OK at yesterday's wedding the reception tables were so close there was hardly enough room for my tripod but I managed to find a space to be greeted with 'you can't put that there mate - we can't see!' from some guests so I move to the next 'available' space to be also greeted by moans - Finally I compromised by getting in a space not quite central and as the father of the bride started his speech I got a tap on the shoulder 'can you film from the back of the room please - you're blocking my wife's view' - I said - 'sorry I can't move now the speeches are underway'.

Also when the groom started his speech with 'everyone having a good time?' that same person shouted - 'No we can't see you' - obviously aimed at me!

Any polite put-downs come to mind folks? I'm not happy blocking people's view but i've a job to do as I see it - The bride would not be happy with the footage from the back of a really long room!

Pete

That's a nightmare Peter, thankfully I've never encountered that yet. However I think pointing out to them politely that you have been paid by the Bride and Groom to produce the film and that if they wish you to move they should ask the Bride themselves.
Its her choice then.
But yep, not good especially when the speeches have started.
My pet hate is the mad photographer who wants to take thousands of photographs during the speeches, why???

In 5 years (full time) John, filming weddings it's only happened once before so I can wait 5 years till it happens again - thankfully the togs at all 3 weddings I've done this weekend have been pretty good and we got on well :)

Hi Pete

It happened to me once too and I had guests whinging about me being in the way. All our speeches are normally done from the lectern near the bridal table so when I get to the venue I make sure I place it where I also have enough space for camera and lighting .... the major cause of this is bad table layout by the venue and often too many tables in too small a place ... if you can get to the venue before the guests enter then you can always explain to the co-ordinator that they have left no place for you to film the speeches and hopefully they will assist.

Otherwise just write it off to a bad venue plan and move on!!

Chris

tough one - I've had a similar situation - I moved. I figure the guests have priority.

I avoid blocking the view of the guests at all costs, I can remember having to do that on a couple of occasions but I left the camera unmanned, lowered the tripod and checked with the guests behind the camera to make sure it was okay (I always shoot with multiple cameras).

I think if you find youself in that position again, asking the person who's view you might be blocking should elicit a positive response and minimise complaints before the event.

Paul quite often the tables are so close together there is no way you can set up without blocking someone's view - filming from the rear nearly always is not an option without massively zooming in and all the issues that causes - especially in 'mood' lit receptions.

I'm not sure I would give guests priority in this situation - I've got to deliver good footage that's going to be viewed for many years - If some guests need to shuffle to see around me for half an hour then so be it...

...or am I being harsh?

Hey Pete

Quite often I ask (very nicely of course) for guests sitting in the narrow gap I need to place the camera if they wouldn't mind shifting around just for the speeches... I have never had a refusal ...Maybe I'm just a nice guy??? who knows?? It certainly doesn't hurt to ask if the tables are close!! I always tell them it's just for the during of the speeches ... maybe that's the way to do it ...make friends with the table guests you need to re-arrange and then suck up to them big time and they will do anything you ask!

Chris

A well-timed bout with silent flatulence might clear a little room for you. And you can blame it on anyone you want to.

I quite often find that I am going to be in someone's way for the speeches, so I always mention it to them well before hand and apologise profusely saying that if it wasn't for the fact hat I am being paid to film it, I wouldn't dream of being so rude. People usually go out of their way to move for me and I have never had a problem.

Roger

I have this situation more then once, often they get a venue and pack more people in there so there is hardly any space to move between the tables, I now put my sony cx730 as close as I can to the person giving the speech, I lock the focus so it doesn't hunt and leave the camera running unmanned during the speech, I then use a second camera for guest reactions but I never will block the guests view myself. With only a tripod and unmanned camera people can still look past it.

That sounds like a bad weekend! its hard enough to do your job without guest sabotaging and embarrassing you...We all do our best to stay off the radar but you can't become invisible! When you were asked to move by the first guest it obviously gave way to a chain reaction and everyone felt they had the right to ask you to move. I can't imagine you are so large that if someone was to leaning a little to the left it would have solved the problem. I've noticed that at some weddings the entire crowd seem unfriendly and other times everyone is great...I know you can't really generalise 100+ people but I'd be interested to know if other videographers/photographers have noticed this as well......I think Peter just got a bad day with a bad crowd. Sign it off and forget about it.

It can get worse as the alchohol flows.

Arrange for the MC to announce, big bucks is being paid for a video so please assist, and that includes the best man ..

My Clumsy Best Man Ruins Our Wedding - THE ORIGINAL - YouTube

Cheers.

A well-timed bout with silent flatulence might clear a little room for you. And you can blame it on anyone you want to.

now thats lateral thinking - you could more through your selected spot and 'mark' the territory and once everyone had moved you could set up your tripod and all you'd get was sniggers from the guests.

That's why it's a good idea to initiate your "territory" a bit earlier in the evening and explain nicely to the guests that you have to put a camera there and IF they all shift around a bit then they will all see.

However it sounds like the heckler probably had a few more beers than he is used to and wanted to hear his own voice and this was the perfect opportunity ... I'm sure that some people do get blocked (especially those behind you) but they don't say anything ...it was unfortunate that the heckler was the "comedian" of the wedding ....even if you didn't block his view he probably still would have come up with other loud and obnoxious comments just to get himself noticed.

Luckily they don't pop up and all weddings but when they do they are indeed annoying (I even had a groom who fancied himself as a "standup comedian" and was twisting the words of the vows around of an otherwise solemn ceremony just to get attention.

Chris

Yup. Been down the heckled road before. I've even been heckled during the ceremony by the officient by walking in the back with my glidecam. For christssakes, i'm WALKING IN THE BACK! None of the guests notice me cuz they're looking at the altar. But apparently it's too distracting for the officient who is the only one looking opposite direction. As for the toasts, I find it easier to use monopods and even have 1 camera on a mini tripod sitting on a table. The guests always say "cool look at that. that's a good idea" It's non obtrusive, and you kind of get that cool "in the audience" look at the end.

In cases where I think I may be blocking someone's view, I flip the viewfinder of my EX-1 so it faces down, then I kneel down "under the radar." I can still shoot fine by grabbing the pan handle and making adjustments as necessary. The audience can still see everything by moving their head several inches left or right of the camera. It's easy to see around a camera/tripod, but it's impossible to see past the camera AND operator.

Another possibility is if you're using a monitor, make it visible to the people behind you, so they can watch it if you're blocking them.

I don't do weddings, but get the same thing in theatres. Oddly, we have a policy in the industry that when the audience pay we don't block sightlines, but if they are given free tickets - either in a certain part of the auditorium, or everywhere, then they are firmly guests - and blocked sightlines are OK. We get occasional flack in things like dance shows, where we are often in the way, right at the front, and we just direct them to an usher for the front of house manager to deal with. I never get involved myself, usually siding with the person complaining but not revealing the cause really is me! Once they know you are on their side, their complaint is pointed elsewhere.

I have this situation more then once, often they get a venue and pack more people in there so there is hardly any space to move between the tables, I now put my sony cx730 as close as I can to the person giving the speech, I lock the focus so it doesn't hunt and leave the camera running unmanned during the speech, I then use a second camera for guest reactions but I never will block the guests view myself. With only a tripod and unmanned camera people can still look past it.

Over here the speakers are normally spread across the top table or worse - across the room so a locked off camera is not going to cover it. If all the speeches are going to be coming from the top table I could make life easier for myself by having a locked off camera that covers the entire top table, as well as my usual cameras on the B&G and the guests as a whole - set them running and go to the bar!

Finally I compromised by getting in a space not quite central and as the father of the bride started his speech I got a tap on the shoulder 'can you film from the back of the room please - you're blocking my wife's view' - I said - 'sorry I can't move now the speeches are underway'.

Why didn't you use a zoom lens?

Over here the speakers are normally spread across the top table or worse - across the room so a locked off camera is not going to cover it

That shouldn't be an issue either, I just move my tripod to the next speaker if they are at a different location. :)

You know heckling really sucks and is immature as well. But I'm amazed at how many of you guys feel like you're the star of the show just because you are hired to do a job. You should take a look at yourself and your methods.

If i hired a landscaper to cut my yard it doesn't mean you don't have to respect my neighbors. Meaning you should find a way to do the best job you can without disrupting the environment around you. That's what a professional does. That's what a professional gets paid to do.

Hell when I shoot in offices and hospitals I always have to adhere to the existing environment.

Besides that never have professionals had more tools at their disposal.
You have a multitude of cameras, long lenses, wireless mics, portable recording devices.

You should be ashamed of yourself for even bringing this up.

Just dropped in to read this post and up until now it was very interesting. As I read the replies I didn't get any feeling that the videographer felt they were anything like the star of the show. If anything, what I got was the desire to be as inconspicuous as possible but at the same time try to do their job.

One thing for sure is that no two wedding situations are going to be the same. Another truism is that no two wedding attendee groups are going to be the same. Some groups will be well mannered and others will be obstinent. Hecklers are everywhere - just ask Obama.

As for gear - some countries have very high duties on imported items. The last time I was in New Zealand the cost for imported cars (a US made mustang in this case) and photography gear (Nikon 35mm back then) was basically 3x that of what it cost in the USA. Don't know if their duty is still so high but in any event that can be an impediment to having a large kit available.

For those Yanks who replied, there can be a difference in what one uses for a wedding gig kit. Having a couple big Pelican cases full of gear is more than what it seems most professional wedding photographers have at their elbow but many have gear in their vehicle on site even if they aren't using it in their one-man/woman-show. Once things get started there is no time to switch gears and run back out to the vehicle.

From what I've read it seems everybody is doing the best they can with the conditions they're working under. In this forum what I've been reading is that wedding videographers are often overworked and under paid as the competition is stiff. Much of the competition is coming from friends and relatives who will do the video for free and that's a reality.

My thoughts:

1. The wedding videographer could be present at the dress rehearsal if the bride and groom wanted to pay for that but that would, of course, be an extra expense.

2. One thing that could be done is to come up with a check list that could be used for discussion. The videographer should get a sketch of the layout and tell the bride & groom what his/her plans are for the shoot. The view-blocking issue could be brought up at this time and a solution approved. Maybe in writing? Have a copy to show the offended guest.

While I've never done a wedding, and never will, I can sympathize with both sides. While I have been in a similar situation, such as meetings, I've never been heckled. Having said that, just because one isn't heckled or complained to that doesn't mean a guest isn't irritated. It may be that they just bite their tongue and put up with it.

Wear black, crouch down when possible, and move reasonably slow so as not to attract attention or distract. People will see you're doing your best to not be the start of the show.

John,
If you actually read the Op's comments he made it clear "he would not give the guest Priority'. There was no such attempt to be inconspicuous.

I hired a professional photographer, videographer, DJ, florist, etc... for my wedding as well. And believe me when I say none of them had or expected to have priority over any of the 180 friends and family members that were our guest.

I shot well over1500 weddings myself, I know better.

Your comment about equipment doesn't apply either, if you look again at the Op's comments in another post, he wasn't short of equipment.

It appears he had the impression that he was just so dam important and beholding to the expectations of the bride that nothing else mattered.

He could have found another way to do the job. That's what professionals do. Maybe not the way he wanted to. Maybe not as convenient, but certainly more professional and respectful of the invited guest. The most important people in the room.

Al - Because I read through all he posts by the time I got to the end I frankly didn't remember exactly what the original post said but instead had a concept in my mind. After re-reading the first post I see he is actually from the UK so my comment about the cost of equipment was based on thinking he was from Australia because of the statement "You can't put that there, mate!."

Every situation is different but I'd think that most weddings have a congenial atmosphere due to the nature of the occasion and comments like those the videographer received seemed to me to be uncalled for, especially if the wedding party was paying for the service. Judging by the "cramped" situation it appears the room was too small for the number of invitees who attended; Note: - trying to save on costs.

A couple years ago we attended a state function in Vienna, Austria, and they had a Government photographer taking the pictures who I took a candid shot of. She worked the floor taking shots and stayed as much out of the limelight as she could given the venue but I couldn't resist getting my candid shot from an aisle seat.

John,
I haven't done a wedding in a number of years. I guess what I was trying to point out is that no matter where we work, what kind of work, we have to perform under conditions that may not always seem ideal.

I work in hospitals, doctors offices, college campuses, etc. Everything else that is going on in these surroundings is more important then what I am doing. I serve at their pleasure, even though I'm getting paid.

I have had other people in a hospital get upset with my carts rolling through their work areas. I've had people get upset about my "Quiet" signs posted next to their offices when they have business to conduct.

But rather then get upset, I bow to that. I find another way. That's what professionals do.

Unlike the OP I always viewed the guest as being above me in the pecking order. That's the way i viewed my wedding. Nobody was more important then those close friends and family that I had assembled on that day..

To put it bluntly, most people at my wedding didn't even know the videographer or my photographer. but my guest were a fairly close knit bunch. If the videographer dropped dead, the show would go on. Even though you have been paid to be here, you're not that important.

When space is limited & I'm forced to stand in front of guests, I'd get my shot & go down on my knees or sit so the guests can see over me all the while monitoring the shot with the monitor flipped down. If the shot changes I'll get up adjust my shot and go into a low profile position again. Put yourself in the shoes of the guests, I for one don't want to look into the backside/butt of a videographer standing in front of me.

John,

To put it bluntly, most people at my wedding didn't even know the videographer or my photographer. but my guest were a fairly close knit bunch. If the videographer dropped dead, the show would go on. Even though you have been paid to be here, you're not that important.

No we're not, but at the same time we are there to do a job for the Bride and Groom who are after-all the stars of the day. In some cases we do have priority over guests as does the Photographer - the service for instance. Do I stand aside and let some guest take priority with an iphone to grab the important shot of the Bride and Groom walking up the aisle. All he's after is some cool shot to show off once or post on facebook, whilst I'm, there to produce a full Video record of their day.

With Speeches I do look to stand at the back, as much because I don't wish to thrust a camera into people's faces when they're giving speeches who are already pretty nervous to begin with. It's backfired on many occasions when the photographers then get up close and personal, and I rely on a spare camera to the side but it doesn't always deliver, so I have had periods of the speeches where only a wide shot can be used.
UK venues can range from roomy to so cramped you can't even squeeze between most tables. Sometimes speeches are before the meal so I get very little set up time, perhaps a couple of minutes. Cramped rooms, tall table ornaments and flowers, the Bride and Groom sitting on a round table, in a corner of the room blocked by everything and everyone, Bride's Father deciding to deliver his speech from another location contrary to initial consultation; you get it all and yet I'm still expected to deliver pleasing results. In some occasions I've been guilty of standing closer to the Bride and Groom than I'd like and no doubt blocked someone's view. However only in those situations where it's absolutely essential.

Why didn't you use a zoom lens?

Well I could pop my Canon 70-200mm lens and film from way down the room but the resultant footage might look a tad voyeuristic! - not a look I'm after plus I have a few shots i like to get such as if the speaker has notes I like to tilt up from the notes to his face - I also like to zoom out a little from the speaker to include the B&G - shots that would be difficult from the back of the room.

Noa - moving the tripod is quite often not possible due to the closeness of the tables or massive table arrangements blocking views etc.

Al - I do not consider myself more important than the guests and in this instance tried to accommodate their wishes as much as possible - my background is documentary film making and believe me - I like to be as inconspicuous as possible but at the end of the day I'm the one who has to present a well made and polished wedding video to an expectant bride and groom!

I should qualify what I've just said by adding that at a Catholic wedding I shot at the weekend, the priest asked me if my position would enable me to get a shot of the ring exchange - I told him it's not always possible due to priest/best man blocking the shot, but it's covered in one of my cameras filming from the back of the church when he said it would be ok for me to scoot around to the head of the isle and get get a close up when the time arose - needless to say I declined - just a little intrusive but what a great shot it would have been!

Peter,
I applaud your desire to do the best job you can for the Bride and Groom.

But it's still clear that you feel your style of shot is more important then the content of that shot. While your shot of Dad's notes might be the highest priority to you, it's the content, not the shot that will be the lasting memory for the bride and groom.

When Dad is dead and gone it won't be Peter's angle that will be remembered, but the meaning of the words that her Father said that day. Content will trump anything you could ever dream of artistically.

While you are important, you're not that dam important.

One of the reasons that the non cinematic vidographer still exist is because people see things differently. Someone posted a wedding shot with iphones yesterday. If the right "content" is captured with those iphones, many people will enjoy that as much as they do your videos, because "content" is still king.

But bigger than all of this should be your ability as a professional to adapt to the situation at hand. As much as you might think you are, you are not shooting a documentary film. you are shooting in a controlled environment amongst people who are present and chosen by the host because they are very special to them.

But let's not be so hung up on weddings and receptions It's about you operating as a professional in a multitude of venues and situations.
If you work in a hotel or conference center and you go in thinking the attendees in the room are in your way you will probably have a bad day. These places their own set of rules too. . I do this all the time, and you can't have your way all the time. But to whine and suggest that I can't do my job as many suggest is just rubbish. It's an excuse. I show up on sets all the time that are nothing like what was originally described.

Wherever I shoot they have rules and guidelines that must be adhered to. And situations change all the time. Is it disappointing? Yes. But i don't have the luxury of inconveniencing anyone else to make it better for me. I have to get the job done.

I travel long distances to all my gigs by air so I have to pack perfectly for the situation we will be shooting in. Or better yet the situation I'm told i will be shooting in. Well in the shot below I was told we would be shooting in a Multi million dollar studio. Well it turns out I was shooting in what appeared to be a closet, just across the hall from this beautiful multi-million dollar studio. Not only did I have to shoot it, but livestream it as well. And I'm 1200 miles from home. So you just deal with it.

After all content is king. The room is only 10 inches wider then what you see in this picture. The good thing is the content was powerful and compelling.

I realize I'm not telling you anything you don't know but we all face those same challenges no matter where we shoot. It's our job to get it done without disruption.
The difference is i think you feel your shot warrants that disruption.

The difference is i think you feel your shot warrants that disruption.

What if you are told to stand in a position where you can't get the shot you where paid to get, in my case it was a priest that found me "disruptive" before the ceremony started and told me to stand in a position where I could not see the child that was doing it's communion, the parents where too afraid to go against the priest and I was left with no choice. Now I went against his instructions anyway when the ceremony started and got the shot, does this make me a "pro" or am I also thinking that my shot warrants that disruption? :)

Noa,
In the case you described, and I've been there,.

You mentioned the parents being too afraid. Either you knew this or assumed this? But regardless the parents made a decision to let it go, You did not.

I would say you felt like the shot warranted the disruption.

AU$0.02 on the whole topic...

Lots of variables in individual situations. Generally you can avoid obscuring people's view by shooting from the floor, or setting your camera up then ducking.

But assuming that there really is no other option and you have to obscure sightlines to get the shot? Surely everyone on this board would go ahead and obscure sightlines? Worst case scenario: the couple will sue you if you don't. Of course, seems to be different degrees of sensibility about how readily a videographer should block a guest.

If it ever came before a court, I'm assuming the judge would ask about what was "reasonable" to have done in the circumstances, or what the "average man on the street" might think, and the answer would be subjective and based on all the particular facts of the case.

In terms of legally covering yourself, the proper thing to do, or I think so anyway, and which might be easier said than done, is to discuss with the couple in advance what they would want you to do in this sort of circumstance, and then have it in writing in your contract.

One thing I think should be borne in mind is that, quite apart from whatever your legal obligations might be, the job you're doing is very important. You're preserving some of the most precious moments of people's lives. You're recording people who might pass away tomorrow. You're seeing not just for yourself, but potentially for a lot of people -- guests who can't be there, guests at the back of the room (and in a big or a crowded room, there might not be a lot of guests who can see much anyway), people in the future, like friends and family of people involved, descendants of the couple, etc.

How you evaluate this "importance" and weigh it against other considerations I think is pretty subjective. From a bluntly practical point of view, it may depend on how important to the couple is the guest whom you're blocking. Boyfriend of a second cousin thrice removed? Mother of the bride?

You mentioned the parents being too afraid. Either you knew this or assumed this? But regardless the parents made a decision to let it go, You did not.
I would say you felt like the shot warranted the disruption.

The priest even had the flowers (that where placed there by the family) removed from the altar as he thought they had no function for a communion, my zoom h2 was hidden in those flowers as well and that had to go too. The parents had to high respect for the priest to dare to go against his decisions and when he said where I needed to stand just before the ceremony started I whispered to the mother I was not able to get a shot from her child from that position and she didn't know what to do about that either.

So here you did have clear rules and I went against it with the risk of the priest reacting to that. You might say I might find myself more important for being so disruptive and not following the rules but there are times you don't have any choice, the same can apply for blocking guests views, if I would have no other choice, I would block a guests view because I need to get the shot. The only time I think a videographer would find himself more important is when he in such a situation would set up a jib or use a slider to get a more "cinematic" feel to it in which case he could be blocking even more guests.
Content is king but if you are not able to capture it without disrupting the guests then you don't have no content to show so you have failed at your job, it's not that black and white as you make it appear.

I think someone already may have said this, but I think a lot of it comes down to expectations of the bride and groom. If they hired someone to make a cinematic wedding then they want those shots that seem more cinematic (sliders, over the shoulder, etc.). In order to get those shots they will probably have to get in the sight line of guest. Obviously they can minimize these with tricks people have already said while being respectful, but those shots are important for that style.

I don't think the bride and groom would be happy with a shot from the back of a 200 person venue if the style they hired a videographer for was cinematic.

The opposite is true for a more documentary style. If the bride and groom want you out of the way no matter what, then being behind the guest and zooming in may be your best bet.

The priest even had the flowers (that where placed there by the family) removed from the altar as he thought they had no function for a communion, my zoom h2 was hidden in those flowers as well and that had to go too. The parents had to high respect for the priest to dare to go against his decisions and when he said where I needed to stand just before the ceremony started I whispered to the mother I was not able to get a shot from her child from that position and she didn't know what to do about that either.

So here you did have clear rules and I went against it with the risk of the priest reacting to that. You might say I might find myself more important for being so disruptive and not following the rules but there are times you don't have any choice, the same can apply for blocking guests views, if I would have no other choice, I would block a guests view because I need to get the shot. The only time I think a videographer would find himself more important is when he in such a situation would set up a jib or use a slider to get a more "cinematic" feel to it in which case he could be blocking even more guests.
Content is king but if you are not able to capture it without disrupting the guests then you don't have no content to show so you have failed at your job, it's not that black and white as you make it appear.

Noa,
I think in the situation you explain it was a matter of no shot at all. That's quite different from Peter's claim that he needed to get the shot of the speaker notes. Give me a break.

I realize you can't always get the perfect shot, but rarely have i not been able to get the shot of speeches without blocking guest. Sure maybe I couldn't hear the paper form the speakers notes crumble in his hand but it was more then acceptable.

Another thing I notice in a lot of cinematic videos is that very little of the video from speeches is used. Most time the audio is overlayed over different images.

I still think it's a matter of managing client expectations beforehand. While that's noble to get the shot, it could be a economic burden if you were banned from that church or that parish as a videographer I know.

That's quite different from Peter's claim that he needed to get the shot of the speaker notes.

Why not? If it adds something extra? I filmed a bride that got to see her bachelorparty photo's for the first time and I shot her opening the present, then a over the shoulder shot of her flipping through the pages and again a wide front shot of her reaction to the photo's, that's how you make a otherwise boring shot visually more interesting.

Noa,
You guys are "get the shot at all cost" shooters". What makes a shot interesting is not in question. While I applaud your tenacity I disagree with your methods.

Using those methods I don't understand the OP getting upset when he gets heckled. He obviously deserved it. Do the crime , do the time!

Don't know if you ever saw Still motion's and pacific pictures city of lakes, that what I call getting the shots at all costs, a large part was scripted and on some behind the scene shots I saw the wedding looked like a movie set. But this is what the couple choose to have, they allowed that to happen to get this epic looking film and you can bet they have blocked more then one guest view :)

It's ok to have another opinion on how to deal with weddings, everyone has their own approach, your might be more documentary and from a distance, ours might be a bit more close, but I think it's not up to you to decide what's bad or good, that's still up to the client and if they want to have a movie "city of lakes" wise, they also accept you to be right on top of them and in front of their guests.

Noa,
That's good info about the "city of lakes movie.

As I said earlier i applaud your tenacity but disagree with your method.
I'm not sure how you twist that to mean that I am the one who should decide what's good or bad.

I will just take it as though you are embellishing a bit. That makes for great storytelling as well.

I'm not sure how you twist that to mean that I am the one who should decide what's good or bad.

Well, it was you who said "I'm amazed at how many of you guys feel like you're the star of the show just because you are hired to do a job" or that we find ourself "so dam important", I know it was not directed to me but since you see me as the same "get the shot at all cost shooter" I feel it applies to my style of shooting as well. I think nowhere was said we don't care about the guests, we do and we do whatever we can to avoid disturbing them but sometimes we don't have any other choice to get a certain shot but that doesn't mean we feel like a star or find ourself so important. We just are trying to provide the client what they have chosen us for in the first place. In my case content is also king but I use my own visual style to show if I can instead of tell, you might find that wrong and that's fine, I don't.

I would have to agree with Al ... I'm one of those professionals that never act like i'm special. I know my position. I've been paid. I'm not as important as the guests who have been invited.

If more than one guest is getting annoyed, I would definitely move.

The last thing the bride/groom wants is to here from her guests how annoyed they were due to my shooting methods.

I can always explain a crap shot later saying your guests insisted I moved, so I had to improvise (thing is, I doubt the issue about the angle of the shot would even be raised - as most people look at content).

As long as the rest of your video makes up for it, you can get away with a couple of poor shots.

Keep the good stuff for the highlights. Put in everything else in the long form edit.

And regarding Noa with the example you mentioned.

If the family are scared to question the priest, you should of listened to him too. Who cares if you miss the shot? you were told not to do it. And the family didn't insist either. That's a point you could of argued later if the family challenged you later.

I'm all for really getting in there and grabbing a shot, but if any one tells me not too, I'll insist, but if they still tell me not too based on who they are - I won't. If any issues are raised later I will mention NAMES / POINT OUT the people that told me not to do it so they can here what the person that hired me have to say.

I'm one of those professionals that never act like i'm special.

It was Al that said this, not the persons he was targeting...We never said we feel special, we said we do whatever we can not to disturb the guests but that it's not always possible to prevent it completely.

If the family are scared to question the priest, you should of listened to him too.
Why? The priest did not hire or pay me, he is there to do his job (and getting paid for it), I"m there to do mine. The Church is not his personal property, it's a public place with a set of general rules, they do allow videographers to enter but they don't want us to disturb the ceremony and that is something I never do. I did say if he would have seen me move and told me to go back into position during the ceremony I would have left the church, no use in standing like a fool pretending you are filming something while you can't. I crossed the line very carefully but not by pushing it too much, just enough so I could do what I was paid for and that is what "professionals" do according to Al, to make sure they adapt and get the job done.

For anyone interested in the city of lakes wedding that was mentioned earlier. Here is the blogpost from Still Motion about it. Since it was partly scripted it is very movie set like, but a very cool read.

city of lakes // shooting in india, being DP, and other ramblings – stillmotion (http://stillmotionblog.com/2010/05/03/city-of-lakes-shooting-in-india-being-dp-and-other-ramblings/)

Just read throughthis thread and there seem to be a number of variables that haven't really been clearly talked about. But firstly let me also say that I don't believe anyone on this forum believes that they are more important than anyone else at a wedding, or that they have an inflated self image of themselves. We are all trying to obtain the best result for the client who is paying for it.

A wedding is a filming scenario where few fixed rules apply and every wedding can be different, but there are still undelying requirements that need to be followed carefully. The Bride and Groom will have certain expectations of what they want to see in the finished product and it is up to us as professionals to discuss with them beforehand which of those expectations are achievable and any possible difficulties we may foresee. Having established that, it is also up to us to do what is neccessary to achieve the end result whilst remaining polite, respectful and professional, both for our own reputation and for the client.

A church based service is one in which the couple have paid for the services of a clergymen and the hire of the church and also the services of a videographer. I expect my clients to discuss this with the clergyman conducting the service and to ensure that they have his permission for filming. My contract also has a clause reinforcing that. At the church, I then consider it reasonable that the clergyman respects my need to fulfill my obligations, just as I will respect his. If he applies rules that I think are unreasonable and outside the published guidelines of the Church authorities, I will discuss options politely to reach a compromise, but never argue or act disrespectfully. If the rules stop me fulfilling my obligations and are contrary to what the couple have discussed with him, then I will suggest to them afterwards that they lodge a complaint and possibly withold partial payment, particularly if they have had to pay the church more to have it videoed, a common practice in the UK. However, I rarely have a problem with church services though.

The reception is different, the couple have requirements for their video that may not always be in accordance with what their guests want. One of those times may be during the speeches, when it may be unavoidable to intrude to some extent on the view of the guests. It is important here to remember that the guests have been invited by the B&G to attend their wedding, not to have control over what the paid professional is filming for the client. They should have respect not neccessarily for the videographer but for the B&G's requirements. Our job is to carefully and respectfully get those shots, whilst minimising the inconvenience to guests. It is not difficult for a guest to move a few inches to please the couple after diplomatically explaing to them why you need to be there. I have NEVER had a problem under those circumstances.

Of course some venues may have their own rules due to the need to safeguard valuables in a historic building, but that is easily complied with and never a problem.

Conferences and other non wedding filming that I believe Al mentioned, have to be approached differently. Unlike a wedding with its family and friends being invited and the whole day being captured, a commercial event will quite likely have attendees who have paid to be there or are there for various professional reasons. It would be quite unacceptable to obscure their view or expect them to move, so the approach would be different. Unlike a wedding which is a flowing, ever changing event, a conference or commercial show would be much more predictable with pre arranged shooting positions, so there is far less chance of losing a shot.

Shooting a wedding is very much a case of striking a balance between knowing when to assert yourself and when to compromise to achieve what the most imprtant person - the client- is paying you for.

Roger

In terms of filming weddings.

You know your client better than any one else. Can you explain your mistakes, can you explain why the priest got angry at you? can you explain why the guests were annoyed? Can you explain why you got a different angle to the one agreed?

If your answer is YES ... then there really is no right or wrong.

As long as you can justify your actions you can do anything to be honest.

It was Al that said this, not the persons he was targeting...We never said we feel special, we said we do whatever we can not to disturb the guests but that it's not always possible to prevent it completely.


Why? The priest did not hire or pay me, he is there to do his job (and getting paid for it), I"m there to do mine. The Church is not his personal property, it's a public place with a set of general rules, they do allow videographers to enter but they don't want us to disturb the ceremony and that is something I never do. I did say if he would have seen me move and told me to go back into position during the ceremony I would have left the church, no use in standing like a fool pretending you are filming something while you can't. I crossed the line very carefully but not by pushing it too much, just enough so I could do what I was paid for and that is what "professionals" do according to Al, to make sure they adapt and get the job done.


This is indeed a interesting discussion.

Just trying to extract a couple of things from the whole host of comments, that seem to point a lot to who we feel owns the set per say.

You have my comment about you guys thinking you are the star which obviously doesn't set well. And probably not a fair statement for me to make as it is too general.

Then you have comments like Noa's above that are in line with some other posters regarding the Church being a public building and the Priest being a hired gun just like you. I have to say in my region Priest and clergy are highly regarded, beloved if you will, and so is the church. And in the context of this conversation no Priest is regarded as a hired gun, nor is the church viewed as a public space where everyone has there own set of rules. That may obviously vary in your region but i find that shocking.

And for all those "Church Ladies" I just continued to shower them with kindness and over time I wound up with an ally in most cases.

Let me make it clear as I have been called out on it, I'm not claiming my way is right or your way is wrong.
I'm perplexed by the attitude that if someone pays me then it's ok to feel above every sense of authority and that it puts me on even keel with anyone else who may be compensated.

I shoot a lot in hospitals and corporate offices, where lots of important work is going on. Where other people in the building do not regard what i am doing as important.
It can be a bit stifling sometimes but I have to bow to the fact that when I'm in a hospital or corporate office there is nothing that I am doing that trumps the already established order of business. Very similar to the way the clergy regards me when I'm shooting a wedding. I am peripheral to the bigger picture. I can't make the claim that we're all being compensated here.

When i come in to film a cardiac specialist, the doctor in the next office does not care about that. He cares about noise that my carts might make coming in or tearing down. The lights that we are setting up, invading their space, asking them to be quiet as they try to conduct more important business. Or even asking a whole department to stay off the internet while you livestream this one doctor. (that always goes over big) You learn to work with people all the time. And if you think Priest can be tough, try doctors.

In conferences I request that my riser is center aisle, no more than 50 ft from the stage. More and more, attendees are complaining of their view being blocked (even if there sleeping). For this reason it's rare that I get a shot less then a 100ft these days.

The only thing I can do these days is work hard to manage logistics with client expectations. And this is all done beforehand. It doesn't mean that I'm going to always get what I want, I don't, but the expectations of EVERYBODY in the venue are managed in a way that we are on the same page. More often then not I have to do the job in ways we never planned to suit the whims of other parties in the venue. I don't have that option as Noa would to just leave the building if you will. Once I get off the plane, I HAVE to make it work. I can't come back empty handed because the conditions weren't satisfactory or I couldn't get the shot that i wanted, or thought you expected. That's a luxury.
But at the end of the day I still manage to bring back a product that meets or exceeds the clients expectations.

Anyway, I think a lot of it has to do with where we view ourselves in the pecking order and how well we manage or mismanage client expectations.

Truly interesting discussion though.

Al my apologies if I misunderstand your position, but I get the impression from the tone of your posts that you are not an experienced wedding videographer, doing most of your work in the commercial field .I make that observation as many of your comments are about the corporate side of things, whereas, as I pointed out in my previous post they are totally different requirements.

I also don't really understand your constantly reiterated stance that many wedding videographers seem to feel that they are the 'star' or 'control the set'. I don't pick this up at all, rather that they are trying to find the best compromise to achieve the end product that the couple want, whilst maintaining respect and professionalism.

After nearly 30 years and almost 2000 weddings, plus countless commercial work, I find myself puzzled by some of your criticism of a number of the points expressed about occasional problems encountered, if you are an experienced wedding professional.

Roger

Roger,
My above statement was: *****You have my comment about you guys thinking you are the star which obviously doesn't set well. And probably not a fair statement for me to make as it is too general.*****

No apologies needed, it's a discussion, an exchange of ideas and I'm not thin skinned. I appreciate your opinion even when it differs from mine. I don't see my comments as criticism , no more then I see your comments as criticism of me.

I have made it clear on more then one occasion that I am not a wedding videographer, I occasionally dabble by special request.

But I have filmed more weddings then I want to remember. I left the wedding business in probably 2004. I started doing weddings when the camera was hooked to the recorder by a cord. I would say I have as much experience as anybody on this thread in that arena.
But I don't think that it takes that much experience to understand the subject at hand.

It's obvious our views are just a response to how we react to different situations, and often times how we react to the same situation.

If you look at the thread everyone doesn't agree with you. Everyone doesn't agree with me.

Is agreement necessary to have a discussion? Is that the only time you can learn from a discussion when everybody agrees with you?

As I also said in my last post, this has truly been a interesting discussion.

And what I mean by that is there is a lot of positions to ponder when this discussion is long over. That's sometimes how we learn Roger.

I left the wedding business in probably 2004

I was at a point of asking the same question Roger has because my impression was also that it was a longer time ago you did any weddings, but since you did write that you did so many weddings I was not sure and didn't want to offend you. A lot has changed the past years in the wedding industry and especially in regard to clients expectations, you don't seem to be up to date any more about what that is as your opinion is based on weddings 10 years and longer ago.

About priests, the church, respect for the holy house etc, for my country and for the weddings I have done the past 8 years I can say that at least 90% that get married in a church are non believers, they do it because it's tradition, because it looks so nice, because the bride wants to have her red carpet. After the wedding they never go to church again, unless it's for their child communion at the age of 6 and 12 and that's also mainly a tradition and to show of how nice clothes they are wearing.

There have been quite some newsreports about priests taking abuse of little children the past years so there is not much respect for the church here.

Quote:************************************
I left the wedding business in probably 2004
I was at a point of asking the same question Roger has because my impression was also that it was a longer time ago you did any weddings, but since you did write that you did so many weddings I was not sure and didn't want to offend you. A lot has changed the past years in the wedding industry and especially in regard to clients expectations, you don't seem to be up to date any more about what that is as your opinion is based on weddings 10 years and longer ago.

About priests, the church, respect for the holy house etc, for my country and for the weddings I have done the past 8 years I can say that at least 90% that get married in a church are non believers, they do it because it's tradition, because it looks so nice, because the bride wants to have her red carpet. After the wedding they never go to church again, unless it's for their child communion at the age of 6 and 12 and that's also mainly a tradition and to show of how nice clothes they are wearing.

There have been quite some newsreports about priests taking abuse of little children the past years so there is not much respect for the church here. *******************************

Noah,
Not as much has changed as you would think. In 2004 cinematic multi camera wedding video was alive and well, at least in the U.S. I understand if you didn't find it until later.
While I don't shoot weddings as a business, I often shoot first or second cam for a friend or colleague, whether it's dslr, ex1 sliders etc. The wedding business has changed less then you think. You seem to speak about it like it's some secret society. After all the conversation is about interactions with clergy and church folk. That hasn't changed.

But the fundamental conversation had nothing to do with my experience. It was about behavior and protocol in the church and as it pertains to the clergy.

You seem to be struggling to take the conversation to another place? Now you're talking about Priest who abuse little children? That never happens in the U.S..? Besides good Priest don't abuse children. Yet you make it sound like we should indict them all. Like it's relevant to this discussion?

Pointing out who is a believer an a non believer and going to church only to show off nice clothes?
You seem to be able to tell what other people are thinking , what other people value?

What next, more bad Priest stories? Maybe you'll take on Nuns next.. Perhaps boogie men? You're rambling.

It's ok if we disagree, but this is ridiculous.