Ben, the best option would be to 2nd shoot. Much less pressure than shooting as a free main photographer … and you get to learn more.

Neil vN

Ben

Other photographers don’t bother me much, except for two specific places

- the church. Since it is a quieter time and place, it really isn’t necessary to have guests shuffle around, trying to photograph the ceremony. Even worse, standing or kneeling in the aisle.

- the family formals.
It’s not that I am envious of anyone else with their camera, or that their flashes will affect my lights or trigger my lights. (I think professional photographers who use optical slaves at weddings are setting themselves up for a lot of frustration). But what bothers me, is that if I allow others to stand near me when I photograph the family portraits, that they will inevitably look away at other photographers. That is a consistent problem when there are other photographers milling around during the potrait session. Keeping everyone’s attention, even when you work fast and efficiently, is a challenge .. and much more so if there are pushy guests with cameras.

But there are other times as well though when an over-keen Uncle Bob could be a nuisance .. for example, the couple is standing on the steps. There are bubbles or such, and the couple are laughing and kissing … and there is one fool that will decide to stand behind them to photograph the couple with all the guests behind them. The only problem is, I *know* that I will have to edit that fool with his camerea out afterwards when I design the album.

During the reception, you will also get guests-with-cameras who will step on the dance floor to tap the bride and her dad on the shoulder to look over and smile for their cameras … thereby completely spoiling any chance for anyone to photograph a quiet introspective moment as the bride and her dad dances.

So my best advice would be .. be a guest at the wedding, not the photographer.

If you’d like to take some photographs, be very aware that one more body moving around during the ceremony will just be further distraction. So my suggestion is to resist the temptation during the ceremony.

Other than that … just have fun and enjoy the wedding.

Neil vN

I have a wedding to attend in this summer and I really like to bring out all I have to practice what I have learned from your seminar. However, I don’t want to annoy the “paid photographer”, do you have any advice for me.

Thanks,
Ben

Hi there Evan ..

For me, a lens hood is essential in protecting the lens against accidental knocks and bumps. And then of course it also helps in reducing flare. I keep lens hoods on all my lenses at all times.

Neil vN

Thanks,
Evan

Stephen …

You’re right that f1.8 will give you a very shallow depth of field. But how obvious it is, depends on the image size, and in resizing for web, a lot of the subtlety is lost. Also, keep in mind that for portraits you quite often just need the eyes to be sharp for the image to look good.

A reflection in a mirror has depth. You can try this by focusing on various objects in a mirror – your camera will refocus every time for the difference in distance. In other words, the bride is in a different optical plane than everything else in the room. (This has to be, otherwise everything reflected by a mirror would be sharply in focus.)

Neil vN

My understanding is that f1.8 has a very shallow depth of field. So, if you took a picture of somebody’s face and focus on the nose, the nose would be in focus, but other parts of the face would (potentially) be slightly blurred from the shallow depth of field.

But everything on the bride’s face and chest are in focus! I presume that is the case, because the mirror’s surface is flat. Thus, the bride’s reflection is on the same optical plane for the camera lens, so her face and chest are in focus. Am I correct?

–Stephen

Ed,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. That in itself is a great compliment, coming from someone with your abilities in writing and with photography.

Neil vN

It’s a marketing ploy and often an excuse for photographers who aren’t comfortable interacting, directing, and who need a reason for why they didn’t get a particular shot, or didn’t get it right.

Candid shots can most certainly happen. Unplanned moments can be captured. But, the idea that a hired photographer can covertly cover an entire wedding properly without being noticed is silly. What is really the point of that anyway? To more accurately capture a ceremony and celebration? To get those tender quiet moments without interfering with the “reality” of the day?

I agree with your methodology. If you have become a part of the day, THEN your presence is more natural and unobtrusive. The photographer can be a solid fixture and friend. This makes it even more possible to accept him in his role, forget he is there at times, and respond to him when appropriate.

Imagine the lucky bride who’s photographer can casually walk up to her during a free moment, and say, “I found a great spot where we can take a really great picture, would you like to try it?”

Much better than the idea of huddling off to the edge of the action all day long with a telephoto. Or being invisible enough for the bride to come looking for you.