Word of warning for people looking for wedding photographers.

gbee

Antomus Prime wrote: »

And if no money is being exchanged is there any need for insurance? What advantage would there be of having it, and what exactly does it cover? As I said, complete amateur!!

And thank you

You should have public liability insurance and professional photographers insurance.

Public Liability in case someone falls over your bag or you hit someone with your camera.

Photographers insurance for if you break something in the hotel, break your camera, lose it or lose your images and you'd need indemnity to re stage the wedding in the event of total loss.

Precisely what it covers depends on your policy ~ in the US one must have at least a $1,000,000 indemnity and even more for bigger weddings. As of now there is no legal enforcement in Ireland.

Freddie59

gbee wrote: »

You're not short much there at all, in fact your personal relationship with your 'clients' shows in your photos.

You could start chargin €700 a wedding in the morning ...

Cheers.:)

tommyh1977

smash wrote: »

My sister in law hired a videographer/photographer for her wedding. He was shooting video with one hand and trying to take photos with the other. Every now and then he put down the video camera and took some stills though :rolleyes:

Now that is one of my biggest pet hates, you are either a videographer or a photographer. It's just not practical to try and multitask and do the two as in my opinion of all the combi packages i have seen both the video and photos were shocking. Just get one right and let the other to another professional (professional yet another word thrown around loosely these day's). It seems to be pure greed that takes over with these guys. All the Pro Photographers i know would never dabble with a wedding video and likewise with all the Vidoegraphers i know would never chance the photos, apart from a few stills for the video!!

Freddie59

smash wrote: »

My sister in law hired a videographer/photographer for her wedding. He was shooting video with one hand and trying to take photos with the other. Every now and then he put down the video camera and took some stills though :rolleyes:

Worse was when she got the results on DVD... I watched 5 mins and was shocked. His camera was recording straight to tape and then transferred to DVD. It was like an 80's wedding video! Apart from that, the photos were crap.

Does anyone know a videographer that still records on tape? Surely it should all be digital at this stage. Especially if you're going to transfer to DVD.

Sheer madness. You cannot do both properly. It is a physical impossibility. As an enthusiast, I've done several wedding videos for family and friends. Finished product on DVD with chapters, titles, etc. and, believe it or not, many people still use tape, as the DV and HDV formats are very easy to edit. And tape is so, so reliable.:)

kjt

Interesting thread! I think this video can help an unknowing bride with a bit more direction..




IMO there's far too many jokers out there ready to take peoples money, give terrible service, support and below adequate photography! Buyers need to be educated better by more professionals, I think this video can be a great aid in that respect.

smash

Freddie59 wrote: »

believe it or not, many people still use tape, as the DV and HDV formats are very easy to edit. And tape is so, so reliable.:)

I'll clear this up a bit. It wasn't a DV or HDV tape. He had a large camera and the tape was VHS size, so I presume it was VHS. And he charged around a grand for it.

Freddie59

smash wrote: »

I'll clear this up a bit. It wasn't a DV or HDV tape. He had a large camera and the tape was VHS size, so I presume it was VHS. And he charged around a grand for it.

I see. If he WAS using VHS then I really don't know what to say. But remember - DV and DV-CAM tapes come in three-hour lengths are and substantial in SIZE.

The one on the right in the picture is a normal Mini-DV tape that you would see every day. Note the difference in size between that and the full-size DV-CAM tape on the left.

If it was DV-CAM the quality should be perfect, even when transferred to DVD. But BOTH jobs? I don't think so. It must have been dreadful. You could not concentrate properly.

IPWS

jpb1974 wrote: »

I don't even see the point of the 'bad amatuer wedding photographer' debate anymore. This is a classic example of a photography forum Groundhog debate... age old, pops up once a month, same arguements every time... and what changes... well... very little.

It's up to the couple to do their homework in advance - seek out referals, check the photographer's reputation, check out the their wedding portfolio (as opposed to their fantasic landscape photos), check their insurance, agree deliverables upfront and sign a contract in advance. If a couple doesn't want to go to this level of effort then they must accept that they are rolling the dice... it's really that simple.

Agreed - Research, Research Research.

And to assist in that process:

Hiring a photographer in Ireland

Articles relating to your wedding and photography

Real Wedding Galleries by irish Professional Photographers

Alan Murphy

www.photographers.ie

Freddie59

smash wrote: »

I'll clear this up a bit. It wasn't a DV or HDV tape. He had a large camera and the tape was VHS size, so I presume it was VHS. And he charged around a grand for it.

Did he charge a grand in total - or separate prices?

smash

Freddie59 wrote: »

If it was DV-CAM the quality should be perfect, even when transferred to DVD.

No it's crap. I'm actually going to get a sample of it.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Did he charge a grand in total - or separate prices?

In total.

Freddie59

IPWS wrote: »

Agreed - Research, Research Research.
www.photographers.ie

The amazing thing is that a small number of pros who were previously on the other side of the fence now look down their noses at some amateurs (who in some cases are even better than those looking down their noses at them:rolleyes:).

Just like plumbers, electricians, etc there are good ones and very poor ones. 'Pro' photographers are no different. Near where I live there are guys charging €4k+. And to be brutally honest one of them is nothing special. I've seen the work.

Freddie59

smash wrote: »

No it's crap. I'm actually going to get a sample of it.
In total.

Feck's sake. That's nuts. If he WAS using VHS the quality would go out the window. Especially when compressing to DVD. That being said, unless he
knew the camera, it's very easy to fcuk up DV as well.

Ballyman

Freddie59 wrote: »

Just like plumbers, electricians, etc there are good ones and very poor ones. 'Pro' photographers are no different. Near where I live there are guys charging €4k+. And to be brutally honest one of them is nothing special. I've seen the work.

He's charging €4K because people are willing to pay him that and fair dues to him for managing to have a customer base that will pay him that, nobody is being forced to pay anything that they don't want.

Photography is a business and like any business, the best businessman will always earn more than the best photographer.

gbee

Freddie59 wrote: »

Near where I live there are guys charging €4k+. And to be brutally honest one of them is nothing special. I've seen the work.

One enters the professional world of wedding photography because they have a passion and love of creativity and are full of ideas and enthusiasm for a while.

However, the job can become a bit staid and repetitive as a succession of Brides want what you gave Mary and Joe last year ~ one's success can stifle one somewhat, as a professional you must also do what the client wants ~ obviously one should throw in some of your own ideas too ~ I've had mixed success with albums made up form all my pictures and some solely of the [boring] family groups with none of the 'artistic' shots making into her selection.

On the charges, a fully working professional will be handing over half his fee to the Government straight away so he or her is working to a budget of just €2k in reality. This is mostly were non professionals can come in a 'half the price' right off the bat.

IPWS

Freddie59 wrote: »

The amazing thing is that a small number of pros who were previously on the other side of the fence now look down their noses at some amateurs (who in some cases are even better than those looking down their noses at them:rolleyes:).

Thanks for your comment - just for the record I have never looked down my nose at any photographers - amateurs or professional.

Every You Photography

Hi,

I think most of the things to say have been said.

Wedding Photography is a tough job, you can work up to 20 hours in a row with different light conditions, different atmospheres, and so on.

The biggest problem when you choose a weeding photographer is to meet somebody who takes the time to understand what you like, who will be happy to share this moment with you and then share the spirit of that day, at a reasonable price (usually the lowest the best for the bride and groom...).

Competencies and creativity do not come at a low price (they are certainly exceptions), most of the people complains after the wedding when they only looked for the lowest possible price before the big day.

Spending 4k€ for a sh***y photographer means you should stop drinking and start to think.
If you look at the portfolio of the guy before the wedding, you can quickly identify if he is good or not...

Freddie59

Ballyman wrote: »

He's charging €4K because people are willing to pay him that and fair dues to him for managing to have a customer base that will pay him that, nobody is being forced to pay anything that they don't want.

Photography is a business and like any business, the best businessman will always earn more than the best photographer.

But doesn't that defeat the whole 'pro' argument. He could be shyte, but as long as people are prepared to pay then it's OK?

Freddie59

IPWS wrote: »

Thanks for your comment - just for the record I have never looked down my nose at any photographers - amateurs or professional.

Wasn't aimed at you my friend. There are, unfortunately, people like that out there.

kjt

kjt wrote: »

Interesting thread! I think this video can help an unknowing bride with a bit more direction..




IMO there's far too many jokers out there ready to take peoples money, give terrible service, support and below adequate photography! Buyers need to be educated better by more professionals, I think this video can be a great aid in that respect.

Yeah, I don't care for that video, either. It's essentially more of the "if he has insurance (or is an IPPA Member) he's feckin' great. If he doesn't, you're wasting your time!" kinda stuff.

"I don't want him practicing on me!" - I don't know much at all about the IPPA but the video makes it sound like they are a wedding photography club who don't want new people coming along doing their thing? Every pro had to do a first wedding. They practiced on someone at some stage.


I'm not ranting or going mad by the way I just think that if the bride/groom did a little bit of research and the photographers were a little more honest, everyone'd be happier.


Every time I hear about a wedding photographer telling a couple he's great, and delivering terrible photos, I'm reminded of my old maths teacher. Before our junior cert in school, many, many years ago, he addressed the class, telling us;

"Look, you have to study maths. When you go into the exam, and you sit your English test, or your History test, or your Geography test, you are given a question and you can sit there and write up a load of bullsh*t without knowing anything. You'll probably get most of the marks for attempting to answer and accidentally getting a few things right that you weren't even sure of. But in maths, there's a single answer at the end of the question. You can't bullsh*t your way through a maths exam. You're either right, or you're wrong!"


And I think the same applies to photography.In every situation, be it wedding, portrait, event, etc; the people you're taking photos for are going to see the photographs. You can't disguise it. You have to hand over the photographs you took on the day and that's it. There's no amount of editing can save an out of focus shot, for example. If people were just honest and up-front, I reckon everyone would be a winner.


"Sorry, I don't really do weddings. If you genuinely can't afford a professional, I'd be happy to try and help you out, and although I reckon I'd get by okay, I could never guarantee professional quality results, so it's really up to yourself what you'd like to do."

gbee

Deleted User wrote: »

all about the IPPA but the video makes it sound like they are a wedding photography club who don't want new people]

You're very astute there. I have the single pleasure of having had an IPPA photographer kick my tripod and throw my sinage to the ground in UCC during conferrings before the college went private.

Freddie59

gbee wrote: »

You're very astute there. I have the single pleasure of having had an IPPA photographer kick my tripod and throw my sinage to the ground in UCC during conferrings before the college went private.

Lovely. He hasn't heard of the free market system then.:rolleyes: I always thought those College graduations were a farce. A licence to print money for what was, in some instances, a very poor product.

Buceph

gbee wrote: »

You're very astute there. I have the single pleasure of having had an IPPA photographer kick my tripod and throw my sinage to the ground in UCC during conferrings before the college went private.

What's the full scéal with this? And what do you mean before UCC went private? It's an NUI university so publically funded, same as them all.

I'd just be interested in this as UCC was where I started off with photography. (Days spent traipsing around the campus snapping anything and everything with a then, state of the art 2mp Canon Powershot.)

gbee

Buceph wrote: »

What's the full scéal with this? And what do you mean before UCC went private? It's an NUI university so publically funded, same as them all.

Barry's Photography now [and have had for a few years] have sole rights for commercial photography for conferring ceremony days.

Buceph

gbee wrote: »

Barry's Photography now [and have had for a few years] have sole rights for commercial photography for conferring ceremony days.

Yeah? And you were touting for business there? They shouldn't have done what they did (assaulting you) but security would have been well within their rights to escort you off the grounds.

Was there a time when the after shots of the conferring ceremonies was open to any photographer? Because I could imagine it would be fraught with problems, a scrum of photographers, complete hacks showing up with no experience (especially with the advent of DSLRs,) even outright scamming if no-one was approving people.

Edit: I see you said, before they went private. To be honest, while I can certainly see you getting better value with open competition. I imagine having one official company makes things a lot easier (if more expensive.) They shouldn't have treated you that way, that way. But I suppose their aggression shows why they got the contract. (And if it cheers you up the Barry's shots my family got for me weren't great. I'm not too bothered but I'd imagine some of my classmates might not like having different coloured hair in their photographs from when they're shaking hands with the UCC President.)

gbee

Buceph wrote: »

having different coloured hair in their photographs from when they're shaking hands with the UCC President.)

This is a technical problem as the 'new' centre has uncorrectable available light in the ceiling and daylight flooding in on the handshake from the massive north facing window.

Since the contact became effective, security will approach people taking photos, I'm well know there for doing press work as well, though not been there in two years.

My little incident predates the contract and as you say there were problems. There were a lot of crooks just ripping off people wholesale ~ I am a registered sole trader and was allowed to set up in the president's garden ~ the crooks were not actually allowed in so they did block the enterances and it was seriously unpleasant ~ but we're taking this way OT.