UPDATE: Brothers Wedding (done)

Looking at it from a different angle do you really want to spend your brothers wedding looking through a viewfinder ?

I did my sisters wedding , and tbh i regreted it , not because there was a picture issue (in essence i just gave them a £750 wedding present by doing it) but because it meant i didnt get to take part in the day and celebrate my only sister getting married.. which is a once in a lifetime thing and i spent it looking through a viewfinder and worrying about lighting, poses etc
 
Is it really such a sin to do this for free IF the happy couple had/have no intention of hiring a pro either way?

I agree that if they're just looking for a freebie rather than go down the route of paying a pro, then that's wrong. But if it's either the O/P shooting it or nobody, then where's the harm?

Yes expectations have to be severely managed etc etc and even though the groom is wealthy doesn't mean he's going to fork out for a pro of the O/P declines to shoot it - some of the wealthiest people I know are tight as ducks bums.
 
I would go down 2 lines. Firstly I would go with the 'I would get better pictures if I had xxxx bit of kit how about we go halves on it?' Because thats just me.

I would then also see if he minded another tog taking some pics and enquire on here if there was a beginner/student who could come along as a learning experience and to get a different set of pictures. Whilst this may not suit everyone, it does give some backup.
 
A pro shouldn't do it for free. But as they clearly don't want to spend out on a pro, and they are prepared to let an amateur do it, go for it! But here's the trick! Make sure you get some really bad shots and present them to them. Give them a fright.
This situation is not so unusual though. We used to find the less well off were often prepared to spend more than the bigger earners.
 
big soft moose said:
Looking at it from a different angle do you really want to spend your brothers wedding looking through a viewfinder ?

I did my sisters wedding , and tbh i regreted it , not because there was a picture issue (in essence i just gave them a £750 wedding present by doing it) but because it meant i didnt get to take part in the day and celebrate my only sister getting married.. which is a once in a lifetime thing and i spent it looking through a viewfinder and worrying about lighting, poses etc
Click to expand...

I did this for my friend who is terminally ill. They really appreciated it but I missed out on the day as I was 'on duty' all day. You can see both sides of it, reading this. Pro photographers get upset, some think you are being used... Really, it is down to you. What do you want to do? Hope that helps.
 
Chipper said:
I did this for my friend who is terminally ill. They really appreciated it but I missed out on the day as I was 'on duty' all day. You can see both sides of it, reading this. Pro photographers get upset, some think you are being used... Really, it is down to you. What do you want to do? Hope that helps.
Click to expand...


Some pro photographers get upset. Most of us will just wish the very best & enquire if we can offer any advice
 
BBR said:
When I did a wedding for friends I told them the reason I was not professional was that I was not good enough and that it is harder than it looks and could easily be a disaster. It is a good idea if you email them that message too, just in case.
As it turned out they were delighted but at least I had covered myself!
Click to expand...

Lindsay D said:
Nail on head.

The fact that your brother is wealthy and could easily afford a pro makes it even worse in my opinion. Clearly he is simply trying to save money and thinks you can do just as good a job. Before the fact they all say things like 'just do your best, if you can get a few good ones we'll be happy' but it's often a very different story later on if your photos don't match up to those of a top-flight snapper. The fact that you have tried to make it clear to your brother that you're uncomfortable doing this, and that he is still pressing you to do it, is further evidence that he is being extremely selfish. Surely you, as the brother of the groom, have the right to enjoy the wedding day just like everyone else? But no, this man wants you on duty, and I presume he is aware of the many hours you will be spending afterwards sorting out all the pictures and processing them.

In my experience the people closest to you are the least likely to appreciate your time or your efforts - whilst expecting so much. I'm at the stage now where I feel compelled to decline many of the invitations I get to gatherings, simply because there is an unspoken expectation that I will assume professional photographic duties, instead of enjoying a much-needed day off.

Of course, if you feel confident you can meet your brother's expectations (let alone those of his bride) and if you fancy kicking off a wedding portfolio, then you should certainly consider doing it. Unfortunately your brother has put you in a very difficult position - if you say no and he reacts badly to that, then you have full and final confirmation that he is indeed a tight-ar*e.
Click to expand...

Requests from family & friends to "take the photographs" is potentially a quagmire. How anyone such as the OP handles it is obviously (to me) a very personal matter but if you do such a 'job' do as Brian and Lindsay say and make it 100% clear what you are able and willing to do. IMO do not leave such an understanding/agreement to verbal only put it in writing so that it is on record................because without a clear understanding of their expectations they may exceed your ability or willingness to match them. Oh, and remember he is your brother so not to forget to factor in that (surely?) he expects to have you in some of the images..................or maybe he is asking you to make sure you are not ;) :LOL:
 
Box Brownie said:
remember he is your brother so not to forget to factor in that (surely?) he expects to have you in some of the images
Click to expand...

this is why the good lord made radio/IR triggers
 
I thought your good lord uses lightening bolts when he does weddings. Melts the camera, but the flash is quite good.
 
It's entirely up to me as a professional what and whether I charge someone. I've done and will continue to do freebies whenever I like.

All this talk of "you're taking money away from pro's" is really boring imo.

I'm a part timer, charge more than most local to me, I do no paid advertising (no business cards, wedding fayres or even a website!), I have Duncan Kerridge and Ross Harvey living on my doorstep, and I'm already fully booked for next year. Cherry on the cake is that I'm not even that good a photographer.

In the current climate, there is plenty of wedding work available to those who are good enough. If your diary is full, you've got no need to moan and nothing to worry about. If your diary isn't full, then it's probably due to your own failings and not the odd person doing freebies.
 
Apologies for lack of contribution.

Thanks for all advice. I think i will arrange a sit down with them and talk through expectations and if both parties are happy, get something in writing regarding standards/expectations/ deliverables etc.
I feel inclined to tell them that i will take my camera and hopefully get some good shots from the day (as i probably would have done had they not even asked) but dont want to feel pushed or pressured into running about and not spending any time with family.
 
Bell said:
I feel inclined to tell them that i will take my camera and hopefully get some good shots from the day (as i probably would have done had they not even asked) but dont want to feel pushed or pressured into running about and not spending any time with family.
Click to expand...

THIS^

It is your brothers wedding and you are invited as a guest (presumably?)

You can either be a guest/member of the family and enjoy the day with him and his bride OR you are the photographer who is at work and not there to have fun and enjoy the day.

.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
Sorry but get sick of hearing this on here , excuses of why people are doing there first weddings for people who can obviously afford to pay the going rate, if you do it you are taking money from photographers pockets its a simple as that.
Click to expand...

Except that they have already stated that they are not going to hire one.

Andrew Davies Photography said:
Too many people treat wedding photography as a ' Oh well you can use a camera so you can do our wedding' cheapskate affair and it really pees me off when you work hard at it as a full time business.
Click to expand...

Hard luck. That's what happens when you make a business out of something which is primarily an amateur pursuit.

No professional (in any trade) should feel threatened by an amateur 'encroaching on their business'. If you are, you're not doing it right.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Except that they have already stated that they are not going to hire one.



Hard luck. That's what happens when you make a business out of something which is primarily an amateur pursuit.

No professional (in any trade) should feel threatened by an amateur 'encroaching on their business'. If you are, you're not doing it right.


Steve.
Click to expand...


So you think Wedding Photography is an amateur pursuit ?

Sometimes when you have no idea what you are talking about its better to be quiet . .
 
fabs said:
Of course you can. I did it at my wife's cousin's wedding this year, had a great time.
Click to expand...

Sure, you can take a few snaps here and there throughout the day - but if the couple in question are expecting a full repertoire of wedding photographs (which they may well be) then that's a different story, you'll be working the event exactly as you would for a client (otherwise your photographs are going to look no different to those of the guests).
 
Lindsay D said:
Sure, you can take a few snaps here and there throughout the day - but if the couple in question are expecting a full repertoire of wedding photographs (which they may well be) then that's a different story, you'll be working the event exactly as you would for a client (otherwise your photographs are going to look no different to those of the guests).
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't taking a "few snaps here and there" and, as far as I can tell from the OP, it doesn't look like they are expecting the full repertoire either
 
fabs said:
.... as far as I can tell from the OP, it doesn't look like they are expecting the full repertoire either
Click to expand...

How do you know what's in their minds? There's always a distinct possibility that if the OP fails to provide the group shots they envisaged (which they may omit to communicate to him beforehand) then he'll get it in the neck - ditto the pictures of all the bridesmaids, the car, the cake .... just because your cousin's wedding went well doesn't mean that the same dynamics exist here. These are all things which the OP needs to clarify, and I don't think any of us are out of order for suggesting he goes into some detail when discussing it with his brother. In my opinion the question of 'am I a guest or am I the photographer' is an important one which needs to be answered.
 
Lindsay D said:
How do you know what's in their minds? There's always a distinct possibility that if the OP fails to provide the group shots they envisaged (which they may omit to communicate to him beforehand) then he'll get it in the neck - ditto the pictures of all the bridesmaids, the car, the cake .... just because your cousin's wedding went well doesn't mean that the same dynamics exist here. These are all things which the OP needs to clarify, and I don't think any of us are out of order for suggesting he goes into some detail when discussing it with his brother. In my opinion the question of 'am I a guest or am I the photographer' is an important one which needs to be answered.
Click to expand...

I never suggested for one minute that he shouldn't clarify any of those things with the couple. I think you may be reading things into my posts hat aren't there.
 
Now that monkeys are good enough to take their own pictures, you should get the monkeys to do the photographs while everyone enjoys the day.
 
People have always photographed weddings for friends and family just as they have always decorated their own houses, done their own gardening and plumbing, cooked their own food and given people lifts in their cars both for themselves and others.

None of this puts photographers, decorators, gardeners, plumbers, chefs and chauffeurs out of work.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Bell said:
...They are both in good jobs ...

I have asked for a few days to think about it.
I am confident that i could get some decent candid shots etc but i am far from pro standard.

What would you do?
Click to expand...
I would do it, but insist they give me £300 in fresh notes to cover that new lens I absolutely need for the job (don't buy a lens)
That way they are spending and in the back of their minds your work will be worth something.
 
fabs said:
Of course you can. I did it at my wife's cousin's wedding this year, had a great time.
Click to expand...

how did you manage to participate fully in the wedding whilst also taking a full suite of pictures ? for one thing its not really practical to be in the group shots if you are taking them (my earlier comment about wireless remotes was in jest) , and for another its also difficult to participate fully in the ceremony if you are photographing it, or to relax and enjoy the humour of the speeches while you are photographing them, and its pretty taxing to get unwrapped on the dance floor and throw some shapes if you are also trying to take pictures at the same time.

Also you can't or at least shouldn't drink , which rules out getting half cut and embarrasing , and having to continually take pictures generally doesnt leave much time for chatting up bridesmaids.

Personally i'm with Lindsay on this, you can either be the tog , or a guest - but not both.
 
big soft moose said:
how did you manage to participate fully in the wedding whilst also taking a full suite of pictures ? for one thing its not really practical to be in the group shots if you are taking them (my earlier comment about wireless remotes was in jest) , and for another its also difficult to participate fully in the ceremony if you are photographing it, or to relax and enjoy the humour of the speeches while you are photographing them, and its pretty taxing to get unwrapped on the dance floor and throw some shapes if you are also trying to take pictures at the same time.

Also you can't or at least shouldn't drink , which rules out getting half cut and embarrasing , and having to continually take pictures generally doesnt leave much time for chatting up bridesmaids.

Personally i'm with Lindsay on this, you can either be the tog , or a guest - but not both.
Click to expand...

Someone else took the camera for any group shots that I was in, which was only a couple anyway

As a guest, my only participation in the ceremony would have been to sit in a pew

I can definitely enjoy the humour in the speeches whilst taking photographs

My days of throwing shapes on the dance floor are well behind me

Had a few pints that night, don't see how that would have made any difference to anything

Chatting up bridesmaids is not advisable when, not only my wife and her family are present, but also the husbands/boyfriends are also there. ;)

Of course you can do both, no-one said anything about the full suite of pictures anyway

I have just got off the phone to my brother and he said they would be happy if I could "get some good ones" from the ceremony, a few formal group shots and a few candids. He stressed that he would want me to pack the camera away for the evening so I could relax with everyone else.
Click to expand...

Is hardly the full pro package and it was pretty much the same for me.
 
each to their own I did the guest with camera thing a few weekends back and the six bottles of koppaberg definitely impaired my photographic ability
 
I suspect that the pros contributing to this thread are coming at it from a pro perspective, which is understandable but IMO, and I've thought this from the start, that perspective isn't relevant to the opening post.

There also seems to be a belief that there's a "right" way to photograph a wedding.

Personally, I'd buy a load of disposable film cameras and tell everyone to go for it. If I knew a couple of people who were into photography I'd ask them to bring their cameras and shoot whatever they fancied.

I reckon the results would be great.
 
simon ess said:
I suspect that the pros contributing to this thread are coming at it from a pro perspective, which is understandable but IMO, and I've thought this from the start, that perspective isn't relevant to the opening post.

There also seems to be a belief that there's a "right" way to photograph a wedding.

Personally, I'd buy a load of disposable film cameras and tell everyone to go for it. If I knew a couple of people who were into photography I'd ask them to bring their cameras and shoot whatever they fancied.

I reckon the results would be great.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't they would be absolutely pants.

Even a good photographer is going to struggle to produce good quality negs from a disposable film camera. Rarely are they rated above 400 ISO, you will be stuffed in the ceremony with no flash (which by the way will give terrible shadows and nasty exposures), the lens is worse than the base of a milk bottle and you are stuck at a pretty awful focal length for anything other than scenic views or medium to large groups.

I have seen a reasonable amount of these done by couples who have shown me the guest cameras images when they have collected their album and genuinely they are best suited to round table shots and the inevitable down trouser / boobs images you'd expect from a bunch of drunk mates.

I did have a couple put £100 digital compacts on every table at one wedding breakfast for that and the evening..... I wonder how many of those were returned ;)
 
But I'd still do it.

Typical wedding photographs bore me to death. About on a par with "glamour" shots.But that's just me. :)
 
simon ess said:
There also seems to be a belief that there's a "right" way to photograph a wedding.
Click to expand...

There is also a belief that the sole purpose of a wedding is to photograph it. For many couples though, the actual wedding is the most important bit, followed by having a great day with friends and family, with the photography coming way down in the list of important aspects.

In this case, I'm sure they will be happy with whatever they get.


Steve.
 
simon ess said:
But I'd still do it.

Typical wedding photographs bore me to death. About on a par with "glamour" shots.But that's just me. :)
Click to expand...

In 2014 there isn't such a thing as "typical wedding photographs" - the choice and variety of approaches and styles is enormous - the only common thing being that in almost every single instance the photographs were taken at and on the actual wedding day.

If everything you have seen bores you to death then you haven't looked far and wide enough, or you can't be bothered to form an educated opinion. Or of course it is the wedding/marriage that is the problem - and not the photographs.
 
No I probably haven't looked all that far - but I bet I've looked at least as far as most couples do, in this area at least.

The approaches and styles you talk of are all within a genre, obviously. It is perhaps, the genre I have an issue with.
It's not wedding/marriage that's the problem, though I can see why you couldn't resist that.

As for not being bothered to form an educated opinion - you are so far off the mark it's actually funny.

To be clear, I have nothing against people making a living out wedding photography, so I'm not sure why you're being a bit defensive.
 
I have nothing to be defensive about - I stopped shooting weddings 3 years ago almost to the day out of choice. So I have nothing to lose, but have enough experience as a shooter of weddings, and having been in the industry for over 10 years to be able to understand it well.

So if it isn't weddings per se, and you don't like "glamour" either then is it social photography that is the issue ? Do you like portraits at all (of people with their clothes on) ....
 
Oh no! I see now what you're thinking. I think it's a slight mis-understanding.

I like photography that shows me something new and different, in whatever genre.

I can see I didn't put my point across at all well. Should have taken more time.

In glamour, weddings, birds, landscapes etc. etc. the new and different is rare indeed.

I love the story of William Egglestone being asked to photograph a friend's wedding. He agreed and presented an album of photos of ashtrays.

To repeat - that's just me.

You really don't need to question my sociability or otherwise.
 
Bell said:
I think i will arrange a sit down with them and talk through expectations and if both parties are happy, get something in writing regarding standards/expectations/ deliverables etc.
Click to expand...
No, no, no. If you feel the need to get something in writing, that's a clear sign that instead you should just say no. Don't even take your camera.

Look, this is your brother. What on earth is an agreement in writing going to achieve? Try to envisage the circumstances in which one of you might feel the need to refer back to the written agreement after the wedding. That will only happen if something has gone wrong, eg "You said you'd get a photo of X" or "You didn't say anything about expecting Y". Your relationship will be strained, there will be disappointment and resentment, and one of you trying to win the argument by referring to the written agreement won't help at all.
 
Like Stewart says, the other really bad advice going in here is to ask them to pay for 'something' for you.

If you've charged 'anything' at all, or set out a contract. You have raised expectations, no matter by how little.

An informal 'Im promising nothing' for free is the safe starting point. You can't 'promise little' and ask them to buy you a lens in return. Apart from anything else, for the cost of a decent lens, they could find someone who knows what they're doing.
 
StewartR said:
No, no, no. If you feel the need to get something in writing, that's a clear sign that instead you should just say no. Don't even take your camera.
Click to expand...

I agree. Either do it or don't. If you do, just tell him you will be there with your camera and let him have whatever pictures you get. Don't go setting up expectations or obligations.


Steve.
 
StewartR said:
No, no, no. If you feel the need to get something in writing, that's a clear sign that instead you should just say no. Don't even take your camera.

Look, this is your brother. What on earth is an agreement in writing going to achieve? Try to envisage the circumstances in which one of you might feel the need to refer back to the written agreement after the wedding. That will only happen if something has gone wrong, eg "You said you'd get a photo of X" or "You didn't say anything about expecting Y". Your relationship will be strained, there will be disappointment and resentment, and one of you trying to win the argument by referring to the written agreement won't help at all.
Click to expand...
Good point. Didnt think of that.

Steve Smith said:
I agree. Either do it or don't. If you do, just tell him you will be there with your camera and let him have whatever pictures you get. Don't go setting up expectations or obligations.


Steve.
Click to expand...
I like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top