Someone mentioned this a few comments down, but I'm going to say it as well. A lot of churches do not allow photographers past the last set of pews. Some churches do not allow photography inside the Sanctuary during the service. This guy obviously was doing the best he could with what he had to work with. I actually have a section in my wedding contract that protects me (as a photographer) in regards to the photography rules in churches.
He is a second shooter, notice that there is flash going off when he isn't shooting. When you look at it that way he isn't so bad. But he shouldn't be standing so close, that's what zooming is for. He's going to be in all of the other photographers pics.
Plenty of guests take photos at wedding with flash, there's nothing to actually suggest there is another professional there. Even if there was, getting shots of the backs of people's heads is pretty pointless and just bad photography
The best zoom is your feet, yes there should be a level of discretion when it comes to shooting people, and that is awfully close yes, but I would rather use a prime lens any day over a telescoping lens. They are typically made with better materials at very least.
This appears to be a rehearsal. At first there are no people in the seats, then there are no decorations on the ends of the benches. When it cuts to the bride and groom at the alter is where the actual wedding is taking place. He may have been getting light settings at the rehearsal.
Maybe his assistant is standing in front of the wedding party and holding a mirror. Or maybe this is one of those Witnesss Protection Programme weddings we've been a lot hearing about lately where the photographer is prevented by federal law from capturing any of the attendees' faces! Great post!
Hopefully, and maybe its his first wedding. A lot of times photo hopefuls offer to work for free for professionals so they can learn how a wedding works. (The ceremonies tend to be fast-paced and chaotic so most people have to practice shooting before they take the leap.)
I feel like I can tell that the bridal party is stopping and posing for what I would assume to be the lead photographer. Considering that there are bounce flashes happening when he is not shooting, I would also assume that he is a second shooter. This is a very common location for a second shooter to be standing. The cameras around his waist are so he can quickly grab a shot with a different lenses without wasting time changing lenses. I have a "camera holster" for this to keep them from dangling, but this is typical. I would have to see the final project to determine weather he was a bad photographer or not (as in I would have to see the photographs from this wedding). To me, there seems to be nothing abnormal happening here. His attire is not something I would wear, but something many photographers do. He does appear to be a little sloppy with his movements, but appears to be making sure he has more photographs than needed (which is better than not enough). So sorry he got in your way while you were trying to video this wedding with your camera phone. How dare the professional do that!
Sorry Dj Lons, but some of your comments are so, so wrong. It is normal for pro wedding photographers to use two camera bodies with different lenses on. I also doubt he is the only photographer present as his behaviour is typical of a second shooter. Notice how the couples stop for a brief while at the door to allow another photographer to shoot. And notice that the photographer in the video moves out of the way while they stop so keeping out of shot of the unseen photographer. Some of his back of the head shots would show the subject walking up the isle with the rest of the church. alter etc in the background which is reasonable. Where I would agree with you though, is most of the back of the head shots are useless. This suggests he is probably just starting out and why he is probably a 2nd shooter as he is probably learning.. My biggest criticism though is the fact that he is getting in the way of the videographer and spoiling her shots. All pros worth their salt (still or video) should work together so they don't get in each others way. Afterall, they are both working for the bride and groom and should co-operate with each other and talk to each other before the wedding so each can plan their shots.
What I am speculating is that he is a second shooter to the main. The video does not do it justice entirely as I am a wedding photographer, and I wouldn't myself be there where he is, as the pictures to my imagination won't be anything spectacular as he has got quite a few back headshots of the people. A professional photographer will always have two/three camera bodies. Going to a wedding with one is like suicide as if one breaks, or something happens to it, you have backups to continue taking pictures. The cameras are dangling as he needs to access them quickly. Now we are in 2019 so equipment has changed. Some may opt for this, others may have a spidermonkey Pro belt, everyone works in different ways. I do question things, but I also leave this open to the fact there maybe another photographer, as if he was on his own, he was taking pictures of the bride from the back and not the front. Walking into the church, venue, courtway etc, your always at the front to get expressions from the guests, the groom and the bride.
There is a chance that if the chapel is small they usually dont allow photographers to be in the front. I shot a wedding in San Pedro, Cali and that was their policy. I was only able to stand in the back so I had to rent out a 70-200 lens and work from there. But also in the routine the people are suppose to stop right infront of the door so they could look straight into the camera and then move on. I am not sure what the situation is in this place..
@metronomic1 totally agreed, thats what you get when you try to save money on the photographer, a lot of those 'cheap' photogs out there. i even know one who recently did a wedding and a lot of the pictures were completely blurry, not even camera shake blurry, but out of focus blurry, it pained my heart to see that and think what the couple had to deal with....
This guy is ruining the 1st's anyway. He is right up on every mother trucker's head. He wasn't even pointing the camera at the subject some of the time- he kept shooting that woman's butt and arm while the ring bearer proceeded down the aisle.
i think he watched Hordini's movie the day before this shoot. He wants the the wedding participants to keep guessing which pic belongs to a particular couple.
When I do wedding photography I am hovering the couple and I do most of my shots from the stage that they are being married on. lots of times I am within inches of the minister and the couple during the entire ceremony. Everyone else's photos probably suck because I am in every shot, but that means nothing to me as those photos weren't being paid for by the bride's dad.
how did the photos come out? all you are saying is that you did not like his clothes, and that he had two cameras. I'll assume that there was two/three photographers. One at least in the front facing the procession?
How sad for the bride and groom. Too many times I've heard about someone trying to save money by having a friend or someone else with a 'good camera' take their wedding photos and they end up with nothing worthwhile at all. By the way, this guy does not have 'good' equipment next to what a real professional uses. Not even the same format. And never, ever, ever would any of the professional photographers I know ever use a flash during the ceremony. They can never replace what this joker lost.
some churches dont allow people to be farther than the family. as in they have to be in the back row behind everyone. but then again many churches also dont allow flash.
The guy does not look at all the pro but calling anyone a moron, unless there is a very, very good reason, is hateful, bigoted, spite-filled. Extreme. Well done.
@Corky2828 Unfortunately he was the only "Professional" photographer. There was plenty of other people taking pictures there, but he was the only one being paid. I was (obviously) at the wedding...a friend of mine was video taping it and that is how I got the video to post.
For all those noting he must be the second shooter the description reads... "he is the only professional photographer". Would be interesting to see some of the results... personally I'm having an small fit with all that flash he's using... which isn't a very good sign... that and he's awfully close to the backs of people's heads... For me I would find it very difficult to manoeuvre with that camera gear dangling between my legs... as well as the fear of damaging that $2500 lens...
Unfortunately, some people don't realize that you get what you pay for with photography until they see the final outcome. Anyone can buy a camera and advertise to shoot a wedding for $500. Not everyone can produce quality work. If they're really cheap, there's likely a reason for it. Always look at their portfolio and past work before you hire them. To me, it would be like taking my car to a backyard mechanic and expecting top notch work.
I agree with most comments. But as a wedding photog, I can see that the guy had no room at the front of the seating to work. So I think that he was forced to do the best that he could and work from the back. But I'm sure that the results were not great. Situations like this is why wedding photographers are the most sued professionals in the US.
There were plenty of empty pews towards the back of the aisle. He could have just sat in one and shot towards people walking up the aisle instead of shooting the backs of their heads. If he was indeed a second shooter he should get some guidance from the main photographer on what to do.
I am sorry to say as a wedding photographer I use two camera's and mine is like this as it means I don't have to swap lenses in between points. Each lens is different and also the angles covered, so we need to make sure we are prepared in an event where we need to switch. However on his shots, I am not 100% sure the back heads are the most effective, as I would of been at the front capturing them walking down, but hey everybody is different. Again its normal for him to have the two cameras
believe me, it will take you time changing lens: Removing the cap top and bottom of the lens you will change, then remove the lens from the camera body, place the new lens on the body, place covers on the second lens and place it in your bag will take some time no mater how fast you do it... I been there and I missed some shot...
@defmusik Whatever, my point was, he should rather have used a fast prime, instead of bothering the people at the wedding with flashes. Plus you isolate your subjects much better with such a wide aperture.
+MrJooDoe Its quite possible there was a main shooter upfront. Thats normal to have 2 or more shooters to cover all angles. One would have to see the final product to form a decent honest opinion though.
Have you seen the final photos? It seems to me that you are judging based upon what he looks like he is doing. At my first wedding, the priest was so uptight that he didn't allow ANY flashes, and ONLY from the back of the church. He was adamant that the photographer did not get in front of the bride and groom. Because of this, the entrance photos I got were certainly nothing spectacular, but the rest were great. I would not judge until seeing the final photos.
So is this the definition of 'back up photographer ?' Shoot the 'back' of their heads ? Sad that someone paid for someone with such lack of experience! I really hope this was not the only professional photographer covering this wedding.
I think he was probably a second shooter. I've heard of clients sometimes requesting from behind shots. Who knows, he might've got something cool maybe. It was a wide angle. I've seen it although he was a bit all over them
@Kadadj Nobody would use a 1.2 run and gun like that, that makes no sense. And if you don't intend to open up all the way to begin with, why even bother with a 1.2 when a 1.4 or 1.8 would do just fine for a third of the cost?
I believe that he was a "friend of the family". Not totally sure on this one, but I remember that we had three video cameras there (one for the Master shot and the other two for the angles [main and secondary]) and this guy complained about the video cameras all the time and loudly right into the microphones. The guy was an idiot.
Was it a short aisle? Was he told he was not allowed to shoot from the alter by the priest? All the same though, if that was the case he should have shot from the seats instead of the back of the heads.
Hope there was a photographer in the front? OH, you said no!!! Maybe the Clergy said to stay away from the sanctuary (front)? He may have been forced to stay in the back?
Hey now, I don't know about him being the WORST photographer - he must have documented the backs of everyone's heads quite well! At the very least, he makes me feel better about my first experience shooting a wedding (friend's second, no-photography-product-please, casual celebration wedding) - first experience shooting an event and many people, too.
Almost every PRO carries a second body. Changing lenses is hard on the camera over time because it allows dust onto the sensor. Some moments during weddings take literally a second or two. Changing a lens properly takes slightly longer than that. Pros will tell you it is much more efficient to carry 2 bodies.
I see flash going off not coming from his camera...he is therefore probably a second shooter. the first shooter is in the front getting people coming down the isle. first shooter is probably happy enough knowing he has great backup camera(s) if his fail for some reason..
Videographers and photographers need to work in tandem. The videographers needed to allow him a proper amount of room to work and they both should have come up with a solution to have neither in eachother's shots. I have photographed more than one wedding where someone with a video camera stood between me and the bride/groom repeatedly. I've seen videographers right up at the altar blocking everyone from the bride and groom. This is why priests put bans on photographers/videographers.
Having multiple camera's hanging from you is normal for professional photographers who cover weddings. ( I would know because I am one ) His clothe's are acceptable attire; we're there to blend in. Our presence should be felt, not seen. I take pictures from that angle often when covering wedding's because my second shooter is up front facing the opposite direction. He isn't a moron; you just don't know how photographer's operate.
Thanh Huynh it's a good thing I could care less if you believe I'm a professional photographer or not. I'll just keep cashing my checks regardless of your beliefs lol
ibanezrg470 I've used a speedlight at plenty of weddings & I've also been to "unplugged" weddings that didn't allow any flash. Catholic weddings I've covered don't allow flash; no big deal. I just pull out my 610 & bump up the ISO. Your definition of what a "pro" is doesn't negate people who use flash at a wedding. Your opinion is subjective. If the couple hired him, then they clearly liked his work & knew what to expect
Your def. for professional photog. is: wearing really casual clothes at a formal ceremoney, leaving cameras and lenses hanging freely in front instead of quick and easy access positions, flashing everywhere under TTL, and shooting everyone from the back without another shooter covering the front? Please dont talk money to me, I not only shoot weddings and events, but also shot for the Oregonian, Chicago Tribune and taught in Community College photography classes. The wording of OP of the video is really controversy also.
@darthguy3 That "white thing" was a diffuser which eliminated that deer in headlights look you were talking about. His technique is fine, it's his positioning that was the problem.
@metronomic1 Ah okay. Well, actually his technique isn't fine. Notice how he often holds the camera in one hand? He must be steady as a mountain if that's ever supposed to look good.
I'm not even a professional, but have been doing nature photography and landscapes with my Fujifilm T500 and although every review of it sucks!! I have photo's posted on National Geographic, Flikr, WIX, Facebook, Viewbug, and won over 100 awards and over 10k likes in total. I've only been doing it for 3 years now!! Imagine what I could do with a real camera?
I agree to an extent.. but why do all these thousands of companies write reviews from consumers that used camera products and say some are better, some are not and explain in detail all the reasons why?
+MyOwnSoul yes, I realize this... but also I might add that you can't polish a turd!! sometimes you have to produce quality images to be able to print and not look all underexposed or overexposed all the times.
You do realize that any camera is a real camera, the cameras just the tool can you use the tool correctly is the question, you'll find out that your pictures won't really matter about your camera entirely it can help over all resolution but composition and lighting knowledge don't come with a camera does it just realize this when buying a camera you don't have to buy the biggest and baddest or have tons of gear🤓🙃
Pita Does Randomness true, I did actually notice that when i used a different camera from my first one which i was so used to (canon 6d). My photos didn't look all that different. Color wise they actually did but composition techniques not much thus the mood is still quiet similar. Differences mostly noticed in different lenses as i am using a7s with adapter with new/vintage lenses. and my collection is bigger now
We need to see the photos. I am sure you can talk to the bride or groom and ask for to see the pictures or get some of the softcopy of the photo outputs during this moment in the wedding ceremony. A picture speaks a thousand words. That will backup your claims. Often people have different view of a photographer n how he work, looks silly and stupid. But its the output that matters. I will say a 50/50 on site etiquette and photo output quality.
I am a wedding photographer and my second shooter shoots from the back like this guy does. So it's your problem if you think he is the worst because you guys don't understand about wedding photography !
Wow. First of all.. The dress will be stored away, the cake will be eaten, and the guests will forget. The only thing that lasts is the pictures. DO NOT GO BUDGET ON THE PHOTOGRAPHER. He is quite horrible. Dressed inappropriate and in horrific position for photographs of one of the most important days of two peoples lives. The sad thing is that he must have put a lot of money into his equipment or rented it... How could you be so bad WITH L-SERIES GLASS!?!?! Stuff is expensive!
Is he the worst photographer ever? No, he may not even be a bad photographer, but he does seem to be inexperienced. As noted by others, he's likely a second photographer, with the main photographer at the front of the aisle. I believe he's inexperienced for several reasons. First, the camera dangling at his knees is careless and awkward. I use two cameras as well, but one is in my hand and the other at my hip, not my knees. And I don't shoot one handed while the other hand holds the second camera. Second, the majority of shots he's taking are useless. Like many beginners, he's taking way too many uninteresting shots. The main photographer is getting their faces as they walk up the aisle - no need for a back shot. Third, he's being obnoxious and distracting, with his constant moving, flashing and getting in peoples faces. Pick a vantage point and stay there. Don't hover around them. And it ruins the pictures taken by the photographer at the front, with him in the background of every picture. As someone else noted, photographers should be felt, not seen. Fourthly, his "lens hand" should be under the lens, which helps support and stabilize the lens, not to the side, which leaves the other hand having to carry the entire weight of the camera and lens. All this suggests he's inexperienced. But if he's the second photographer, it's understandable. That's how many photographers gain experience and learn how to shoot a wedding on their own. And it would also explain why the couple would have hired the main photographer, without ever seeing this guy before their wedding day. On the plus side, he's using bounced flash to soften the light. And indoors, flash usually produces better shots than no flash. And most churches, even Catholic, allow flash to be used during the processional and recessional, if not the ceremony itself.
After reading more comments, apparently he IS the only photographer. SMH. I can't fathom why he would not be at the front, photographing their faces as the walk up the aisle. Makes no sense. Maybe he is the worst photographer ever, after all. BTW, I own a portrait studio and have been a full time professional photographer for 30+ years. You can check my work if you question my qualifications to comment. facebook.com/seankellyportraits
Hold up, I thought I was the worst photog ever. My background is photojournalism, I adamantly refuse to shoot wedding or portraits (all those years working the streets of Manhattan I am very aggressive and have a very short temper, not conducive for that wedding shoots) and while I can sit here and cherry pick all the mistakes he might be making, he appears to be "covering" it much like a PJ would a news story. However, while his attire appears to be questionable and perhaps he should have set one rig for a higher ISO and shot one without a flash, I don't see a lot wrong with his technique, well, aside from the rear shots and the 70-200L glass overkill for that setting. Still I would withhold judgement until I saw the proofs, then I might comment. As someone mentioned, he might have been drafted by a family member or friend, and while as a pro, I don't shoot weddings, I have shot a few for family members, and while I hate doing them I look at my service as a wedding gift.
He's probably a second shooter like everyone is saying but the his positioning is god awful he's going to be in every shot of the main photographer as a result he has ruined a quite a few shots right? Well not necessarilly since the main photographer will be taking shots of people once they reach the front. They won't be taking the shots at the plaace he is positioned in. However, this may not be the case and he still might be ruining the shots if that's what the main photographer isn't doing. He still sucks though because he is way too close and those shots are going to be distorted.
All I can say is you get what you pay for. 10% of your wedding budget should be reserved for photography and as the client it is your job to research and look at portfolios to decide who is right for you. In the end, this is the bride and groom's fault.
I'd be more upset with the musician.
that 70-200 just dangling there like a strapon
Someone mentioned this a few comments down, but I'm going to say it as well. A lot of churches do not allow photographers past the last set of pews. Some churches do not allow photography inside the Sanctuary during the service. This guy obviously was doing the best he could with what he had to work with. I actually have a section in my wedding contract that protects me (as a photographer) in regards to the photography rules in churches.
What do you mean? Doesn't everyone want great shots of their backsides? lol
With the size of some of them lol, incredible.
Get that photographer a cotton carrier system... :)
He is a second shooter, notice that there is flash going off when he isn't shooting. When you look at it that way he isn't so bad. But he shouldn't be standing so close, that's what zooming is for. He's going to be in all of the other photographers pics.
Plenty of guests take photos at wedding with flash, there's nothing to actually suggest there is another professional there. Even if there was, getting shots of the backs of people's heads is pretty pointless and just bad photography
The best zoom is your feet, yes there should be a level of discretion when it comes to shooting people, and that is awfully close yes, but I would rather use a prime lens any day over a telescoping lens. They are typically made with better materials at very least.
Photographer was not the best, but the organ player sucks
This appears to be a rehearsal. At first there are no people in the seats, then there are no decorations on the ends of the benches. When it cuts to the bride and groom at the alter is where the actual wedding is taking place. He may have been getting light settings at the rehearsal.
A perfect example of trying to over compensate for lack of skill and experience with expensive equipment.
Maybe his assistant is standing in front of the wedding party and holding a mirror. Or maybe this is one of those Witnesss Protection Programme weddings we've been a lot hearing about lately where the photographer is prevented by federal law from capturing any of the attendees' faces! Great post!
There are two separate flashes going off, maybe he's a second shooter and just assisting?
Hopefully, and maybe its his first wedding. A lot of times photo hopefuls offer to work for free for professionals so they can learn how a wedding works. (The ceremonies tend to be fast-paced and chaotic so most people have to practice shooting before they take the leap.)
I feel like I can tell that the bridal party is stopping and posing for what I would assume to be the lead photographer. Considering that there are bounce flashes happening when he is not shooting, I would also assume that he is a second shooter. This is a very common location for a second shooter to be standing. The cameras around his waist are so he can quickly grab a shot with a different lenses without wasting time changing lenses. I have a "camera holster" for this to keep them from dangling, but this is typical. I would have to see the final project to determine weather he was a bad photographer or not (as in I would have to see the photographs from this wedding). To me, there seems to be nothing abnormal happening here. His attire is not something I would wear, but something many photographers do. He does appear to be a little sloppy with his movements, but appears to be making sure he has more photographs than needed (which is better than not enough). So sorry he got in your way while you were trying to video this wedding with your camera phone. How dare the professional do that!
Sorry Dj Lons, but some of your comments are so, so wrong. It is normal for pro wedding photographers to use two camera bodies with different lenses on. I also doubt he is the only photographer present as his behaviour is typical of a second shooter. Notice how the couples stop for a brief while at the door to allow another photographer to shoot. And notice that the photographer in the video moves out of the way while they stop so keeping out of shot of the unseen photographer. Some of his back of the head shots would show the subject walking up the isle with the rest of the church. alter etc in the background which is reasonable.
Where I would agree with you though, is most of the back of the head shots are useless. This suggests he is probably just starting out and why he is probably a 2nd shooter as he is probably learning..
My biggest criticism though is the fact that he is getting in the way of the videographer and spoiling her shots. All pros worth their salt (still or video) should work together so they don't get in each others way. Afterall, they are both working for the bride and groom and should co-operate with each other and talk to each other before the wedding so each can plan their shots.
this was bloody painful.
This sounds more like music at a funeral/viewing than for a wedding. . lol
What I am speculating is that he is a second shooter to the main. The video does not do it justice entirely as I am a wedding photographer, and I wouldn't myself be there where he is, as the pictures to my imagination won't be anything spectacular as he has got quite a few back headshots of the people. A professional photographer will always have two/three camera bodies. Going to a wedding with one is like suicide as if one breaks, or something happens to it, you have backups to continue taking pictures. The cameras are dangling as he needs to access them quickly. Now we are in 2019 so equipment has changed. Some may opt for this, others may have a spidermonkey Pro belt, everyone works in different ways. I do question things, but I also leave this open to the fact there maybe another photographer, as if he was on his own, he was taking pictures of the bride from the back and not the front. Walking into the church, venue, courtway etc, your always at the front to get expressions from the guests, the groom and the bride.
What on earth does he think he's doing? Expensive equipment too, but I don't know why he was at the back of the church? Madness!
There is a chance that if the chapel is small they usually dont allow photographers to be in the front. I shot a wedding in San Pedro, Cali and that was their policy. I was only able to stand in the back so I had to rent out a 70-200 lens and work from there. But also in the routine the people are suppose to stop right infront of the door so they could look straight into the camera and then move on. I am not sure what the situation is in this place..
@apoel94 The other flashes that shoot are the equipment of the guests.
... I think I'd be more concerned about the organ player than the photographer.
@metronomic1 totally agreed, thats what you get when you try to save money on the photographer, a lot of those 'cheap' photogs out there. i even know one who recently did a wedding and a lot of the pictures were completely blurry, not even camera shake blurry, but out of focus blurry, it pained my heart to see that and think what the couple had to deal with....
I agree. He's not worth to be called Professional Photographer especially to the Wedding!
I can kinda see what he was going for: Like a wide angle, symmetrical shot that captures the whole building with the 2 kids in the middle.
This guy is ruining the 1st's anyway. He is right up on every mother trucker's head. He wasn't even pointing the camera at the subject some of the time- he kept shooting that woman's butt and arm while the ring bearer proceeded down the aisle.
"Almost every PRO carries a second body."
He obviously doesn't have the skills to count as one.
i think he watched Hordini's movie the day before this shoot. He wants the the wedding participants to keep guessing which pic belongs to a particular couple.
i’m getting secondhand embarrassment
If he was a second camera man, then he must have been in all the shots coming from the front? I wouldn't want that at my wedding!
When I do wedding photography I am hovering the couple and I do most of my shots from the stage that they are being married on. lots of times I am within inches of the minister and the couple during the entire ceremony. Everyone else's photos probably suck because I am in every shot, but that means nothing to me as those photos weren't being paid for by the bride's dad.
how did the photos come out? all you are saying is that you did not like his clothes, and that he had two cameras. I'll assume that there was two/three photographers. One at least in the front facing the procession?
How sad for the bride and groom. Too many times I've heard about someone trying to save money by having a friend or someone else with a 'good camera' take their wedding photos and they end up with nothing worthwhile at all.
By the way, this guy does not have 'good' equipment next to what a real professional uses. Not even the same format. And never, ever, ever would any of the professional photographers I know ever use a flash during the ceremony.
They can never replace what this joker lost.
some churches dont allow people to be farther than the family. as in they have to be in the back row behind everyone. but then again many churches also dont allow flash.
It looks like a young guy from the village who sells his photographs at the end of ceremony :-)
The guy does not look at all the pro but calling anyone a moron, unless there is a very, very good reason, is hateful, bigoted, spite-filled. Extreme. Well done.
Wow, this "photographer" sure has wasted a lot of money on equipment he obviously has no clue how to use!
Only photographer at this event...not a second shooter.
@Corky2828
Unfortunately he was the only "Professional" photographer. There was plenty of other people taking pictures there, but he was the only one being paid. I was (obviously) at the wedding...a friend of mine was video taping it and that is how I got the video to post.
For all those noting he must be the second shooter the description reads... "he is the only professional photographer". Would be interesting to see some of the results... personally I'm having an small fit with all that flash he's using... which isn't a very good sign... that and he's awfully close to the backs of people's heads...
For me I would find it very difficult to manoeuvre with that camera gear dangling between my legs... as well as the fear of damaging that $2500 lens...
Unfortunately, some people don't realize that you get what you pay for with photography until they see the final outcome. Anyone can buy a camera and advertise to shoot a wedding for $500. Not everyone can produce quality work. If they're really cheap, there's likely a reason for it. Always look at their portfolio and past work before you hire them. To me, it would be like taking my car to a backyard mechanic and expecting top notch work.
Forget the back-of-the-head shots, I'm sure the women were thrilled to have their asses to well documented.
love the other camera dangling around his neck haha! remember kids, the more cameras you hang on you the more pro you look!
Maybe there was a photographer in the front getting front shots.
Where can we see the Photos. He seems to be very keen on taking the back of Peoples Heads !!!
editing the pics: I like big butts and I can not lie!
pity the gear came in greater amount than the skill needed to use it properly.
I agree with most comments. But as a wedding photog, I can see that the guy had no room at the front of the seating to work. So I think that he was forced to do the best that he could and work from the back. But I'm sure that the results were not great. Situations like this is why wedding photographers are the most sued professionals in the US.
There were plenty of empty pews towards the back of the aisle. He could have just sat in one and shot towards people walking up the aisle instead of shooting the backs of their heads. If he was indeed a second shooter he should get some guidance from the main photographer on what to do.
I'm a wedding photographer second. It sounds like someone is taking shoots from the front of the church.
There ought to be a law against obese brides. What kind of a honeymoon will that be?
I am sorry to say as a wedding photographer I use two camera's and mine is like this as it means I don't have to swap lenses in between points. Each lens is different and also the angles covered, so we need to make sure we are prepared in an event where we need to switch. However on his shots, I am not 100% sure the back heads are the most effective, as I would of been at the front capturing them walking down, but hey everybody is different. Again its normal for him to have the two cameras
only a gangsta would carry a camera that low. true g real balla
believe me, it will take you time changing lens: Removing the cap top and bottom of the lens you will change, then remove the lens from the camera body, place the new lens on the body, place covers on the second lens and place it in your bag will take some time no mater how fast you do it... I been there and I missed some shot...
did anyone else notice he also seems to be in the majority of other people's shots?
He think he play guitar in a rock band. That’s why he’s camera touch the ground.
@defmusik Whatever, my point was, he should rather have used a fast prime, instead of bothering the people at the wedding with flashes. Plus you isolate your subjects much better with such a wide aperture.
Think I'll stick to nature photography, I couldn't be doing with all that as well as 3 cameras with expensive L lenses to whack the floor and break.
I Love this video. It's classic. would be hilarious if he did the whole wedding of nothing but peoples backs
He sure got a bunch of back of the head shots.
+MrJooDoe Its quite possible there was a main shooter upfront. Thats normal to have 2 or more shooters to cover all angles. One would have to see the final product to form a decent honest opinion though.
Hmmm, well he isnt exactly holding the camera properly for a start... 😕
is that A4 paper diffuser?
Have you seen the final photos? It seems to me that you are judging based upon what he looks like he is doing. At my first wedding, the priest was so uptight that he didn't allow ANY flashes, and ONLY from the back of the church. He was adamant that the photographer did not get in front of the bride and groom. Because of this, the entrance photos I got were certainly nothing spectacular, but the rest were great. I would not judge until seeing the final photos.
@redheadedninjaphoto because if not then all you would get is a bunch of motion blurs and the bride wouldn't ever get to remember her ceremonies.
So is this the definition of 'back up photographer ?' Shoot the 'back' of their heads ? Sad that someone paid for someone with such lack of experience! I really hope this was not the only professional photographer covering this wedding.
I think he was probably a second shooter. I've heard of clients sometimes requesting from behind shots. Who knows, he might've got something cool maybe. It was a wide angle. I've seen it although he was a bit all over them
Ur so right about ur comment.
I should think better next time i open my mouth.
@Kadadj Nobody would use a 1.2 run and gun like that, that makes no sense. And if you don't intend to open up all the way to begin with, why even bother with a 1.2 when a 1.4 or 1.8 would do just fine for a third of the cost?
I believe that he was a "friend of the family". Not totally sure on this one, but I remember that we had three video cameras there (one for the Master shot and the other two for the angles [main and secondary]) and this guy complained about the video cameras all the time and loudly right into the microphones. The guy was an idiot.
F sharp! F sharp!!!
heres merry and jeff from behind... heres debby and mike... from behind... ah shit. lol
Maybe he's doing a stop motion wedding video.
Was it a short aisle? Was he told he was not allowed to shoot from the alter by the priest?
All the same though, if that was the case he should have shot from the seats instead of the back of the heads.
We should judge a photographer by his/her picture not by how he/she looks or how he/she get the job done.
Hope there was a photographer in the front? OH, you said no!!! Maybe the Clergy said to stay away from the sanctuary (front)? He may have been forced to stay in the back?
Hey now, I don't know about him being the WORST photographer - he must have documented the backs of everyone's heads quite well!
At the very least, he makes me feel better about my first experience shooting a wedding (friend's second, no-photography-product-please, casual celebration wedding) - first experience shooting an event and many people, too.
Maybe the wedding party paid extra for behind the head shots,lol
Almost every PRO carries a second body. Changing lenses is hard on the camera over time because it allows dust onto the sensor. Some moments during weddings take literally a second or two. Changing a lens properly takes slightly longer than that. Pros will tell you it is much more efficient to carry 2 bodies.
Gotta hear the other side of the story.. Maybe whoever hired him was an idiot so he purposely didn't take properly
I see flash going off not coming from his camera...he is therefore probably a second shooter. the first shooter is in the front getting people coming down the isle. first shooter is probably happy enough knowing he has great backup camera(s) if his fail for some reason..
I'm no wedding photographer but I have to agree that guy was pretty damn bad.
is it just me but when the larger bridemaid walk down he doesn't really any photos of her but everyone else he took like 5-10 pic of their bottoms
Videographers and photographers need to work in tandem. The videographers needed to allow him a proper amount of room to work and they both should have come up with a solution to have neither in eachother's shots. I have photographed more than one wedding where someone with a video camera stood between me and the bride/groom repeatedly. I've seen videographers right up at the altar blocking everyone from the bride and groom. This is why priests put bans on photographers/videographers.
He is horrible but when he went to get a shot of the little boy is mother turned him around so that's her fault.
Having multiple camera's hanging from you is normal for professional photographers who cover weddings. ( I would know because I am one ) His clothe's are acceptable attire; we're there to blend in. Our presence should be felt, not seen. I take pictures from that angle often when covering wedding's because my second shooter is up front facing the opposite direction. He isn't a moron; you just don't know how photographer's operate.
porsche62689 sorry but I could not believe you are a "professional photographer" even I tried...
Thanh Huynh it's a good thing I could care less if you believe I'm a professional photographer or not. I'll just keep cashing my checks regardless of your beliefs lol
ibanezrg470 I've used a speedlight at plenty of weddings & I've also been to "unplugged" weddings that didn't allow any flash. Catholic weddings I've covered don't allow flash; no big deal. I just pull out my 610 & bump up the ISO. Your definition of what a "pro" is doesn't negate people who use flash at a wedding. Your opinion is subjective. If the couple hired him, then they clearly liked his work & knew what to expect
Your def. for professional photog. is: wearing really casual clothes at a formal ceremoney, leaving cameras and lenses hanging freely in front instead of quick and easy access positions, flashing everywhere under TTL, and shooting everyone from the back without another shooter covering the front?
Please dont talk money to me, I not only shoot weddings and events, but also shot for the Oregonian, Chicago Tribune and taught in Community College photography classes.
The wording of OP of the video is really controversy also.
I could only agree on your very last statement "If the couple hired him, then they clearly liked his work and knew what to expect"
@darthguy3 That "white thing" was a diffuser which eliminated that deer in headlights look you were talking about. His technique is fine, it's his positioning that was the problem.
@metronomic1 Ah okay. Well, actually his technique isn't fine. Notice how he often holds the camera in one hand? He must be steady as a mountain if that's ever supposed to look good.
@NeDolM Churches often have rules about where the photographer can and cannot be. Some do not allow you anywhere up the isle.
being in the crowd would’ve been better than that lol
I'm not even a professional, but have been doing nature photography and landscapes with my Fujifilm T500 and although every review of it sucks!! I have photo's posted on National Geographic, Flikr, WIX, Facebook, Viewbug, and won over 100 awards and over 10k likes in total. I've only been doing it for 3 years now!! Imagine what I could do with a real camera?
I agree to an extent.. but why do all these thousands of companies write reviews from consumers that used camera products and say some are better, some are not and explain in detail all the reasons why?
+Todd Gilmore does the camera receive light? it is a real camera. even an old 2010 nokia phone has a real camera. lol
+MyOwnSoul yes, I realize this... but also I might add that you can't polish a turd!! sometimes you have to produce quality images to be able to print and not look all underexposed or overexposed all the times.
You do realize that any camera is a real camera, the cameras just the tool can you use the tool correctly is the question, you'll find out that your pictures won't really matter about your camera entirely it can help over all resolution but composition and lighting knowledge don't come with a camera does it just realize this when buying a camera you don't have to buy the biggest and baddest or have tons of gear🤓🙃
Pita Does Randomness true, I did actually notice that when i used a different camera from my first one which i was so used to (canon 6d). My photos didn't look all that different. Color wise they actually did but composition techniques not much thus the mood is still quiet similar. Differences mostly noticed in different lenses as i am using a7s with adapter with new/vintage lenses. and my collection is bigger now
We need to see the photos. I am sure you can talk to the bride or groom and ask for to see the pictures or get some of the softcopy of the photo outputs during this moment in the wedding ceremony. A picture speaks a thousand words. That will backup your claims. Often people have different view of a photographer n how he work, looks silly and stupid. But its the output that matters. I will say a 50/50 on site etiquette and photo output quality.
a second photographer should not be in the background of every photo or as in this case right in the middle of the wedding video.
@darthguy3 He wasnt using direct flash.
I am a wedding photographer and my second shooter shoots from the back like this guy does. So it's your problem if you think he is the worst because you guys don't understand about wedding photography !
Stupid reply. From a wedding photographer. You should know better. I too am a wedding photographer. The guy, God bless him, is crap at the job.
Wow.
First of all.. The dress will be stored away, the cake will be eaten, and the guests will forget. The only thing that lasts is the pictures. DO NOT GO BUDGET ON THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
He is quite horrible. Dressed inappropriate and in horrific position for photographs of one of the most important days of two peoples lives. The sad thing is that he must have put a lot of money into his equipment or rented it... How could you be so bad WITH L-SERIES GLASS!?!?! Stuff is expensive!
Know your limitations... I know mine, and I am NO wedding photographer...
Maybe he specialises in 'back of the head' photography. It's all the rage around here don't you know.
Is he the worst photographer ever? No, he may not even be a bad photographer, but he does seem to be inexperienced. As noted by others, he's likely a second photographer, with the main photographer at the front of the aisle. I believe he's inexperienced for several reasons. First, the camera dangling at his knees is careless and awkward. I use two cameras as well, but one is in my hand and the other at my hip, not my knees. And I don't shoot one handed while the other hand holds the second camera. Second, the majority of shots he's taking are useless. Like many beginners, he's taking way too many uninteresting shots. The main photographer is getting their faces as they walk up the aisle - no need for a back shot. Third, he's being obnoxious and distracting, with his constant moving, flashing and getting in peoples faces. Pick a vantage point and stay there. Don't hover around them. And it ruins the pictures taken by the photographer at the front, with him in the background of every picture. As someone else noted, photographers should be felt, not seen. Fourthly, his "lens hand" should be under the lens, which helps support and stabilize the lens, not to the side, which leaves the other hand having to carry the entire weight of the camera and lens. All this suggests he's inexperienced. But if he's the second photographer, it's understandable. That's how many photographers gain experience and learn how to shoot a wedding on their own. And it would also explain why the couple would have hired the main photographer, without ever seeing this guy before their wedding day.
On the plus side, he's using bounced flash to soften the light. And indoors, flash usually produces better shots than no flash. And most churches, even Catholic, allow flash to be used during the processional and recessional, if not the ceremony itself.
After reading more comments, apparently he IS the only photographer. SMH. I can't fathom why he would not be at the front, photographing their faces as the walk up the aisle. Makes no sense. Maybe he is the worst photographer ever, after all. BTW, I own a portrait studio and have been a full time professional photographer for 30+ years. You can check my work if you question my qualifications to comment. facebook.com/seankellyportraits
Her dress was hideous.I wouldn't want pictures of that!
I believe that he was a friend of the family who had a few cameras and was asked to shoot the wedding.
i think he is a second asistant photographer. dont you see the flashes ?
Hold up, I thought I was the worst photog ever. My background is photojournalism, I adamantly refuse to shoot wedding or portraits (all those years working the streets of Manhattan I am very aggressive and have a very short temper, not conducive for that wedding shoots) and while I can sit here and cherry pick all the mistakes he might be making, he appears to be "covering" it much like a PJ would a news story. However, while his attire appears to be questionable and perhaps he should have set one rig for a higher ISO and shot one without a flash, I don't see a lot wrong with his technique, well, aside from the rear shots and the 70-200L glass overkill for that setting. Still I would withhold judgement until I saw the proofs, then I might comment. As someone mentioned, he might have been drafted by a family member or friend, and while as a pro, I don't shoot weddings, I have shot a few for family members, and while I hate doing them I look at my service as a wedding gift.
cameraman655 You sound like a complete joker.."Streets of Manhattan""short temper"..Probably a short dude,too..Sheer BS,,,
Julia Nelson
Yes, I am short, as for the "BS" assertion, believe what you choose. BTW, a classy response.
He's probably a second shooter like everyone is saying but the his positioning is god awful he's going to be in every shot of the main photographer as a result he has ruined a quite a few shots right? Well not necessarilly since the main photographer will be taking shots of people once they reach the front. They won't be taking the shots at the plaace he is positioned in. However, this may not be the case and he still might be ruining the shots if that's what the main photographer isn't doing. He still sucks though because he is way too close and those shots are going to be distorted.
All I can say is you get what you pay for. 10% of your wedding budget should be reserved for photography and as the client it is your job to research and look at portfolios to decide who is right for you. In the end, this is the bride and groom's fault.
The flashes you are seeing are the cameras from everyone else in the crowd. He was, unfortunately for them, the only "professional" photographer.