"AITA for refusing to take a wedding photo?"
I (30m) am a wedding photographer. And a good one. I was hired for last weekend to do a wedding. It was a lavish one. I was one of three photographers hired, and was told my main job was to photograph the groom (I think late 20s), his groomsmen, and the groom’s family. They had two photographers to photograph the bride’s side.
Prior to agreeing to do the wedding, I always ask standard questions, such as what kind of special photos do you want. The groom seemed low maintenance, said his family was small, but him and his groomsmen were all very close from their frat days and he wanted to take a lot of photos with them. That seemed standard to me.
After we’ve done what I considered a lot, I asked if there was anything special they wanted before we wrapped up. One of them brought up getting their “rush” photo and the groom immediately agreed. To my surprise the groom and five of the groomsmen all started removing their pants, right their on the lawn of the venue.
I asked what was happening. A groomsmen took out his phone and showed me a photo of them in college, during what looked like hazing, where they all had to a lap around their university in boxers. Apparently at all of their weddings they like to recreate the photo by taking a picture of just their dress shirts, jackets, ties, and boxers/other underwear.
I immediately shut it down. Not only is it tacky, but we were on the lawn. Granted, the only people around were staff (this was hours before the wedding, before the bride and groom even got their first look), but I do a lot of work at this venue and wanted to keep a good relationship.
And lastly I just felt uncomfortable. If I was told this when I asked for special requests, I would’ve denied the wedding as I get enough work. The groom looked kind of pissed off, and I ended up getting an email from him and the bride saying while they were thankful for the rest of the pictures, they were disappointed their needs were not met. AITA for refusing to take the photo?
Here's what people had to say to OP:
summitjunkie7 wrote:
YTA - they were dressed no less than shorts or bathing attire, and if that's against venue rules, venue workers can handle that. I can't see how it hurts you to take a photo with jackets on/off, with pants on/off (assuming not fully nude of course). I think you upset a client and lost future recommendations for no real good reason.
If you were only willing to take photos that you had discussed in your prior conversations, why ask "if there was anything special they wanted before we wrapped up?" If it was on the list already you'd already know, if you refuse to do anything not prior discussed, why open this door.
WhoFearsDeath wrote:
YTA I find it hard to believe that you have any sort of wedding experience and haven't seen this photo before. It's super common, even if it isn't something I'd do. Honestly there's a much worse one I've seen on a couple of occasions where the bridal party is on their knees in front of the groom's party simulating oral sex. Now that is tacky.
slap-a-frap wrote:
YTA. It was about them and your entitlement made it about you. What's the difference between taking a picture of someone in their boxers compared to someone in a pair of shorts? No more skin is shown. Also, as far as you doing work at the venue, it wasn't your choice.
How you think that any backlash would come to you for their choice is just conceited and entitled. You dropped the ball and I would made you do the picture because that is what you were hired to do and then leave a not so favorable review for your services.
DealerAlarmed3632 wrote:
YTA. They didn't ask for much, and this is barely an ask. It's not illegal or immoral, unless you are from some conservative religion.
I'd be disappointed, too. This sounded like it was a fun moment they all wanted to remember and you stopped them from being able to.
dividedsky58 wrote:
YTA. I guarantee absolutely none of the staff would have been fazed by this whatsoever. Wedding staff have seen it all. This is almost wholesome compared to what they see after the drinks have been flowing for awhile.
Photographers take photos of the groom with his head up the bride's dress to remove the garter with his teeth, and you're squeamish about a harmless nostalgic scene that involved underwear but no other exposure. I think you might be in the wrong business if something so harmless has you clutching your pearls.
writinwater wrote:
YTA. First, I'm going to bet that there's no clause in your contract that says you get final say in whether a picture is tacky. Second, this sounds incredibly tame. Like, "you would see worse in the pool at any YMCA at 9:00 Sunday morning" tame. I legitimately have no idea why this is worth clutching pearls over.
If you don't want to take pictures that might involve the equivalent of a swimsuit, put together a morality clause that says that all individuals in all photos must be covered from shoulder to ankles and have your clients sign it when they sign the contract.
lisa_lionheart84 wrote:
YTA. This seems pretty harmless to me, especially since they are keeping their shirts on. And let's be honest, tons of traditional wedding stuff is tacky. I'm sure the venue has seen a lot worse, and you could have always rolled your eyes with the staff there about how ridiculous it was if they said anything.
To try to forestall this happening again, you could define what you mean by "special photos." I'm not sure I would have realized that this photo was "special," and since it seems that the other guys' wedding photographers went along with it, I can see why they were surprised by your reticence.
EntertainmentAny2212 wrote:
I thought you said you were a professional? As a videographer, I can only think of a few instances where I would refuse to do a shot (Too dangerous, pornographic, or exploitation of a child.) YTA.
InstructionPlayful66 wrote:
YTA. they were in their boxers on private property. Same covering as a swimsuit, actually more since they kept their shirts on. it would have been all of 45 seconds to snap some pictures. Loosen up.