The Pro At The Event Dilemma

[MarkBarbieri]

The Pro At The Event Dilemma

My next door neighbor has the title role in the play Mulan. My wife went to their dress rehearsal earlier this week to get some pictures for them. She went equipped with a pair of cameras, a 70-200mm f/2.8, and a 300mm f/2.8. She came home with some nice pictures, but wanted me to bring a camera to the show we attended Saturday.

Saturday morning we got an e-mail from Mulan’s mother. The director asked that we not bring a camera to the play. It’s not that cameras are banned (they only ask that you not use a flash or videotape). The director was just worried that the professional photographer covering the event would be unhappy if we showed up with gear similar to what my wife brought.

It’s an interesting dilemma. If parent’s show up with professional photography gear and start taking pro quality pictures, the pro probably won’t make enough money to make it worth their time. The parents all know each other, so they’ll just get free pictures from the photographer parent. On the other hand, if no “photographer parent” shows up or if they are all gear and no eye, no one gets decent pictures.

I’m sure it is challenging for people running sports leagues, weddings, pageants, plays, etc. On one hand, you’d like to contract with a professional photographer and videographer so that your people have access to high quality pictures and videos. On the other hand, you don’t want to tell parents that they cannot bring their own cameras and take pictures of their own kids.

In the case of the play, we acquiesced to the director’s request and didn’t bring any cameras to the play. It wasn't our child or show, so I had no qualms about going along with any request that they made. Had it been my child in the play, I would probably have approached it differently. I’m not exactly sure how I would have reacted. It would have depended on the agreement the production company had with the photographer.

As high quality camera equipment proliferates, I think we’ll see more of these conflicts. There seem to be more and more people working as professional photographers because the barriers to entry are so low. There are also more parents with professional quality camera gear, so the risks of conflicts between the two are also rising.

Have you had any similar experiences? How did you or would you react?

 

[photo_chick]

I've had something similar. In my case it was field day at my kids school. In the past I'd always given all of my images to the school so they could use them in the yearbook. I also made the galleries available to my kids teachers and other parents who wanted access. Year before last a woman with the PTA came up to me, toting her brand new Rebel, and said she was the designated photographer and was taking pictures as a fund raiser for the PTA. Then she asked me not to take pictures. I politely informed her that she would need to make every other parent with a camera stop as well. She said no, it's because I had a professional camera. (LOL, how many "pros" look down on me with my 50D and low end glass?) Anyway, I offered my images to the PTA for the fund raiser, pointing out that since she obviously couldn't be in many places at once this would give them more images to sell. She declined, acted like I insulted her, and walked off in a huff. I took my pictures and still gave the images away as I always do.

 

[Experiment_626]

Interesting question. Where is the line between an official photographer at an event that has the right (and exercises it) to restrict other photographers on the one hand, and a photographer who just wants no one else shooting because he wants to corner the market?

SSB

 

[millys]

Hmmm - interesting subject - my first thought was - 'I'm not sure that any pro worth their salt should be worried by an 'amateur with pro gear'.
However - I do get the point that the pro may not get as many orders and needs the money to earn a living. The trouble is - there are now cameras available to the masses that are of a quality that we couldn't have imagined just a few years ago. Coupled with the many post processing packages it can be relatively easy to get acceptable and sometimes great pictures using even some of the higher end point and shoot models.

Having said that - 'great gear does not a great photographer make' and I'm pretty sure that Mark could produce better pictures with a disposable camera than I could with a new Nikon D4...LOL...!

I have taken pictures at a few events and weddings where there is a professional photographer present and I am always mindful to his/her needs. I tend to try to take casual or off-guard moments of people enjoying the occasion rather than the formal group shots.

What would happen if Disney took the approach of banning what they regard as 'pro gear' in all of the parks and how disappointed would we feel if we couldn't follow our hobby (or affliction!) in the happies place on earth!
I have to say that one of the biggest attractions of going to Disney for me is the chance to try out some new equipment and styles of photography.

I guess that it's a fine line between pro and enthusiast these days and 'pro gear' is now very subjective. Could the latest high end Canon point and shoot out-perform one of the older pro DSLR's in the hands of an experienced enthusiast?

Just my thoughts......

Milly

 

[BigTuna07]

I have yet to experience this since my kids aren't in school yet, but if others can take photos of their kids so can I. Why would I want to pay for a picture that I can take? If cameras are banned altogether, that is different. Then I wouldn't even bring my camera or if I didn't know prior to showing up I would just put it away.

I always think it is funny when I get my pictures printed at WalMart and they make me sign a release so they don't get sued by the "pro" who took the picture.

 

[wenrob]

It sounds to me like this pro doesn't have enough confidence it what he's doing if he's worried that'll hurt his sales. I know when my teen was little I wanted every photo I could so would take some AND buy some.

As a parent I would do as Danielle and request all parents abide by the same rule. If not then taking my photos. As a guest, at say a wedding, I'd defer to the pro.

 

[YesDear]

Is this not the same problem at a different venue when some of us are being stopped at Disney by security because our photography equipment looks too professional.

I agree with Mark that as some acquire professional grade equipment the perception of who we are and our intentions will be subject to challenge.

I would also not be surprised that for the play Mark mentioned they had a difficult time getting a pro to take pictures. They probably perceive it as time intensive and little reward.

Another example of perception becoming reality!

 

[WDWFigment]

Is this not the same problem at a different venue when some of us are being stopped at Disney by security because our photography equipment looks too professional.

I agree with Mark that as some acquire professional grade equipment the perception of who we are and our intentions will be subject to challenge.

I would also not be surprised that for the play Mark mentioned they had a difficult time getting a pro to take pictures. They probably perceive it as time intensive and little reward.

Another example of perception becoming reality!

I think it's different than what happens at the Disney parks on occasion.

There, the official concern is that professional gear will be used to harass other guests, namely, celebrities. This is especially the case at Disneyland, where there have been incidents with paparazzi. Security, not understanding the rules, has warped and bent them and sometimes harasses photographers using DSLRs for purposes other than taking photos of other guests. This is on the security guard's own initiative, and is not the policy of Disney.

There is no concern that average guests will take photos that rival those taken by Yellow Shoes photographers. In fact, if you inquire with Disney's media department, you're likely to be told that they're more than happy to have guests take excellent photos of the theme parks and post them online. These photos are free advertising for the parks, after all. Closer to the point here, Disney doesn't even take issue with guidebooks that compete with its own (Birnbaum's) as that is likewise viewed as increased exposure for the parks.

Here, the difference is that the amateur photographer is "competing" with the professional photographer in a low-demand market. If the amateur is allowed to "compete" with the professional, the professional may not exist at the next event (by contrast, Disney is a high-demand market and no amount of amateur photos will drive Disney's in-house photo team out of business).

I don't know how I'd react in this situation. On the one hand, it's a free market and I don't feel rules should be selectively enforced to exclude me from taking photos, but on the other hand, I wouldn't want the school to lose a pro who is taking photos for a variety of events (including ones that I wouldn't attend because my kids aren't in them) because I wanted to exercise my "rights." It's a tough call.

 

[Marlton Mom]

I've had something similar. In my case it was field day at my kids school. In the past I'd always given all of my images to the school so they could use them in the yearbook. I also made the galleries available to my kids teachers and other parents who wanted access. Year before last a woman with the PTA came up to me, toting her brand new Rebel, and said she was the designated photographer and was taking pictures as a fund raiser for the PTA. Then she asked me not to take pictures. I politely informed her that she would need to make every other parent with a camera stop as well. She said no, it's because I had a professional camera. (LOL, how many "pros" look down on me with my 50D and low end glass?) Anyway, I offered my images to the PTA for the fund raiser, pointing out that since she obviously couldn't be in many places at once this would give them more images to sell. She declined, acted like I insulted her, and walked off in a huff. I took my pictures and still gave the images away as I always do.

I have to wonder if this woman negotiated a deal where she would give the PTA a percentage of the profit off of the orders she received.

I know first hand about PTA "turf battles" so I can imagine the frosty exchange that you must have experienced. Hopefully this was just the rouge idiot and not a PTA minion doing some official bidding.

There has been a report recently about photographers being told to pack up their "big camera" and stop taking night shots at Animal Kingdom. Seeing as I have planed a photography only solo trip to WDW this week I wrote Guest Services at WDW asking for clarification about the use of tripods in the parks. I got back the classic "Non answer" to this so I will just have to see if my "big camera" and my tripod get flagged by Disney management.

At my Niece's wedding this summer I took some pictures while being mindful of the hired hands. I had the chance to talk with them about that at the end of the day and they said they didn't mind at all. I suppose a good pro would be able to deal with the distractions that go along with photographing a family event such as a play or wedding. I find that the people doing the talking are NOT photographers and are usually clueless. They think they are doing the pro a favor, where no favor is needed.

At my cousin's wedding, some woman was running around yelling at people not to take any pictures and let the pro's handle it. I who was with out my camera on that day walked over to her and asked if she had checked with the photographer and the Priest to see if this was an issue with them. She said she did not and I just smiled at her and walked away.

~Marlton Mom

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I can honestly say I have never been asked by a pro not to take a picture. At every event (weddings, etc.) where I can identify a pro, I will approach them to determine if they object to me taking pictures. I make it perfectly clear to them that I am in no way competition. I usually tell them that if I get in their way to slap me in the back of the head and push me out of the way! That usually gets them laughing and they don't object to my presence. I don't know what my response would be if they objected. Hopefully by approaching them first, it will not happen!

 

[pointandshoot]

If it is my kid, she is in the event, I am taking pictures. In your case, I would not have made an issue like you did. Not worth it.

This past year, I was shooting a school Christmas show where my daughter was performing handbells. I was in the front row due to a auction donation and had my 70-200 2.8.

I was asked at the end to take shots of a young girl whose dad was just deployed to Afghanistan, her mom was attending with her special needs child, and her camera could not capture the shot. Her dad got some nice pictures of his daughter for the holiday.

I respect the professional photography profession. It is hard work with expensive tools. But there are situations when you have these events and people cannot afford their services or think they have a suitable camera and find out they do not.

Like many, I bet we all donate in service our time and images. So long as you are not covering the event and serving a specific situation, I think both can co-exist.

 

[NLD]

This doesn't sit well with me at all. In that situation (not my family member in the play), I'd also have just let it go. But if it WERE a family member...

If there's a complete ban on photography of any kind, that's one thing. But to be singled out just because of the equipment you use? That's not cool.

If the issue is profits for the school / PTA, and yet they aren't banning all photography period, then they could handle it by making an announcement. Tell parents they are welcome to take their own pictures for their own use and that professional photographs will be available for purchase.

Then if there's a particular parent who is a great photographer, and the school knows that person could be "competition" for the pro (cutting into profits), then just explain the situation to that particular parent. They could say, "Look we know you are a good photographer and that parents might prefer to just ask you for pics of their kids. Would you be willing to keep your photos for your own use and just refer the other parents to the professional photos available for purchase?" I know if dd's school had that conversation with me, I'd be okay with it.

But to just ban one individual from taking photos? Or just certain kinds of gear? Yuck. Not fair.

 

[photo_chick]

I have to wonder if this woman negotiated a deal where she would give the PTA a percentage of the profit off of the orders she received.

I know first hand about PTA "turf battles" so I can imagine the frosty exchange that you must have experienced. Hopefully this was just the rouge idiot and not a PTA minion doing some official bidding.


~Marlton Mom

In this case, the person was not a professional photographer. She also takes bad pictures of the kids with Santa at Chrstmastime (they set it up in the cafeteria during lunch) to raise money for the PTA. And I'm totally willing to support all that (I did offer my images to the cause) but she didn't want my help. Even if she was a pro, it was field day and there were a dozen other parents with DSLR's running around as well but I was the only one she spoke to. Maybe something about my camera strap, camera bag and Converse all matching says "she's a professional!" LOL

 

[PrincessInOz]

This is getting to be an issue for me whenever I go out with my dSLR camera. The fact that I carry a camera with big lenses is seen by many as being in the 'pro' league.

Many venues say no videos or flash but it's not clear enough on the dSLR. When you bring a dSLR, you'll find that you'll be immediately directed to baggage check before being allowed in to the venue. I don't mind if the situation is because they have a professional that is being paid; but it seems like the 'rule' needs to be amended given that some P&S cameras seem to be capable of producing fantastic shots in the hands of the right prosumer. Plus I've seen really fantastic shots taken on the iPhone 4s with their camera in the hands of a professional.

The other area where it seems to be getting harder is out in the general public space. I've been asked in an open-air public venue (a local amusement park and also at a farmer's market) about why I'm taking pictures and what will I be using the pictures for! Seems like it gets harder to take generic picture in the outdoors with a dSLR.

I haven't yet had to combat this in the school setting. The school does not have pro photographers and some of the other parents do ask me to take pictures of their kids as well. If I'm asked, I will take pictures of their kids. If not, I focus on my kid and general shots. I'm dreading the day where my equipment will be turned away at school because of the way it looks.

 

[ChiSoxKeith]

I could understand the school / event not wanting me wandering around during the play. But if I can set up and take pictures in my seat or in some place out of the way I'm shooting.

Like Giana's Papa said.......usually the pros I've interacted with welcome you to shoot if you approach them nicely - even at a WDW wedding I was at.

 

[Pooh2]

One of my kids was in a dance recital and the tickets purchased ahead of time stated "No photo or video will be allowed. Professional video will be available for $25".

So I left my camera home and plunked down the money for a video. The dance studio owner hounded the "video company" for over a year before we got our dvds. The quality was HORRIBLE. It looked like a cheap 20 year old VHS tape.

To do it over again, I would bring my camera and use it without a flash. It is not likely the camera police would have said or done anything in a middle school auditorium.

I cannot see telling a parent that they cannot bring a decent camera to their child's show or event, particularly when just one parent is singled out because they have quality gear.

 

[Experiment_626]

There has been a report recently about photographers being told to pack up their "big camera" and stop taking night shots at Animal Kingdom.

Not to hijack the thread, but when was this?

I shot after dark on a tripod last night there with no problems -- but then it should be noted that I was using a D300 and a 17-50 f/2.8 lens.

Interesting that I did see a guy -- he did not appear to be anything more than just another guest based on his attire and the woman who was with him -- carrying a large Nikon DSLR (looked like a D3 or possibly a D700 or D300 with a grip, but I didn't see it closely enough to say) with a large, fast tele, maybe a 300 f/2.8. He had it all mounted on a tripod and was just carrying it around the park, with the lens pointed backward and resting on his shoulder. It was really the first time I've seen a guest with a lens like that in the parks. Really can't fathom what you'd want to shoot with such a setup at WDW -- the animals on the safari, perhaps, but the tripod seems less than practical for that, to put it mildly, and I don't think they allow that sort of gear on the Wild Africa Trek either.

I was really wishing my wife could have seen the guy, because she thinks I'm a maniac to carry my sling bag and (folded) tripod all over the parks!

SSB

 

[mom2rtk]

I took my camera along to a very minor league hockey game a couple weeks ago. It wasn't at the big arena in town, but a smaller suburban arena. I didn't check out the policy because I brought it to another event there about a year ago with no problem at all.

My daughter's class was singing the national anthem. I'm not a huge hockey fan, but wanted to hear them sing and looked forward to practicing some action shots.

Low and behold...... they were checking bags and said no cameras with a detachable lens. I was irritated, but suppose I should have asked first. My husband says this is a farm team of a farm team. Not big leagues.

The worst part was having to take my bag out and store it in the car during the game.

 

[Gdad]

One of my kids was in a dance recital and the tickets purchased ahead of time stated "No photo or video will be allowed. Professional video will be available for $25".

So I left my camera home and plunked down the money for a video. The dance studio owner hounded the "video company" for over a year before we got our dvds. The quality was HORRIBLE. It looked like a cheap 20 year old VHS tape.

This made me laugh because it sounds exactly like what happened last year at my kids dance recital. We eventually actually got TWO separate and equally horrible DVD's (one wide angle and one zoomed in panning around) not even edited together. They came about 10 months after the recital- just in time to take pre-orders for this year's DVD of course.

As for dealing with the pro at the event thing- when I go to weddings I like to stand just behind the so-called 'professional' and take my own 'formals' at the same time. You just have to be assertive and repeatedly yell out the customary alert that you will be taking pictures: "Say Cheese!" which by the way a lot of pro's don't even seem to know about. Sometimes they get upset with me- but I assume that's just them being really intimidated by my awesome pro-looking gear.

 

[photo_chick]

Oh don't even get me started on dance. The studio my daughter dances at allows photography (non-flash) and video during the concert, but my daughter competes and none of the competitions allow photography or video. And I'd be good with that, I'm running around getting the kid through multiple costume changes so it's one less thing for me to deal with, IF what they sold was good quality. But it's usually pretty bad.

I do get irritated when they say "no detachable lens cameras". I mean really, anyone who knows how to use a camera well can get good shots with a point and shoot, especially with some that are out now. I was at a New Years Eve event in Dallas and they had that rule. I got some awesome shots with my cell phone (yes, night shots) that were better than the "professional" shots that appeared on the news site the next day. I was really limited to what I could get, but it didn't stop me it just made me get more creative about how I shot things. And it reminded me once again that the camera has little to do with a great image, that's all the photographer.