... I think we've all agreed about those sorts of "vendors" of the opposite camp that don't know what a long lens and discretion are!

A true professional should be able to achieve near invisibility to the other event attendants - I don't think I saw one camera in the royal wedding, but they certainly covered the event! It's possible to get footage without being in the middle of it! There are ways to either use small discrete cameras remotely set to capture a predetermined area, or to use your lenses to advantage, either will get perfectly acceptable results for the "pro".


The second issue, as duly noted, is when the "pro" has to fight for position among the amateur papparazzi relatives... been there as well... had an uncle walk up to the groom to shake his hand right as the processional was beginning! Sometimes the guests aren't too aware of what "decorum" is either!! In the end, the professional may have little choice but to jump into the scrum and hope!

I've seen some photogs specify that NO other cameras are to be allowed, and think that's a tad extreme (not to mention unenforceable in the 8Mpixel camera phone era!), but I think we all sympathize...


Makes me wonder about having some shirts printed up (saw this in another thread here, so it's not "my" idea) that have those nice big bold block letters in white/red/yellow/black depending on the shirt color (probably white or black shirt) that say "VIDEO" or "PHOTOG".... it would be easy enough to stick one in the camera kit, and if one finds themselves at a "rough" wedding, toss it on to ID yourself to the rabble, so maybe you get a bit more consideration!


It's tough, what with every idiot and their dog wanting to be famous on Yootoob and fairly adequate cameras being in virtually every mobile device, not to mention actual cameras capable of good quality becoming rather cheap - it's harder to differentiate the "pro" aspect of the service. I dare say though that vendors who make themselves so painfully obvious make it hard on the rest of us - I've experienced officiants coming up after the service and being eternally grateful for how "invisible" we were while shooting - they clearly had had other less than pleasant experiences!

Part of being a pro is being able to shoot discreetly when needed, but get into the pack if needed to "get the shot", and the sense to know the difference!!

I just can't help but point out that any comparisons between how the royal wedding was filmed and how an 'ordinary' wedding can be filmed needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

The filming plan for the royal wedding was likely planned out for weeks and months to the finest detail, and likely rehearsed dozens of times as well. This simply isn't ever going to happen with an 'ordinary' wedding. So let's not compare the two as if it were apples to apples.

As for the original post, I would say this was mostly a case of unprofessionalism. I won't deny that we do block the view of some guests at some point at every wedding. We do everything we can to minimize it, but it's not possible to completely avoid at the average wedding. Why?

Simple. You, the original poster. You were shooting video at the wedding. Without a doubt if we set up our cameras on the backside of all the guests, we will end up with guests blocking our shots because THEY are shooting photos and video. I even saw a guy 2 weeks ago shooting video during the ceremony with an iPad. An iPad! The bride is walking up the aisle and he's holding it out in the aisle like a TV or something.

So while it's our job to minimize our visibility the best we can (even wearing all black in the dead of summer), it's also our job to get the proper coverage, and sometimes that means being front and center.

As for the original post, I would say this was mostly a case of unprofessionalism. I won't deny that we do block the view of some guests at some point at every wedding. We do everything we can to minimize it, but it's not possible to completely avoid at the average wedding. Why?

Simple. You, the original poster. You were shooting video at the wedding. Without a doubt if we set up our cameras on the backside of all the guests, we will end up with guests blocking our shots because THEY are shooting photos and video.Who said anything about setting up on the backside of all the guests? Even I can see that is a bad idea.

Even though it sounds like you are singling me out as if _I_ caused anything I described, I'm going to assume you're just using me to illustrate a generic type - the amateur video shooter who gets in the way of the pro. For the the record, when it was possible to get in the way of the pros (such as outside before the wedding and in a limited way at the reception) I took pains to avoid it. I'm probably not in some of the video of the guests outside on the grounds that I was supposed to be in because I generally stayed outside their field of view.

Alen, I apologize if I offended you. I didn't intend to. I simply meant to point out that, like yourself, there are a multitude of guests at every wedding shooting photos and video now. And the bottom line is that they are mostly unpredictable and mostly unaware of the fact they need to stay out of our way. I'm not saying that YOU specifically are unpredictable and unaware, but that IS the case with the average guest photographer or videographer.

And I know you didn't suggest setting up behind the guests, but that IS what you would need to do to avoid blocking their view generally. On top of that, we have to also worry about the 'professional' photographer, who will also often block our shots even after we've discussed a shooting plan with them. And if there are two of them shooting? It doubles the odds.

I commend you for thinking about your actions at the wedding and I wish more guests were like you, but unfortunately they are not. So that, combined with never knowing exactly what the photographer(s) is going to do, requires that we err on the side of caution and make sure we get the shot.

I mentioned that we do everything we can to minimize our visibility, and we do. We clump our camera setups tightly together for example, whereas I've seen other guys who spread out 3 cameras to cover a cake cutting, thus blocking everyone's view. We also shoot from side angles whenever possible to avoid being visible. We have a wide cam that always goes 10-13 feet in the air so it's out of sight but still never getting blocked. And so on. But at the end of the day, we also are getting paid to get the shots and sometimes that means we have to be visible to get them.

Please keep in mind I agreed with you that the guys you witnessed sounded unprofessional to me. There's no reason to be running around getting the shots. This is part of the problem with the craze on prime lenses right now, because they require you to move every time you want to change your composition. The same goes for steadicam usage when people have to fly figure-8's during the entire first dance. So, I feel your pain, but I just wanted to give perspective from the other side as well. d;-)

In the Hindu weddings I have attended, the purpose of pouring oil on fires, doing strange things with string and so forth is not to provide entertainment for an audience, but to ensure the necessary spiritual blessings, knowledge and favor needed for the couple to enjoy a good marriage. Since these religious rituals involve only the couple, the priest and a few relatives, it is no big deal if the videographer blocks the view so others can't see. This is noticeably different than the Liturgy at a Christian wedding which by its inclusive nature seeks the participation of all people present. In a Christian wedding it is a big deal if people can't see.

In the Hindu weddings I have attended, the purpose of pouring oil on fires, doing strange things with string and so forth is not to provide entertainment for an audience, but to ensure the necessary spiritual blessings, knowledge and favor needed for the couple to enjoy a good marriage. Since these religious rituals involve only the couple, the priest and a few relatives, it is no big deal if the videographer blocks the view so others can't see. This is noticeably different than the Liturgy at a Christian wedding which by its inclusive nature seeks the participation of all people present. In a Christian wedding it is a big deal if people can't see.Well of course it's not done to provide "entertainment." There is always a spiritual purpose to any ceremony based on religion, regardless of faith. But if it's not important that people see it why invite guests to watch it in the first place? If the ceremony is not inclusive why are they even there in the room (or tent or outside in a park or on the beach or whatever the case may be)? For that matter, why have video or pictures taken? It's not like recording the event or watching it later will change the blessing of the deities invoked (AFAIK). On logical grounds alone what you say doesn't entirely make sense to me.

The point is that some portions of any event are better portrayed with a CLOSE UP shot, as I mentioned earlier, this can be achieved with proper positioning and use of lenses... OR you could shoot a prime and move your sorry butt right into the middle of the action...

You must remember that not every guest (or every vendor for that matter) will observe "decorum", and all it takes is ONE clueless lunkhead to block the shot... or as you've observed, several clueless lunkheads calling themselves "pros"....

I think the "royal wedding" analogy is best taken as a "best case" scenario of how a wedding SHOULD be conducted... planned well in advance (check), professional "crew" and participants carefully chosen (check), rehearsals done so that everyone knows how things will unfold (check), and a well behaved, polilte and appropriately well behaved "audience" invited to observe the event (check). Unfortunately, in the "real world" one or more of these elements may be missing or "flawed"... that's when we get "interesting tales" to tell, or a whole show like "Bridezillas"!

But if it's not important that people see it why invite guests to watch it in the first place?

I don't know. Maybe to help eat the prasad?

I'm glad we are in agreement that the religious rituals are not to entertain the guests. I think some of the confusion about needing to see everything comes from the way Hindu weddings have been picturized by the Indian film industry. To make matters worse, some videographers (but not the ones on this forum) seem to have forgotten it's a real wedding and act as if they were hired to make some sort of training video.

You must remember that not every guest (or every vendor for that matter) will observe "decorum", and all it takes is ONE clueless lunkhead to block the shot... or as you've observed, several clueless lunkheads calling themselves "pros"....
!

Yep
photographer on Vimeo

When we meet the couple, the first thing we ask is how many guests you have. If they say 300 + we recommend they book Screens/Projector for live feed. That normally takes care of a lot of people who are unable to see but that still leaves people with cameras in their hands. Like many here, we always get the MCs to make an announcement is that professional crew is here and let them do their thing and that cuts down another %. But in the end there will always be some who won't get it.

We normally don't have any intense incidents but our first wedding of the year, the bride and groom had given us full permission like any other couple to do what it takes to get the right shots. If people come in your way, deal with them as you like. This bride's dad cousin or someone had a camcorder running at all times during everyone ceremony. Mind you it was sony dslr that never seemed to have run out of cards:) I asked the older gentleman 1, 2, 3-at least 6 times to film from his seat. Around the 7th time which was during bride's entrance, he pushed it too much. I simply went up to him and said, Sir, here is my camera. Would you like to take over our job. After that, I never saw the guy.

The point is that you have to tell people in professional but firm way. You can't control everyone. You just have to handle them.

Yep
photographer on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/16806863)

Within 2 seconds of the photographer in the shot, I would have put my hand on her shoulder and gently pushed and asked her at the same time to move. Some photographers don't care while some just don't think and some have no clue. You gotta ask them to move but in this case I think she knew she was in your shot.

We normally don't have any intense incidents but our first wedding of the year, the bride and groom had given us full permission like any other couple to do what it takes to get the right shots.I'm having visions of a scene from SLAP SHOT here. Or any WWE match, take your pick. :)

Alen,
Nice one :)

At the end of day, whether Company A packages are higher than Company B, it's important that cinematographer, director, videographer set the tone right from the get go. When people know that you are professional, small % will try to do what a lot of people do. I am not saying all guests are like that.There are some great ones who know what to do when. Simple approach is communicating with guests/photographers and setting your tone.

Jawad