wedding trouble.

[Charles Burley]

Hi, Would like some advice as i'm in a bit of a hole really. A friend at work not close friend is gettiing married in the summer and all my friends pointed him my way in regards doing the photos. I declined saying i've no experience and just shoot for fun. He begged me to do the job and my only saving grace is i'm doing the work all day for free!! If it goes badly least i can't say i've taken money on false pretenses. What sort of things should i be looking at shooting and do i need any other equipment apart from camera, tripod spare battery. I really don't want to do this but feel i can't let him down now. Apparently he was quoted at £400 for one hours work from another source. Can't imagine why he wants me! Help

Wow you must be insane!

I shoot alot of weddings and would say you shouldnt do it!
Not only ae you not comfortable, you dont have the kit or experience.

I always have:

2 Bodies
2 Flash Guns
4 Lenses
1 Tripod
50gb Of CF and SD cards just incase
4 spare batteries aswell as the 2 I already have in the battery grips
Oh and a lensbaby for novelty!

This is basic for a wedding. Not to mention insurance!

Also I normally have a second shooter incase I die and cant finish the wedding! lol

A wedding is not a playground, it could go wrong and you will regret being involved.

just politly tell your friend you cant do it and would much rather be a guest.

And as already stated by others, its not £400 for the photographer to shoot the wedding. Its £400 for the shoot, all expenses and kit maintenance and editing/processing time.
This is cheap!
If I have shot a whole day then it will take around a week to fully work my images.

So take the cost of a wedding shot all say, take everything away, I make around 25% profit for a weeks work.

 

[PSILVERMAN]

Wow you must be insane!

I shoot alot of weddings and would say you shouldnt do it!
Not only ae you not comfortable, you dont have the kit or experience.

I always have:

2 Bodies
2 Flash Guns
4 Lenses
1 Tripod
50gb Of CF and SD cards just incase
4 spare batteries aswell as the 2 I already have in the battery grips
Oh and a lensbaby for novelty!

This is basic for a wedding. Not to mention insurance!

Also I normally have a second shooter incase I die and cant finish the wedding! lol

A wedding is not a playground, it could go wrong and you will regret being involved.

just politly tell your friend you cant do it and would much rather be a guest.

And as already stated by others, its not £400 for the photographer to shoot the wedding. Its £400 for the shoot, all expenses and kit maintenance and editing/processing time.
This is cheap!
If I have shot a whole day then it will take around a week to fully work my images.

So take the cost of a wedding shot all say, take everything away, I make around 25% profit for a weeks work.

Absolutely!!

 

[big soft moose]

I'm not sure that you can be sued in the UK unless you cause damage, injury or financial loss. Somebody who's a bit more clued up may be able to confirm.
!

I'm not sure whether thats true or not , (ive got a feeling that emotional distress may also be covered) but its irrelevant anyway because if you screw up someones wedding photos you are causing a financial loss - ie the cost of restaging the whole thing so that they can be re-shot - which could be thousands.

 

[gad-westy]

I'm not sure whether thats true or not , (ive got a feeling that emotional distress may also be covered) but its irrelevant anyway because if you screw up someones wedding photos you are causing a financial loss - ie the cost of restaging the whole thing so that they can be re-shot - which could be thousands.

I really can't see that standing up in court with no contract whatsoever in place. I'll eat my words if similar cases have gone the distance. Either way it would take a seriously bad 'friend' to sue another friend who is reluctantly doing them a favour.

 

[ant1]

I'm not sure that you can be sued in the UK unless you cause damage, injury or financial loss. Somebody who's a bit more clued up may be able to confirm.

FWIW (and I know this is a big subject), I would do this sort of thing for very close friends but nobody else. With the usual caveats about preparation. Just make sure you do as much reading of these threads as possible before you commit!

Oh I see, my bad then, thanks for the info haha.

 

[big soft moose]

I really can't see that standing up in court with no contract whatsoever in place. I'll eat my words if similar cases have gone the distance. Either way it would take a seriously bad 'friend' to sue another friend who is reluctantly doing them a favour.

If you agree to do it that becomes a verbal contract (or a written one if by email) , of course if you werent getting paid it weakens the case but it doesnt go away entirely.

I'd agree that its unlikely in this particular case (especially as the OP isnt now doing the wedding anyway ) , but as a general point it can happen - which is why pro's and regular weekend warriors usually have business costs insurance.

 

[gad-westy]

If you agree to do it that becomes a verbal contract (or a written one if by email) , of course if you werent getting paid it weakens the case but it doesnt go away entirely.

I'd agree that its unlikely in this particular case (especially as the OP isnt now doing the wedding anyway ) , but as a general point it can happen - which is why pro's and regular weekend warriors usually have business costs insurance.

Yep, I would agree that if one were being paid, you'd want a written contract/agreement as well as insurance. As a favour for a friend, well I'd maybe get PL insurance for the venue but not a lot else.

Maybe it is a risk but it must be seen as a very minor one. Despite all of the doom and gloom on this thread, lots of people ask family and friends to photograph weddings. In fact, of all the weddings I've ever attended, I would guess that getting on for half were being photographed as a freebie. And yet I cannot find a single example of a case where a none-paid photographer has been sued for damages.

I can think of many, many reasons to say no, but I'm not sure that this is one of them.

 

[big soft moose]

I'm not particularly against the idea of doing it free for freinds and family - in fact i've got roped into doing one in june for my wife's cousin (they asked my father in law but as he's never shot a wedding he asked me to do it with him)

However the sailent difference with the OP is that a) it isnt a close freind (my feeling on that being that close family and good mates get it free , everyone else pays full whack) and b) He said he didnt want to do it but felt pressurised to do it.

In those circumstance can you honestly say you'd want to run any risk at all ? (and the various doom and gloom posts are actually helpfuil to the OP in giving him a good reason to say no to something he didnt want to do in the first place)

 

[the_local_jacko]

I can see the general point being made in principle but I think some people maybe need to reconsider their friends if they feel they would sue them in the circumstances given above. Yes no doubt it's possible but in reality it's not likely to happen.

I don't know what your capable of as a photographer but your decision was prob wise given your only gain is personal experience. This way the personal pressure which you would have no doubt put on yourself is off. It sounds to me that you actually want to take some shots for your own pleasure as much as helping your friend out so this arrangement sounds ideal for you. You still get to shoot, your friend will hopefully get some nice bonus shots from you but you can relax and have fun knowing its not all on your head.

 

[gad-westy]

I'm not particularly against the idea of doing it free for freinds and family - in fact i've got roped into doing one in june for my wife's cousin (they asked my father in law but as he's never shot a wedding he asked me to do it with him)

However the sailent difference with the OP is that a) it isnt a close freind (my feeling on that being that close family and good mates get it free , everyone else pays full whack) and b) He said he didnt want to do it but felt pressurised to do it.

Definitely agree with all that.

 

[Southdowns]

If you agree to do it that becomes a verbal contract (or a written one if by email) , of course if you werent getting paid it weakens the case but it doesnt go away entirely.

Actually in the UK, and I think almost everywhere else, it's not a contract without a "concideration", which is normally money, but which can be anything offered in return. That's why you'll often see agreements, e.g. shareholders agreements, where such and such agrees to something in return for £1.00. It's not that the pound matters, it's that both sides have to be giving something in order for a contract to be formed. Without, it's just a promise, which has very little legal status, and which you'd have to show you relied on entirely, and reasonably, and suffered damages from, before a case would even get off the ground.

OK so in this case the "friend" could say he offered a place as a guest in return for the photos, but he'd have a hard time explaining why he offered his photographer no more than he offered people he was expecting nothing from (in fact less; he won't have time to enjoy himself, unlike all the other guests).

I think in this situation the OP is completely safe as far as any legal liability to the "friend" is concerned, as it'd be up to the friend to show he should reasonably expect to receive something he didn't get. That'd be hard enough if he didn't get the photos at all, 100 times harder if the issue was the quality of them. The court would judge the quality received against the price paid, so the OP would have to produce insultingly awfull shots to be at any risk.

That's not to say the OP should do the shoot, just that worrying about being sued isn't one of the reasons he shouldn't

By the way, I'm not a lawyer (if I was I'd be charging £200 for this post), but I am trained in contract law for my job as a contracts manager.

 

[big soft moose]

Actually in the UK, and I think almost everywhere else, it's not a contract without a "concideration", which is normally money, but which can be anything offered in return. That's why you'll often see agreements, e.g. shareholders agreements, where such and such agrees to something in return for £1.00. It's not that the pound matters, it's that both sides have to be giving something in order for a contract to be formed. Without, it's just a promise, which has very little legal status, and which you'd have to show you relied on entirely, and reasonably, and suffered damages from, before a case would even get off the ground.

OK so in this case the "friend" could say he offered a place as a guest in return for the photos, but he'd have a hard time explaining why he offered his photographer no more than he offered people he was expecting nothing from (in fact less; he won't have time to enjoy himself, unlike all the other guests).

I think in this situation the OP is completely safe as far as any legal liability to the "friend" is concerned, as it'd be up to the friend to show he should reasonably expect to receive something he didn't get. That'd be hard enough if he didn't get the photos at all, 100 times harder if the issue was the quality of them. The court would judge the quality received against the price paid, so the OP would have to produce insultingly awfull shots to be at any risk.

That's not to say the OP should do the shoot, just that worrying about being sued isn't one of the reasons he shouldn't

By the way, I'm not a lawyer (if I was I'd be charging £200 for this post), but I am trained in contract law for my job as a contracts manager.

True - but if he for instance got expenses or the right to sell prints that would be a different kettle of fish. Also I was talking generally not about this specific case (as the OP has aslready said he isnt doing it)

My basic point being that if you are being paid/rewarded then a lawsuit for buggering it up is a possibility whether you have a formal contract or not.

Also since lawsuits can be made for the infliction of emotional distress that might also form the basis of a suit for buggering up someones wedding shots whether you were being paid or not.

 

[Southdowns]

You're right, except for that last point. Poor quality shots could never (as far as I can see in any sensible way), cause enough emotional distress to justify a claim if they're not being paid for; you'd have no right to expect anything else.

The only way you'd cause that sort of distress would be by taking insulting images. Even selling images to others wouldn't be an issue, as unless you've been paid for them or obtained them illegally, they're yours to sell if you want to.

 

[big soft moose]

I dunno about that , everyones different and I can think of girls i know who would be absolutely distraught and/or incandesceent with anger if someone sodded up thier wedding photo's

Incidentally the (paid) tog who covered my mate james's wedding then (as i've mentioned before) dropped the wallet of compact flash cards down a drain in the car park in an unfortunate butter fingers moment was quite lucky to avoid a lawsuit, he only did because he was very prompt in refunding his fee and fortunately both myself and my freind ben were guests and between us had enough uncle bob shots to put together an album.

 

[Southdowns]

I dunno about that , everyones different and I can think of girls i know who would be absolutely distraught and/or incandesceent with anger if someone sodded up thier wedding photo's

Yes, and the courts would tell them that if their wedding photos were this important to them, they damn well should have taken more care and paid the going rate.

Making someone angry or upset, even if they could demonstrate that there were real damages as a result, does not mean that a case against you would succeed. You might be angry about the quality of photo's I took for you, but unless you could show that I owed you a duty of care (i.e. that I had a duty to produce photo's of a certain standard), there'd be very little you could do about it. Establishing a duty of care is extremely difficult if you weren't prepared to pay the going rate for that degree of care.

NOT in any way related to the OP, but if you haven't been paid, what would stop you using the defence "I'm sorry you're upset about the pictures I took of her, but your mother in law really is that ugly; I just recorded what I saw on the day, and never claimed to have the skills to flatter anyone". What I'm trying to illustrate there is that being upset and having a case are NOT the same thing.

Fortunately, despite what the Daily Mail etc would have us believe, the courts in the UK remain extremely sensible. You'd be given very short shrift if you went to them and said "I wasn't prepared to pay this guy the going rate if the images were good, or employ someone who claimed to be an expert so I could be sure they would be, but now that they're not I want £??? off him because I'm extremely upset". You'd be told, admittedly in legal terms, that you got what you paid for, and that your distress is of your own making.

And despite the apparent prevalence of sharks prepared to help you sue over the most ridiculous of things, just try taking a case like this to one of them; they won't be interested, because there's very little chance of winning, and no win no fee works as a business model only because they can cherry pick the dead certs.

Obviously you'd be mad to put yourself forward as an expert, and charge accordingly, if you weren't, but you really are not leaving yourself open to court action by agreeing to take photo's for a friend for nothing or next to nothing.

 

[PDub]

Tell him no and stick to your guns.

Ask him if the venue is free,the cake and the rest of the overpriced tat associated with weddings is free, if he answers no, then ask him why he should get his photos done for free.

Quoted for one of the best replies you can get to this and many wedding/photography/money related pain in the ass moments.

 

[Southdowns]

Quoted for one of the best replies you can get to this and many wedding/photography/money related pain in the ass moments.

I'm not convinced . Surely it's up to the couple what their priorities are, and what they want to spend their money on, even if you or I think they've spent on tat at the expense of important stuff?

For example, when I got married donkey's years ago, we paid for the venue, the dress and lots of other things, but the meal was prepared and served (extremely well as it happens), by friends. Arguably if we hadn't done that, we'd have been unable to afford a professional photographer; i.e. something had to give!

It also meant those friends could give us a wedding present (the food and service) that they could afford, and thought was of value to us, instead of another toaster. I really can't see what's wrong with that?

Yep, it's unreasonable to go free and yet expect the same as you'd get if you paid (even though in our case it ended up being better; much more personal), but why does everyone have to have the same priorities as you or I?

 

[gad-westy]

I'm not convinced . Surely it's up to the couple what their priorities are, and what they want to spend their money on, even if you or I think they've spent on tat at the expense of important stuff?

For example, when I got married donkey's years ago, we paid for the venue, the dress and lots of other things, but the meal was prepared and served (extremely well as it happens), by friends. Arguably if we hadn't done that, we'd have been unable to afford a professional photographer; i.e. something had to give!

It also meant those friends could give us a wedding present (the food and service) that they could afford, and thought was of value to us, instead of another toaster. I really can't see what's wrong with that?

Yep, it's unreasonable to go free and yet expect the same as you'd get if you paid (even though in our case it ended up being better; much more personal), but why does everyone have to have the same priorities as you or I?

Indeed. My mum made our wedding cake. A friend did the flower arrangements. We paid for the photographer, that was our priority.

I know this doesn't apply to the OP as it doesn't sound like a particularly close friend but I hate this whole 'charge them' attitude. I have some good friends who have done countless favours for me over the years and I'd like to think I've done the same in return and it's balance out. In fact, only recently I helped a friend move house. No fee was charged. I didn't take out insurance and he didn't sue me even once. In fact he bought me a couple of beers afterwards, amazing!

It would be a dark world where mates can't do things for other mates without either charging or worrying about being sued.

 

[big soft moose]

It would be a dark world where mates can't do things for other mates without either charging or worrying about being sued.

I pretty much agree with you regarding close family and close mates , but I (and i'd guess many other pro or WW togs) get increasingly tired of requests for free or mate's rates from people I hardly know , freinds of freinds of freinds, or people I knew at school didnt like and the time and still don't like now.

(I've also told the story before about the Ex who asked me for a 'special price' so I said "sure that'll be 2 grand" she said "that's rather a lot, I was hoping you'd do a special price for me" , and I said " that is a special price for you, I usually charge 500 quid " )

My view is that good mates and close family get it free, everyone else pays full price or goes elsewhere - and these days I don't usually take anything more than a compact to a wedding where i'm invited as a guest, because i'm there to enjoy myself not to uncle bob and annoy the pro. (although that said this weekend I've got my brother in laws wedding and ive been specifically asked to bring my gear as another freind is doing the 'pro' work as a gift , and I think they are a bit concerned about their having an artsyier style than they would have liked)

That said that last wedding I did for a close mate , he insisted on paying a fair price for my time, I said I wouldnt take his cash, and he wound up buying me 600 quids worth of camera lens and giving it me as a suprise thankyou when i handed over the album.

So while its true that you wouldnt charge your good mates , its also true that a propper mate doesnt expect a freebie (unless they really can't afford anything else), like my old ma used to say "ask doesnt get"

 

[Southdowns]

Yes, there's a difference between asking a pro to do it free/cheap and asking an amateur, like the OP. For a pro, I'd say a reasonable way to judge it would be "is this person close enough that I want to give them a wedding present of this value?". Maybe not the selling value, but the value to you.

For an amateur, it really is just a favour. My caterers weren't pros asked to do it for nothing, they were amateurs who wanted to do it for us.

In my view, amateurs shouldn't charge until they ARE a pro, both in ability and willingness to accept liability, and pros shouldn't do it for free unless they really want to make such a gift.

Of course it's a problem for lots of professions; plumbers, doctors, lawyers, etc etc etc.

 

[big soft moose]

In my view, amateurs shouldn't charge until they ARE a pro, both in ability and willingness to accept liability, and pros shouldn't do it for free unless they really want to make such a gift.

Of course it's a problem for lots of professions; plumbers, doctors, lawyers, etc etc etc.

I tend to agree but imo if someone doesnt have the ability to do the job they shouldnt be doing it charging or not - buggering up the photo's of somes special day could be a spectacularly good way to end a freindship

And that is the far more likely risk , a client might sue a pro , but a 'mate' is far more likely to punch you in the teeth and/or tell you to **** off out of his house if you cock it up , which in some ways is more serious consequence

 

[Southdowns]

I don't see the problem. If someone asks an amateur to do some pics, they presumably don't recognise, or do but don't value/want, what they'd get from a pro, or do know that the amateur is actually pretty darn good. Either way they're unlikely to treat the results the same way they would a bad result from a pro.

Amateur does not equal "not up to the job" anyway. It equals "not doing it for money", and you would expect the best possible results from a pro, but an amateur may well be good enough depending what the couple want. If I like doing it, my mate wants it at the standard he knows I can deliver, and he knows what to expect, why on earth would he want to punch me?

It may even be that the couple actively don't like what they can get from the pros they can find? Maybe they want something a bit more quirky or rough around the edges. I wouldn't want that, but each to thier own.

I think you're worrying about a scenario that's very unlikely: crap amateur persuades someone who values great photos of his big day NOT to use a pro, because he'll do it for nothing, cocks up, and so ruins the memory. That's not what anyone's talking about, and not the actions of a friend.

Let's put it another way. If a good friend of mine asked me to shoot his wedding, because he's got no money yet wants something to remember it by, which he won't have if I can't help, I'd do it. OK so I'd try to solve the problem some other way first, and I'd want to make sure he knew I'm only marginally better than the bloke with the camera phone, but what sort of a friend would I be if I asked for payment, said I wouldn't do it because I was worried he'd sue me, or insisted he find a pro? Just like I'd help him with his plumbing if he needed me to, even though I'm not a plumber. That's what mates do; they help each other out.

Not that that's what the OP's situation is.

 

[big soft moose]

Amateur does not equal "not up to the job" anyway.

I'm not saying it does there are many amateurs arround who take astounding shots , better than many pros (and FTR I'm only a WW so its debateable whether I qualify as a pro in the full sense of the word)

but you said

In my view, amateurs shouldn't charge until they ARE a pro, both in ability .....

And my point was that if they arent at that level they shouldnt be photographing someones wedding as main camera anyway regardless of whether they are being paid

If they are able to do the job well , then fine if they don't want to charge thats their perrogative, but there are are a lot of amateurs who've never shot a wedding, have one body and one kit lens , and have no real idea what they are doing (we know because theres a steady stream of threads like that asking for advice) talking about shooting weddings and thats a really bad idea.

. If I like doing it, and my mate wants it, and he knows what to expect, why on earth would he want to punch me?

thats the really key bit - if he knows he can expect blown whites and wonky horizons, and trees growing out of peoples heads, or no photos at all because the tog had a kit failure with no back ups, then fair enough (i'm talking generally , not suggesting that you'd do any of the above) - but in all honesty how many people would let someone go ahead and cover their wedding with that expectation. Most (non photographers) think big fancy camera equals photographic genius and don't have that expectation at all, and when the tog returns a set of images where there's no detail at all in the dress, the bride has a double chin, and the brides mother has a tree sticking out of her ear they arent going to be best pleased , and his new wife even less so - which could well spell freindship over.

I think you're worrying about a scenario that's very unlikely: crap amateur persuades someone who values great photos of his big day NOT to use a pro, because he'll do it for nothing, cocks up, and so ruins the memory.

Its not that unlikely at all , vis the point about the steady stream of "how do I shoot a wedding" threads - come to that there are supposed pro's working who have no business shooting a wedding (for example a colleague of mine got married last year and the supposed pro was using a 400D, a kit lens, and onboard flash - and the pictures are shockingly awful - my feedback to him was "thats what you get for a hundred quid mate , shouldnt have been such a tight arse" ... Although I did then go on to shoot a couple shot of them dressed up as bride and groom again so that they could have one on the wall which didnt have red eye and blown whites)

Just like I'd help him with his plumbing if he needed me to, even though I'm not a plumber.

And thats an equally bad idea - buggering up a plumbing job and flooding his house is also a great way to ruin a freindship

That's what mates do; they help each other out.

I agree and if a good mate of mine wanted a wedding doing i'd probably do it because I am competent to do so (and i'm not saying you're not), if he wanted a pumbing job doing I wouldn't because i don't have the first idea about plumbing - I would however call another mate of mine who's a plumber , or lend him the cash to get a proffesional in.

IMO part of being a good mate is being aware of your limitations and not going beyond them through a misguided desire to help, buggering up and making the situation worse.

Not that that's what the OP's situation is.

Quite - the OP has wisely decided that he isnt ready to shoot the wedding as first camera (thus sticking to his original instinct) and will be shooting second camera with a pro that they both know who is also pretty cheap, a win all round IMO

 

[Southdowns]

No-ones suggesting buggering anything up. I help mates with plumbing because I know enough to help, but wouldn't take on a huge project. Of course you have to know your limits, but the fact is that those limits may well be plenty high enough to satisfy. Photography's no different to anything else; it's not pro or nothing, it's deciding how much it means to you. You're assuming that everyone values pro standard photos as much as you do, which is not the case. Many many people accept that they can't have what they can't afford, and make do with what they can get. Others don't think a pro is worth the money; I do, but they're entitled to thier view.

It's pretty simple really. It's a bad idea to take on something you know you'll cock up, but NOT right to say that unless you're a pro, you shouldn't do it; why on earth not? Are you really telling me I shouldn't have helped my mate replace his hot water tank last year? Why? What kind of mate would I be, knowing I was capable or at least could work it out, if I'd refused?

 

[big soft moose]

It's pretty simple really. It's a bad idea to take on something you know you'll cock up, but NOT right to say that unless you're a pro, you shouldn't do it; why on earth not? Are you really telling me I shouldn't have helped my mate replace his hot water tank last year? Why? What kind of mate would I be, knowing I was capable or at least could work it out, if I'd refused?

Key point there - you are competent to help him out , just like i'm competent to shoot a wedding.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it unless you are a pro, i'm saying that you shouldnt do it unless you are good enough to do the job (ie good enough to be a pro in otherwords). If you are good enough to do the job by all means do it for free if you don't want to charge your mates, but if someone isnt up to the job, doesn't have the right tools, any experience, or any real idea what it involves then they shouldnt be doing it at all charging or not

What kind of mate would someone be if they undertook to replace a mates hot watertank equiped with one spanner they'd just bought from B&Q having never done any plumbing before in their life ? And what sort of reception do you think they'd get suggesting such on talkplumbing.co.uk ?

 

[Phil1974]

I've been following this thread as it really hits close to home. I, rather rashly, offered to shoot my cousins wedding as they cannot afford a photographer. Since doing so I have thought about my limitations, both kit wise and ability and got nervous about the whole thing. However, I had a frank conversation with her the other night and expressed my concerns and told her that if it was a decision of whether to let me " have a go" or to hire a pro then she should hire a pro. Her response was that she didn't want the expense or formality of a professional shoot and would be happy with whatever I could get so I agreed to do it, unpaid of course. Still incredibly nervous but, on the plus side, I have talked the wife into letting me get some extra kit as you guys always recommend backup gear

 

[big soft moose]

Sound like a plan - you've definitely done the responsible thing in having that frank conversation.

In terms of hints and tips if she doesnt want formailty you'd do well to bin the set shots (be worth checking with your freind that the mother of the bride will be okay with this - I did a wedding last year where the brief was casual , informal reportage , but the MiL decided that wasnt what she wanted and kept coming up and insisting that I shoot this group or that group)

No set shots wil make your life a lot easier, and you can just concentrate on candids and capturing the mood - I'd say two bodies something short on one , something moderately long on the other - see if you can persuade wifey that you need to buy (or at least hire) a 70-200 F2.8 VR (or OS if you get the sigma).

At least one but preferably two flashguns with swivel heads to allow you to bounce the flash (either off the ceiling or off a bit of white card) MPB are good for reliable second user kit

Spare cards and batteries (and don't forget spare batteries for the flashguns)

see if you can take the B&G away from the reception for 15-20 minuites - maybe for a walk in the grounds - that way you can get unforced couple shots without worrying about getting uncle bob in the background.

and avoid the dreaded tree/lamp etc growing out of the head by repeating the mantra "head in clear space" when framing and composing - and shoot raw as insurance against sodding up the exposure.

 

[freefall]

This thread just goes to show what the value of wedding photography is perceived to be. The fact that you originally intended to do it shows that you hold the same regard too and are happy to oblige. I'm very glad you managed to get out of it.

I have a work friend who booked me. Full price, no taking the mick and I appreciate that

 

[pollie]

do it,
think of the bridesmaid !

suppose you could take 10 disposable cameras for the guests to use as well just in case you forgot to take any pics:bonk:

 

[Southdowns]

Key point there - you are competent to help him out , just like i'm competent to shoot a wedding.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it unless you are a pro, i'm saying that you shouldnt do it unless you are good enough to do the job (ie good enough to be a pro in otherwords). If you are good enough to do the job by all means do it for free if you don't want to charge your mates, but if someone isnt up to the job, doesn't have the right tools, any experience, or any real idea what it involves then they shouldnt be doing it at all charging or not

What kind of mate would someone be if they undertook to replace a mates hot watertank equiped with one spanner they'd just bought from B&Q having never done any plumbing before in their life ? And what sort of reception do you think they'd get suggesting such on talkplumbing.co.uk ?

Why do you have to be as good as a pro? Why can't you just be as good as the couple want you to be?

You're putting forward false scenarios. No-one is suggesting doing the plumbing with a single spanner from B&Q and zero experience. They're suggesting it's OK to help out if you have adequate (though not necessarily professional standard) tools, and enough knowledge to get the job done, possibly slower than and with messier looking soldering than a pro, but good enough to satisfy your mate.

Look, the problem I think we're really talking about is that not everyone values a professional photographer, being happy with something a bit better than some snaps. Pros may not like that, but it's a reality. You keep saying if you can't do as good a job as a pro, paid or not, don't do it, but not everyone wants or can afford the best.

I have a friend who did wedding shots for another friend. They're nowhere near what a pro could deliver, and I find them a little embarrassing as someone who can see the faults, but the couple are happy because at least they have some photos that are as good as they wanted, and she's happy because she's done a favour and had a bit of fun; where's the problem?

I don't like it that the couple thought £500 behind the bar was more important than a pro tog, but it's not up to me what they spend their money on, it's up to them.

 

[Southdowns]

This thread just goes to show what the value of wedding photography is perceived to be.

By some people, not all. Do people not have a right to not value something enough to spend thier money on it though? I don't value a PSP enough to buy one instead of playing games on my iPhone, which would probably wind "proper" gamers up no end, but I don't care; I don't value games that much, so choose not to spend my money on them.

If the debate was about whether or not a pro tog is worth the money they charge, I'd agree 100%, but it's not. It appears to be about whether or not anyone has the right to offer or accept amateur results, and I maintain that they do have that right.

 

[Phil1974]

Sound like a plan - you've definitely done the responsible think in having that frank conversation.

In terms of hints and tips if she doesnt want formailty you'd do well to bin the set shots (be worth checking with your freind that the mother of the bride will be okay with this - I did a wedding last year where the brief was casual , informal reportage , but the MiL decided that wasnt what she wanted and kept coming up and insisting that I shoot this group or that group)

No set shots wil make your life a lot easier, and you can just concentrate on candids and capturing the mood - I'd say two bodies something short on one , something moderately long on the other - see if you can persuade wifey that you need to buy (or at least hire) a 70-200 F2.8 VR (or OS if you get the sigma).

At least one but preferably two flashguns with swivel heads to allow you to bounce the flash (either off the ceiling or off a bit of white card) MPB are good for reliable second user kit

Spare cards and batteries (and don't forget spare batteries for the flashguns)

see if you can take the B&G away from the reception for 15-20 minuites - maybe for a walk in the grounds - that way you can get unforced couple shots without worrying about getting uncle bob in the background.

and avoid the dreaded tree/lamp etc growing out of the head by repeating the mantra "head in clear space" when framing and composing - and shoot raw as insurance against sodding up the exposure.

Cheers Pete,
Nice to get some good advice. In the market now for a second body and will probably pick up a 70-200 from the someone on here (have another thread running at the mo) so kit wise I should be ok with a 35 1.8 for low light stuff and dedicated flashgun.
I think the brides mum (my aunt) will probably want a couple of formals but they should be ok.
In all honesty I'm quite looking forward to it. Im going in with my eyes open and expectations managed and everyone has to start somewhere. I'm sure there are plenty of pros on here that started out with less than adequate kit/knowledge and built as they went.

 

[freefall]

Makes me laugh how some people think that weddings are a place to get free food, booze and an orgy with the bridesmaids......

 

[big soft moose]

Why do you have to be as good as a pro? Why can't you just be as good as the couple want you to be?

because that is what the couple want - at the end of the day they are looking for decent wedding photos - if they werent they wouldnt bother getting someone in with a big fancy camera , they'd just rely on uncle bob and his compact. If You are good enough to get decent shots then great - if you arent then you shouldnt be doing it because you'll wind up letting your mate down

you're putting forward false scenarios. No-one is suggesting doing the plumbing with a single spanner from B&Q and zero experience.

no metaphor is perfect but we arent talking about someone with adequate tools, that would imply a decent range of lenses, 2 bodies, a couple of flash guns etc, nor are we talking about adequate knowledge.

Someone with one body and a kit lens who's never shot a wedding before is more comparable to someone with a B&q spanner and a copy of "plumbing for dummies"

If they do have adequate knowledge and adequate tools then fine - but an awful lot of people who start "help i'm shooting a wedding" or "thinking of going pro" threads have neither.

.

but not everyone wants or can afford the best.

That may be true - which is why a lot of people hire someone like me instead of a name full time wedding pro - or get a good amateur mate to do it for free, but I'm yet to meet a bride (or indeed any female) who actually wants their wedding photos to feature blown whites, red eye, trees growing out of peoples heads etc - They may not want (or be willing to pay for) perfection but there is a minimum standard that nearly all will insist on , and someone with basic equipment and no experience isnt able to guarantee to meet that standard (nor are some supposed pro's see my post above)

I have a friend who did wedding shots for another friend. They're nowhere near what a pro could deliver, and I find them a little embarrassing as someone who can see the faults, but the couple are happy because at least they have some photos that are as good as they wanted, and she's happy because she's done a favour and had a bit of fun; where's the problem?

no problem if the couple went away happy - one presumes that the shots didnt feature redeye, blown whites etc as per above

And Bottom line this isnt about people not valuing wedding togs - I get a lot more enquiries than I can handle so i'm not remotely bothered if someone wants to get their mate to shoot the wedding for free

the point is more about inexperienced TPers not getting themselves into a jam by taking on a situation they arent equiped to handle and then suffering the consequences (whether thats law suits or more likely broken freindships and bad feeling) - thats why people advised the OP not to do it , and thats also why the Op wisely took that advice.

If you don't agree with that advice then thats fine too , its a free country - but this debate is getting distinctly circular so I'd suggest we just agree to disagree and leave it there before a big pink mod slithers out of the undergrowth with a

 

[big soft moose]

Makes me laugh how some people think that weddings are a place to get free food, booze and an orgy with the bridesmaids......

You mean they arent ?

not a word of a lie I was once offered "we'll set you up a date with the bridesmaid" as an incentive to shoot someones wedding cheap - I didnt think my wife would be that understanding of that arrangement tho so I wisely declined.

 

[Harvey_nikon]

I took my first wedding on when I only had a D60 and a kit lens. I spent £7k 1 month before and got D700+lenses+flashes etc and shot the wedding for just £200. oh, and I had NO experience, I just did research and jumped in with both feet.

Photos we're ok but for that price they weren't expecting great things, they were very happy with them.

I've done several more and only now am I really getting to a level where I am happy with them but still have a fair share of deletes. As long as you are upfront with the couple and don't charge the earth, have a valid contract both sides can end up benefiting.

I've just started putting my prices up and will be pushing it properly as a business over the next several months.

You can do it, IF you are prepared to put the time and ££ in to it! it's a risk, the days are LONG and the editing can be a pita but it's definitely worth it

This whole argument about whether people should or shouldn't do it is silly. Only the photographer will know if they feel up to it, and as long as EVERYONE is aware of the situation then it's fine by me

OP, where are you based??

 

[big soft moose]

I really getting to a level where I am happy with them but still have a fair share of deletes.

TBH I think we all have a fair few deletes - Andy (ASphotographymk) started a thread a while back for our out takes and there's some serious tragedies on there (including the one I took of a bride with a lamp growing out of her head)

I'd be more concerned if you didnt have a good proportion of deletes because that would mean either you werent shooting enough or you were'nt being picky enough (or that you'd some how become pergfick which would be very worrisome )

 

[Iris]

TBH I think we all have a fair few deletes - Andy (ASphotographymk) started a thread a while back for our out takes and there's some serious tragedies on there (including the one I took of a bride with a lamp growing out of her head)

I'd be more concerned if you didnt have a good proportion of deletes because that would mean either you werent shooting enough or you were'nt being picky enough (or that you'd some how become pergfick which would be very worrisome )

This post has made my day - I only have about a 20% keeper rate from my last wedding - partly due to me being new to this but also partly due to me being too picky

 

[Phil V]

This post has made my day - I only have about a 20% keeper rate from my last wedding - partly due to me being new to this but also partly due to me being too picky

I've been here before, but it depends on what defines a 'keeper' and what you're chucking as 'rubbish'. I've had a similar number of 'keepers' for most of my time in photography; but the quality of the keepers and the rubbish has changed dramatically over that time - and still has some room for improvement.

If all your shots are well exposed and your 'rubbish' are down to:
mis-focus (slight)
unfortunate subject movement
duplicate shots
experimental shots that didn't quite make it.

Then you're onto a winner

However, if your rubbish is because of

complete lack of thought behind the shot - just uninteresting or trees growing out of heads
exposure so bad it'll never make a good shot
severe mis-focus

Then you still have a lot to learn:thumbsdown:

 

[Iris]

I've been here before, but it depends on what defines a 'keeper' and what you're chucking as 'rubbish'. I've had a similar number of 'keepers' for most of my time in photography; but the quality of the keepers and the rubbish has changed dramatically over that time - and still has some room for improvement.

If all your shots are well exposed and your 'rubbish' are down to:
mis-focus (slight)
unfortunate subject movement
duplicate shots
experimental shots that didn't quite make it.

Then you're onto a winner

However, if your rubbish is because of

complete lack of thought behind the shot - just uninteresting or trees growing out of heads
exposure so bad it'll never make a good shot
severe mis-focus

Then you still have a lot to learn:thumbsdown:

Mostly subject movement and duplicate shots, my exposure is slightly off in a few but I shot in raw, it's my own fault for straying from my happy place shooting in manual and switching to AV :bonk: