Wedding photographer predicament

elsien

Anything that mixes business and friendship you should always consider what might happen if things went pearshaped for any reason. Either she does a terrible job, or doesn't give you the promised photos, or you decline to pay her for the work done and she has to sue you.

If any of the above would impact on your friendship then find someone else.

hollydays

One of my kids had a slightly similar dilemma.
They are a photographer, though have never done wedding photography before, and was asked by a good friend if they'd do their wedding. My offspring decided it was too risky as they were afraid of making a rookie mistake, so offered to be the " second " unofficial photographer .
I know you can't suggest they work for free but could you suggest they just take one or two photos as a friend?

dontone

elsien wrote: »

Anything that mixes business and friendship you should always consider what might happen if things went pearshaped for any reason. Either she does a terrible job, or doesn't give you the promised photos, or you decline to pay her for the work done and she has to sue you.

If any of the above would impact on your friendship then find someone else.

I agree with this.
A friend of mine did some photos for an acquaintance of his many years ago after they asked him to be the photographer at their wedding - they didn't actually invite him as a guest, they found out he took piccies as a hobby just wanted him to take photos.
He did state a few times that he was not a professional, and suggested they get someone else. But they were very insistent, as they were on a budget, and wanted to do it all on the cheap.
The poor man drove 3 hours to get to the venue, took all the photos, and when he sent them to the couple, they told him that he had done a terrible job and he shouldn't have turned up.
They didn't even offer him petrol money. And, tbh, the photos were actually very nice, for someone who didn't do it for a living, he'd actually done a good job.
They must have though he was David Bailey quality and were disappointed that he wasn't and were quite mean with their comments.
It hurt him for a long time. That was one friendship that went down the pan.
So, if you have doubts, get someone else in, and let your friend enjoy the day. The idea of letting her take a few shots for 30 minutes is actually a very good one, and something to seriously consider.

gettingtheresometime

I totally agree with Elsien - if anything goes wrong then you have the added emotion of being friends.


If she needs work to bulk up her portfolio, couldn't you ask her to do some engagement photos.


If you don't fancy that what about having a photograph session with her afterwards where she takes photos of you & your hubby in alternative settings (thinking fields, forests beaches here)

Kayalana99

PrettyKittyKat wrote: »

Maybe say you would like to employ a photographer so that she can enjoy being your guest but if she was happy to you would be honoured to have half an hour or so where she can take some lovely pics of you and OH? Then it's best of both worlds, she's happy as she gets to photograph people she loves but you're happy as you get the person you love to be part of your day (and get some bonus lovely shots too!). She can always take a few extra once the 'official' photographer goes home too.

No. You'll annoy the official photographer. Trust me. Fair enough once they have gone home.

Let her do it, it's her passion then she won't be 'working' her wedding day, as an ex wedding photographer myself trust me if she isn't there with a camera she'll be thinking of all the shots she missed out on.

After first dance, she can put her camera down and enjoy the night / dance away, infact insist she puts it away as most togs don't stay later. She can still enjoy the meal, she just won't be able to be 'in' your wedding as a BM....but as I put it she will be in every photo even if not physically.

PrettyKittyKat

Kayalana99 wrote: »

No. You'll annoy the official photographer. Trust me. Fair enough once they have gone home.

Let her do it, it's her passion then she won't be 'working' her wedding day, as an ex wedding photographer myself trust me if she isn't there with a camera she'll be thinking of all the shots she missed out on.

After first dance, she can put her camera down and enjoy the night / dance away, infact insist she puts it away as most togs don't stay later. She can still enjoy the meal, she just won't be able to be 'in' your wedding as a BM....but as I put it she will be in every photo even if not physically.

I agree most would be annoyed if there was another photographer following them around at all times trying to get the shots they are, but they shouldn't be annoyed at a guest taking some pics of the bride and groom for half an hour - they can have a break during this! I would definitely recommend making sure any photographer you want to hire is aware you will be doing this though when you are initially enquiring so they can raise any objections.

Kayalana99

PrettyKittyKat wrote: »

I agree most would be annoyed if there was another photographer following them around at all times trying to get the shots they are, but they shouldn't be annoyed at a guest taking some pics of the bride and groom for half an hour - they can have a break during this! I would definitely recommend making sure any photographer you want to hire is aware you will be doing this though when you are initially enquiring so they can raise any objections.

Trust me 95%+ of photographers would, and a huge number have it in their contracts they are the only photographer to be at the wedding. Plus 30min is a long time in the scheme of a wedding, depending how the day goes I'm lucky myself to get 30min with the B&G let alone trying to arrange time for a second shoot. Plus do the B&G want to spend a big chunk of their day getting a second lot of photos just to keep friend happy? It's their wedding day after all and 30min isn't a lot, but it is after you've spent around 45-60min doing group photos, around 30min to an hour doing couple photos, then another 30min to keep friend happy for photos that you actually don't need and are only for her portfolio....

sheramber

My nephew had a relation of the bride taking photographs at his wedding and there was many great impromptu shots as well as the staged ones.- over 300.

My son is a keen amateur photographer and was delighted to take the wedding photographs for a friend. He did not think it prevented him from enjoying the wedding and again he was able to get more informal shots during the evening as well as the staged ones

iammumtoone

I used to work with someone who was a keen ammeter photographer. Whenever anyone got married at work he would ask if they minded him coming along with his camera and taking photos they always agreed but of course still had their professional.


I got to see both sets from these weddings, the official ones and his. Some of his were far better than the official ones taken and at least one of the couples choose to put some of his on show rather than all the professionals.



I never heard of anyone complaining that the professional was annoyed. To be fair most of the shots ammeter took were not the stage ones the professional had set up he took more intimate ones where the guests either didn't know their photo was being taken or he just asked them to pose as an individual couple/family.

AstroTurtle

I had attended a wedding where a friend of the groom was photographer and they disliked a good 60% of the pictures he took. They paid for him also and it made their friendship a little awkward after that as they felt they couldn't complain about them because it was their friend.


Do what YOU want.

It's YOUR wedding not your friends.