To think wedding photographers shouldn't block guests' view?

[JumboLina]

Went to a wedding at the weekend and during the speeches the photographers (plural!) stood directly in front of the top table to get their photos, thus blocking the view for everyone else. People were having to move their chairs and/or stand up at the edge of the room in order to see everyone.

AIBU ago think wedding photographers should be unobtrusive and stick to the sides of the rooms?

Then how do you get the beautiful direct/ face forward pictures?
I see what you mean though, very annoying when you want to see with your own eyes!

Yes. A good photographer is unobtrusive, except when trying to arrange group and formal shots.
I would hope that anyone being paid to take photographs ought to have a camera that can zoom in on a face if it were even essential to have a shot of someone making a speech. They shouldn't need to be in other people's way at that stage in the proceedings.

Depends on what the couple have ordered. The best lenses for relatively close pictures (which give the best pictures) are fixed focal length so no zoom available.

However, more than one photographer doing the top table is excessive.

Also however, unless it was a lip reading wedding, people could still hear the speeches I assume?

scottishdiem

I disagree. For a start, you can get a shallow DoF with a nice long lens. With a nifty-50 or similar, you're always walking backwards and forwards; off putting at the best of times and certainly not something you want to be doing in a room full of tables, chairs and guests.

Then the obvious - a fixed focal length means that you cause problems for the other guests and it's off putting for the bride and groom. I'd shoot from the back of the room. With a full frame pro camera, you will still get fantastic shots whilst being in the background. You can easily set up lighting around the top table before the reception. If I saw a photographer taking these shots using an on-camera flash (the only possible reason for needing to be where the OP described) then I'd assume it was a relation of the wedding party who fancied themselves a bit and were doing it as a favour.

OP. A photographer's job is more than simply taking nice shots. It's about making the subject and others in the room feel comfortable. YANUB. One or two shots from there would NBU but being there for the whole speech ... very unprofessional.

NaiceHam

I don't disagree with your analysis of what can be done but I stand by my claim that a fixed lens is just better at that distance. But you are correct in that wedding photographer should be much more discreet.

I've never had complaints (only done 8 weddings and I'm a keen amateur, not a pro) and use a 70-200 f2.8 and a 24-70 f2.8. A 50mm (f1.2) comes into its own in low light - not an issue for speeches as any photographer worth their salt would have it properly lit.