need opinions, please

cameragirl21 wrote: ok, everyone, please be very honest about how you would feel about this.
here's the thing--over the weekend i shot a wedding and the groom's brother was hovering all around where i was shooting with his little point and shoot camera and the thing is that during the ceremony there is so much happening at once and you need to be very quick on your feet and move around a lot to catch it from every angle and everytime i went to move he was in my way and he kept giving me the right of way and saying, "go ahead" but the moment was over.
then some shmuck came up to me and asked if he could get a picture taken with me and would i let someone else use my camera to take the picture. i do not ever, under any circumstances let anyone use my camera and don't understand why he would need a picture with me. this has happened many times before where a guest at some event or the assistant to the clothing designer at a fashion event has asked to get a picture with me and this makes me very angry because they NEVER walk away quietly after i've said no and always insist and the thing is i'm there to work, not to be photographed. i'm not a supermodel or a celebrity and do not see any reason why any person (who doesn't know me) would feel compelled to have a picture of me with them. so this guy wouldn't let up and he got someone with a point and shoot camera to follow me around and take pictures of me everywhere i was shooting with his $^$#$# flash going off in my face.
some of the guests would stick their hands in front of my camera lens while i was trying to shoot and some would touch the lens which makes it dirty and it's not that easy to clean. in addition, when you use any lens that's not macro (for shooting up close) it cannot focus that close (when a hand is one inch in front of it) and that can throw off the lens, making it hard to get it to focus on what i want when they finally do move their hands. is it too much to ask to expect the guests to understand that i am there to do a job and cannot be messed with?!
finally, when i was trying to shoot formals, the groom's brother showed up again. shooting formals is the hardest part because they are usually between the ceremony and reception and it's very hard to get everyone together at that time because people are off drinking, eating, socializing and the bride and groom need this done quickly because they have to get back to their guests. so i line up the people and am trying to shoot and the brother is right next to me shooting and i notice that some of the people are looking at me and some at him because they don't know where to look.
so this may seem rude but i finally turned to him and said, "listen, i really need you to let me work, you are distracting everyone and are keeping me from doing my job, please stop." and he stopped. finally.
anyway, many photographers these days are putting clauses in the contract that no other cameras, be they another professional or simply a guest are allowed at the event. i don't have that in my contracts because i always thought it silly to preclude the guests from getting their own pics but the thing is i am there to do a job and that groom's brother was in my way and so were the guests who were following me around taking pictures of me while i was trying to work. so i am now thinking of adding that into my contract...i don't care if someone wants to shoot from their seats, like at a baptism or a communion but up front, where the action is i cannot have other shooters, it throws off everything from my missing out on shots because the other person was in the way to having their flash mess up my exposure to having guests not looking at me because they're distracted by the other shooter.
i'm sure that nearly everyone here has had the occasion to hire a professional photographer...remember that when you do you are paying that person serious money to get good pictures and any of your guests that distract the photog are harming you, not the photog because the photog has already been paid for his/her time.
here is my question--would you have a problem signing a contract that clearly states that no one can take pics other than the photog...including your mother, your neighbor, your Aunt Sally, etc? if the photog explained to you what i just did, would you still have a problem with it?
remember that if no one else is shooting the only pics you get are the ones you buy from the photog, which is generally why people have their guests take pics...so that you don't have to buy as many. on the other hand, if your guests get in the way of the photog then you are missing out on valuable pics which can never be retaken as the wedding, bar mitzvah, baptism, etc are over and there's no going back.
i've also thought about telling my guests that i don't allow other shooters but if they're out of my way i don't mind but that i reserve the right to tell them to stop if i find them in my way...as opposed to just putting in my contract as a general rule.
what do you guys think?

My3LilMonkeys replied: While I completely understand the reasons why you might consider this, I personally wouldn't hire a photographer for a wedding or similar event that had a no other cameras clause. My suggestion would be to put in a clause that you reserve the right to ask guests who are taking photographs to stay 5 feet (or whatever number works for you) away from you while photgraphing.

CantWait replied: Sorry Jen, I can totally see why you're peeved. I would be also in all honesty. You're right, you're there to shoot a series of professional pictures, and it's hard to do that with the distractions you face (I saw hard and not can't because you're a professional and should be able to do that). People do pay big money (I have yet to get anything more professional then Walmart or Sears ).

At the same time though. I know that I would want the more candid shots that the guests will do, not to mention that I'm not spending all my money to give the professional pictures to my guests, so they would probably want to take the pictures themselves.

To get to my point, I think in the future I would just talk to the couple or wedding planner if they have one and let them know the situation that they either have to book more time for pictures, or they may risk great pictures if people are hovering around, getting in the way etc... To answer the question, yes I would have a problem signing a contract to that extent for the reasons I've listed.

As for them touching your equiptment, I say, say it loud to those that are doing that, that that is a NO NO.

Sorry I couldn't be more help.

luvbug00 replied: I also would not hire one with that kind of request in their contract. My wedding, i want other pov then i should be able to have them. (not angry i'm just saying) but anyway i do think that man was very rude. although our photographers had in their albums many pics of themselfs with the B&G or other family memebers because the couple asked them too and i get that because i was very close with some of my vendors. But I think that man was WAY out of line.

redchief replied: I wouldn't hire a photographer with a "no other camara clause." I would understand and accept some ground rules to other cameras so as not to interfere with your professional work, such as stay back ** feet rules and "no flash" times. Telling my "Aunt Sally" she can't take pix would cause a war I'm not ready to fight.

Simplebeliever replied:
Here's my

Every thing you said makes perfect sense and is completely understandable. When you are a photographer at an event you need to be able to move around and get your work done. You're not there to wine and dine like the guests.

IMO - If I were to hire a photographer for an event and I saw a clause in the contract about no other photographers or cameras, I'd be very hesitant to use that photographer. I've seen way too many episodes of people's court where some incompitent photographer botched the wedding, batism, ect. pictures and the customer was left with no photos of the event. I'm not implying that would definately be the case, but I like to always be on the side of caution.

As for touching the equipment or a request for a picture of you, I'd definately be okay signing a contract with those restrictions.

redplaydoh replied: I think I'd think second thoughts about hiring someone with that in the contract until it was explained to me just the way you did. Maybe if an agreement couldn't be reached you could cross that part of the contract out and both initial the changes. I think if it were explained the wedding party would agree.

msoulz replied:
ITA.

When we were married there were a few guests that told us they thought our photographer was rude because he was very no-nonsense about lining people up and positioning them. He was not cheap and we have amazing photographs. I would hope if you discuss this with your clients they should understand if you need to shoo people away. And I would never expect to handle the equipment. It's way too valuable.

Good luck!!!

ZandersMama replied: Not a chance I would hire a photographer that didnt allow other cameras being used. If someone is in your way, you should just tell them to move, no big deal.

PrairieMom replied: I think that If i was hiring a high end photographer I would understand your reasoning and sign that contract. that is if I was paying mucho bucks for it. I would expect a high quality that can't be achieved any other way, for the reasons you stated. Esp. if you explain things to your clients.

that being said...

I am way to cheap to pay that kind of $. I paid $350 total to have my wedding shot. I totally got what I paid for, with no regrets.

amynicole21 replied: I think that I would probably not hire a photog who didn't allow other cameras. But, the way you explained it makes so much sense. I never thought about it from that point of view. I think maybe explaining that there should be no other cameras during the formal shots? I think that I would be pretty accepting of that in a contract than for the rest of the stuff (cake cutting, etc).

cameragirl21 replied: thanks for all of your thoughts and opinions, everyone, maybe asking everyone to stay 10 feet away from me or something to that effect is a better solution.
in principle i have never had a problem with other cameras...i do have a problem with them if they're right in my face when i'm trying to work though.

C&K*s Mommie replied:

Maddie&EthansMom replied: I always make sure the bride knows to remind everyone who the photographer is. SHE should be in control of that. It shouldn't be your job if she wants good pics. That's just wedding etiquette, IMO. If a man was walking around snapping pics at my wedding and everyone in my party was looking at him I would have been peeved. I shot a wedding not too long ago and I remember distinctly there being a lot of cameras around when we were doing the wedding party shots and the bride kept saying "Everyone look at Aimee...she's the photographer and we want to get out of here quickly." Or something to that effect.

Anyway, I know your frustration. I would just remind the bride of this very fact. Most photographers around here have it in the contract and remind the bride before the big event.