DaveYoung

It is possible that the photographer was using a flash to trigger multiple other flashes. Not the best way to set up for an event like this, but it is possible that you were triggering his flashes with your flash. This would not only use up his battery but also cause a delay for him while his flashes recycled.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

:thumbup:
It's possible, but any photographer worth his salt would never operate that way with all the Uncle Bob's at a wedding!

JoeDigipix

This is what event (Wedding Photogs) face today...Glad I left this 20 years ago!

Want to save money for your wedding? Fire the Photographer!
Can't post the link but if Interested Google the title.

Collie lover Loc: St. Louis, MO

With the exception of friends and relatives with point-and-shoot cameras, only the paid photographer should be taking photos. Not the DJ. Their job is to play music and make announcements about bouquet toss, garter toss, etc.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

If he was the main photographer, he should have asked you, what channel you're on, so that that does not happen. That's normal procedure, if he did not do that, than he should not have mouthed off like that!!!

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

So now it's the officiants fault; you must have a bias against clergy. Many denominations and/or independent churches have standing rules about such matters. When I was married (first time) in 1964, the rules had been set long ago during our international convention. Photography was allowed in church during the ceremony, except during prayer, communion and blessing; flash was not allowed. When I was ordained, I set my own standards which matched the churches; the only rule I added concerned the proximity of the photographer (or any other unauthorized person) to the altar. The ceremony is a private, personal declaration and sealing of a covenant between the bride and groom. I once stopped a prayer when a flash went off, waited a moment and began again; there were no recurrences.

As to the reception, I have no official capacity (unless I am asked to make a public presentation of the signed marriage certificate, a practice that is rarely but occasionally requested). If I attend, I do so as a guest, dressed in the approved style (I don't attend formal receptions) and assert myself only when requesting a piece of cake with lots of icing. :)

As to abusing my power, the rules are clearly explained to the bride and groom (and others who attend the pre-wedding conference at least 48 hours before the wedding). The prospective bride and groom sign a non-legal agreement acknowledging their understanding of the guidelines, the original of which stays in my files. As to the remark about power, I have none to abuse. I am merely a representative at the service, and the rules imposed are those which I thing God finds reasonable and appropriate.

rvenegas

The analogy above is appropriate and credible. The photographer was evidently hired for the job of taking the wedding pictures, and you were hired to do the DJ-ing, which presumably includes music. not photos. The professional photographer cannot well prevent wild-eyed guests and amateurs from encroaching or overlapping, but he probably thought that you, as another hired professional, would have extended the courtesy of not duplicating his shots and therefore cutting into his sales. Since by your own admission you did not extend this courtesy and in fact "share" your images with the brides and grooms, he no doubt felt he had to explain in simple terms to get his point across.

duck72 Loc: Laurel Ridge, PA

As an avid amateur, I had the pleasure of being an "ancillary shooter" at our son's wedding last month- Speedlight and all.
Even my 31-yr-old son (who's maybe somewhat tired of me always sticking a camera in his face) said, "Dad, that's what we're paying the Pros for." when I told/asked him weeks before the occasion I was planning on "breaking in" my D7200 at the union/celebration. I reminded him this is a once-in-a lifetime (hopefully) occasion, and I wanted my own shots to play with, perhaps catching some groupings/situations the Pros might miss, since they "don't know the players."
When the Pro and her two Camera-wielding assistants arrived, I immediately introduced myself, told why I was shooting, and made it *very clear* that if I in ANY way interfered with their image capturing, to immediately let me know, and to physically push me out of the way if necessary- if I was in "the spot" they wanted at any time. As the reception progressed, we chuckled as we often found ourselves in close proximity, availing ourselves of "best vantage." I left the "formal" and cake-cutting etc. to the Pros - I don't care about that stuff. End result? Over 1,000 "presentable for album" (excellent) Pro photos, and over 400 fuzzier "Dad pics" - no one upset, a good time had by all.
I don't think a "true" Pro would or should assail someone else for simultaneously capturing images- they should politely ask the non-paid person(s) who might be interfering with critical (obligatory) shots to refrain from doing so. Simple. No need to be mean.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

However, If he was using Nikon's commander mode, (and I am sure Canon has an equivalent) the flashes would be set for a specific lighting code and would NOT be affected by other flashses.. All the photographer that is using commander mode needs to do is verify that any others using it are on separate channels. I was at an off camera flash class last summer in Tampa and alot of the people were using pocket wizards but failed to change them from the default channel.. It was a nightmare anytime one of them took a shot because 15 other's flashes were firing too... lol

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

To me, this is a pleasant story, and one to which I, for one, would have no objections. In the beginning of my wedding work, this was the norm and was more than acceptable. Towards the end, this common courtesy had disappeared.

EdM Loc: FN30JS

good point, I retract my "what good is power" statement.. tnx