KaaX wrote: h_rearden wrote:
I have no idea what this has to do with my business model, but I can assure you that your presence at a wedding I\'m shooting is irrelevant to my business model.
If you\'re not going to push yourself in front of my camera, and ruin my exposures with your flash, then by all means shoot away. If you do end up in my frame, you\'ll be politely asked to try not to do so. I said nothing about elbows. What I will not do as a paid shooter, however, is make a conscious effort to stay out of the GWC\'s frame. I\'ve got to get the shot. Period.
The usual reason why wedding shooters object to GWCs is because their business model depends on sales of prints post-wedding and and if there are free pictures from GWCs, B&G tend to buy less from the pro. If your business model is different, I\'m glad for you.
As long as everyone\'s polite and reasonable, I have no problems with accommodating other shooters, paid and unpaid. A smile and a request along the lines of \"I\'d appreciate if you avoid coming close to the bride for the next five minutes\" is not a problem at all. However some wedding pros actively try to screw up guests\' pictures and often enough brag about it on the forums. That I have issues with.
Kaa
Correct. I do not charge for prints. So GWCs pose no risk except that they can get in the way, mess up my exposures, and generally just be a pain in the ass, yapping about gear and whatnot.
My earlier comments may have prompted you to slot me into that \"elbow\" group, but I can assure you that is not me. I am always polite, and if there is an ongoing issue I simply ask someone in charge to remind the offender that the B&G have paid a lot of money for professional photography services and that they need to yield to the paid shooters at all times.
Jun 12, 2009 at 02:53 PM
Previous versions of h_rearden's message #7184000 « is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros? »
