Advice on Wedding Photos

FlipperThePriest

Hello! A friend is in a bit of a predicament regarding his wedding photos and I told him I would post up here to see what some of you think.

The big day is over and the photographer charged 2K for the day's services. This included a main album, 2 small albums and a DVD.
The friend, when booking the photographer inquired about the cost of printing afterwards or the acquisition of some digital copies... to which he was reassured 'Ah don't worry about that, you'll be looked after there.' He is now looking to get some prints to hang up around the house and contacted the photographer.

He emailed about getting 6 prints; ranging from 5X7 to 8X10 - and the photographer quoted him €240. A single 5X7 was €20! He refused to budge on that. My friend then badgered him again about the cost and he said that's all he can do but he can sell all digital copies - €350 for the lot.

Do the prices seem extremely ott or what do you think? There was no contract signed; is it tough beans or is there any fall back? My guess is, they're his images, he can charge what he likes? To me it just seems like extortion; the photographer seems to have the attitude - if he wants them bad enough, he's going to have to pay!!

Paulw

Firstly, your friend should have had a contract, and had it explicitly stated what he would get, and what other options there are.

But, bottom line, the photographer owns the copyright on the images and can charge what he wants, unfortunately.

sebphoto

zippy84 wrote: »

Hello! A friend is in a bit of a predicament regarding his wedding photos and I told him I would post up here to see what some of you think.

The big day is over and the photographer charged 2K for the day's services. This included a main album, 2 small albums and a DVD.
The friend, when booking the photographer inquired about the cost of printing afterwards or the acquisition of some digital copies... to which he was reassured 'Ah don't worry about that, you'll be looked after there.' He is now looking to get some prints to hang up around the house and contacted the photographer.

He emailed about getting 6 prints; ranging from 5X7 to 8X10 - and the photographer quoted him €240. A single 5X7 was €20! He refused to budge on that. My friend then badgered him again about the cost and he said that's all he can do but he can sell all digital copies - €350 for the lot.

Do the prices seem extremely ott or what do you think? There was no contract signed; is it tough beans or is there any fall back? My guess is, they're his images, he can charge what he likes? To me it just seems like extortion; the photographer seems to have the attitude - if he wants them bad enough, he's going to have to pay!!

Too bad that they didn't sign the contract. Now it doesn't matter why they didn't do that. Anyways in my humble opinion now he should try to negotiate the price.
They didn't have verbal agreement in front of a witness who will be able confirm such fact?
Did the photographer published those images on his website or somewhere else?

Paulw

sebphoto wrote: »

They didn't have verbal agreement in front of a witness who will be able confirm such fact?
Did the photographer published those images on his website or somewhere else?

A verbal agreement of "you'll be looked after" does not equate to a price though.

The photographer publishing the images makes no difference either, since the photographer owns the copyright. But, if they were published, all the "friend" can do is ask for them to be removed.

Corkbah

I agree with PaulW ... best thing I can advise is that if your friend is not happy .... make sure your friend does not recommend the photographer - let them tell their friends of the experience - without using any libelous information - just state the facts, photographer agreed to do wedding for X amount - did that and gave all agreed albums to person - after this was done and transaction was all finished the person asked for digital files and the photographer asked for money for those digital files.... person gets upset !

if the bride/groom did not sign a contract they did not know what they were getting, if they did not know what was agreed between the two parties (photographer and couple) they do not have the right to complain - unless the photographer is being unrealistic and has not delivered any images in return or in a reasonable time frame.

Did the bride/groom get anything in writing ? did the bride/groom pay money because they liked the photographers style and simply wanted him/her to photo the wedding !!! .... did the couple get their photographer for the day ? did they get images in an album as agreed ?

As a photographer (not a wedding photographer) .... its a combination of the photographer and the couple who are at fault here:
no contract = no proof of an agreement
Photographer doesn't have to give anything ....but the couple dont have to recommend a wedding photographer to their friends/family (which is how a lot of photographers get their names out there ...and how a lot of them get business - from friends/family of the couple getting married)

OP - best thing is to pay the money and get all digital files - or walk away and accept the couple made a mistake/got taken advantage of !!

sebphoto

Paulw wrote: »

sebphoto wrote: »

They didn't have verbal agreement in front of a witness who will be able confirm such fact?
Did the photographer published those images on his website or somewhere else?

A verbal agreement of "you'll be looked after" does not equate to a price though.

The photographer publishing the images makes no difference either, since the photographer owns the copyright. But, if they were published, all the "friend" can do is ask for them to be removed.

Copyrights is one thing, but model release is second thing.
Without their permission he shouldn't use these images and therefore he can not do anything with these files. So they are useless for him and the couple might lawsue him.

Corkbah

sebphoto wrote: »

Copyrights is one thing, but model release is second thing.
Without their permission he shouldn't use these images and therefore he can not do anything with these files. So they are useless for him and the couple might lawsue him.

A model release form is only used in commercial photography - if the image is used in advertising or promotion !!...and a model release form is the same as a wedding contract all it does it outline what the photographer and the couple are allowed to do with the photos.

Lawsue !!! ... they can sue him if he has broken the terms of their agreement which is in their contract ...oh wait...there is no contract !! .... they can sue him if he doesn't give them what was agreed on paper in a reasonable amount of time as agreed in the contract.

I will disagree with you that the images are useless to the photographer ... if the couple dont have them the images have a value to the photographer, the couple are the only ones not in a good position here, the photographer has images which they want ....he/she can name a price for the value of these images the couple either accept his/her terms and pay it.....or they do without the photos...its that simple.

Photographer owns the copyright they paid him for an agreed amount of images - they CANNOT reprint these images without his permission and/or payment to him.....the photographer is under no obligation to give away their digital files - which essentially gives away their copyright.....just as much as the couple who hired him/her is under no obligation to recommend him to friends (they are legally unable to publically say bad things about the photographer...ie name and shame simply because he/she has done no wrong)

Paulw

sebphoto wrote: »

Without their permission he shouldn't use these images and therefore he can not do anything with these files. So they are useless for him and the couple might lawsue him.

Sue him for what? As long as he is using them for his own advertisement (as in here are images I took), then the most the couple can do is ask him to stop using the images.

Corkbah

zippy84 wrote: »

Hello! A friend is in a bit of a predicament regarding his wedding photos and I told him I would post up here to see what some of you think.

The big day is over and the photographer charged 2K for the day's services. This included a main album, 2 small albums and a DVD.
The friend, when booking the photographer inquired about the cost of printing afterwards or the acquisition of some digital copies... to which he was reassured 'Ah don't worry about that, you'll be looked after there.' He is now looking to get some prints to hang up around the house and contacted the photographer.

He emailed about getting 6 prints; ranging from 5X7 to 8X10 - and the photographer quoted him €240. A single 5X7 was €20! He refused to budge on that. My friend then badgered him again about the cost and he said that's all he can do but he can sell all digital copies - €350 for the lot.

Do the prices seem extremely ott or what do you think? There was no contract signed; is it tough beans or is there any fall back? My guess is, they're his images, he can charge what he likes? To me it just seems like extortion; the photographer seems to have the attitude - if he wants them bad enough, he's going to have to pay!!

your friend had the opportunity to sort it all out BEFORE the wedding - he obviously didn't know what he was looking for and didn't understand how a lot of wedding photographers make their money.

Back in the days of film ...yes ...pre-digital photography !

When a wedding photographer was booked the couple were booking the photographer for the day, paying for (as you outlined above) ... main album and 2 smaller albums for the parents, any normal photographer would work this out to be maximum 70-80images (40page wedding album with 25page wedding albums for the parents with some duplication of images...and allowing for the occasional eyes closed pic), most photographers would shoot loads of extra pics simple because the more you shoot the higher the chances of getting enough pics to fill the albums and enough people with the eyes open....and for the after sales !! someone in the wedding party will remember that there was a pic taken of aunty jane or uncle horace asleep next to the young nephew philip - but its not in the album so they go back to the photographer and ask for that one....and the one of aunty jane with the married couple ...as a thank you gift for aunty jane ...the photographer charges for the extra prints and kerchiiing ...makes more money.

however with modern digital photography wedding photographers are now taking hundreds of pics at a wedding (photojournalistic style) - and couple's simply cant put them all into an album - most people get bored after the first few pages of a wedding album....and its not shown off too often....the couples are also being more savvy and asking for digital copies and the right to reprint the images (ie. the copyright) ... which didn't happen in this case !! .... so ....

Some more modern photographers are offering this (digital copies on DVD/CD) as part of their packages as they see that the value of photography has dropped and people no-longer consider it to be a profession simply because anyone can take a photo or post process an image - there are loads of cheap digital cameras/lenses out there and plenty of free software to manipulate an image....anyway ...more modern photographers (who contribute to the damaged reputation of the art of photography) .... offer the images on a CD/DVD because they dont want the hassle of someone phoning them up looking for a pic they took 2,3 or even 8years ago only for the person to decide they dont want to pay after the photographer has searched through archives to find the required image and offered it to the person (at a price to reflect the search and print ...all of which takes time..and time is money!!), Anyway - getting off point - modern photographers offer CD/DVD because they dont see the value of the images or dont want the hassle or searching their archive and obviously dont care about the couple printing off their work in tesco/harvey normans or a camera shop/chemist .... because you can get 500prints for €250 !!

so..the couple in this case have a few options...
1) pay the money and get the images
2) dont pay the money - dont get the images
3) sit down with the photographer and try to come to an arrangement, be polite and explain that you may have other family weddings or work colleagues weddings in the future which could lead to more work for him - if he is willing to offer a goodwill gesture, if he isn't ...like I said earlier...you dont have to recommend him and can tell these people you wont recommend him based on your experience with him/her.

FlipperThePriest

Firstly I don't think my friend would request that the photographer take down any images or try and sue for using them, they're his images, he provided a service, it's not part of my friends problem and it wouldn't help his case to quibble about something like this.

Corkbah wrote: »

They are legally unable to publically say bad things about the photographer...ie name and shame simply because he/she has done no wrong

I'm sure my friend would not attempt to slander the photographer as he has provided the service with which he was asked. However, not done anything wrong? While he hasn't done anything wrong legally, some people would regard charging extortionate prices like this for photos pretty wrong... for which my friend can publicise if he chooses, I doubt he would though.

Corkbah wrote: »

...the photographer charges for the extra prints and kerchiiing ...makes more money.

I think €2,000 is more than enough money from one customer. It would be a way for the photographer to score points and get his word out further by charging reasonable prices for prints or maybe throwing the odd free print in... after all, he's already secured quite a bit of cash from this wedding... the bulk of his cash should be from his weddings, not " extra prints and kerchiiing". Cashing in at any chance isn't going to do him any favours. It will leave his customers with a stale aftertaste.

Corkbah wrote: »

photographer has searched through archives to find the required image and offered it to the person (at a price to reflect the search and print ...all of which takes time..and time is money!!),

Through the archives? You talked about modern technology... how long does it take to search through a well organised archive... I know I could do it in 5 or 10 mins. Printing a 5x7 photograph does not cost near €20.

Corkbah wrote: »

more modern photographers (who contribute to the damaged reputation of the art of photography) .... offer the images on a CD/DVD

I do see your point about getting a high quality image and then printing it in a terrible quality place.. which is something my friend wouldn't do, he would go to a professional printing company and get it done properly... but I don't see how putting wedding photos on a disc for the exclusive use of the bride and groom damages the art of photography? They've already paid a good deal for the "art of photography" and clearly value it, in the price they've agreed to pay.

Corkbah wrote: »

so..the couple in this case have a few options...
1) pay the money and get the images
2) dont pay the money - dont get the images
3) sit down with the photographer and try to come to an arrangement, be polite and explain that you may have other family weddings or work colleagues weddings in the future which could lead to more work for him - if he is willing to offer a goodwill gesture, if he isn't ...like I said earlier...you dont have to recommend him and can tell these people you wont recommend him based on your experience with him/her.

Agreed.

Thanks for all the opinions.

djd80

zippy84 wrote: »

This included a main album, 2 small albums and a DVD.

Are the high res images not on the DVD? Can your friend not just use the DVD to print their own images?

FlipperThePriest

djd80 wrote: »

Are the high res images not on the DVD? Can your friend not just use the DVD to print their own images?

Nope, low res.

Corkbah

While I'm agreeing with you about the fact the photographer has been well paid for the wedding the couple would have an expectation that the photographer will be willing to give them a bonus ...doesn't always work with photographers - they are protective of their work and giving away copyright (a CD/DVD with ability to print).

I know of a number of people getting married next year - many of whom are having difficulty with finding a wedding photographer because they want the copyright and every image on CD/DVD ... and they want a good photographer whom they like the style.

Personally I think the photographer would have given the CD/DVD once they are paid that amount but since the photographer in this case has not... its a case of haggle, explain the images are not worth anything to him so lets agree a fair price (ideally free but doubt this particular photographer would go for that...given the earlier references to him)

FlipperThePriest

Corkbah wrote: »

While I'm agreeing with you about the fact the photographer has been well paid for the wedding the couple would have an expectation that the photographer will be willing to give them a bonus ...doesn't always work with photographers - they are protective of their work and giving away copyright (a CD/DVD with ability to print).

I fully understand a photographer wishing to protect their work, there are many reasons, for instance, preserving quality; why should a photographer, who has spent good time and effort documenting a wedding with high quality images, and spent some more time editing, cropping touching up images - allow the access of his work to a couple who would simply print them out down at tesco or wherever... although that wouldn't be the case here. That scenario isn't the issue here, because if it was the issue, the photographer would be more than willing to offer a good price so that the customer could reprint with himself, at his quality. The issue at hand here is - I own your photos, I can name my price, so cough up or get lost.

Corkbah wrote: »

its a case of haggle, explain the images are not worth anything to him so lets agree a fair price (ideally free but doubt this particular photographer would go for that...given the earlier references to him)

I agree haggle is all that can be done here, but I don't see him budging, seems quite stubborn judging by how he's been explained to me.

Edit: btw the couple never expected a bonus of a dvd of all the images, they knew he didn't really work like that.. but he had always reassured them that he would look after them and "don't worry about prints later" etc, so they thought they'd be fine... this is probably where the mistake was made.

Corkbah

if the photographer is being that stubborn .... walk away ... let everyone that the couple invited to the wedding know what the situation is and let the word spread.

inform the photographer that you will be telling all of your guests of the post wedding situation and offer him the opportunity to negotiate before you do this - any decent photographer who has a shred of cop-on will know once bad word gets out there's no stopping it and it has a ripple effect.

return back to the photographer after a few months (4...or maybe 6months) and see if he/she is willing to lower the price ...failing that... walk away and accept the loss of the images.

I'm guessing this photographer may or may not be in the business for a long time and has a set deal and does not know the effects of social media on a business.

FlipperThePriest

Corkbah wrote: »

if the photographer is being that stubborn .... walk away ... let everyone that the couple invited to the wedding know what the situation is and let the word spread.

....

I'm guessing this photographer may or may not be in the business for a long time and has a set deal and does not know the effects of social media on a business.

It's all well and good saying walk away... until you really would like some of your most memorable wedding snaps to furnish your home for all to see.. I will encourage him to haggle, and if the photographer refuses to budge, he can let him know that he'll never recommend him, and make it known locally, and maybe even on social media - of the ridiculous prices.

I was groomsman at the wedding, so seeing him in action up close and also being an avid amateur photographer, I can say he's in the business quite a while... very good gear and professional on the day.

Corkbah

when I say walk away - I basically mean .... to allow some time before trying again !!

instead of getting into an argument with the photographer - take some time to consider how to approach the photographer and find a solution.

DaireQuinlan

Corkbah wrote: »

Personally I think the photographer would have given the CD/DVD once they are paid that amount but since the photographer in this case has not... its a case of haggle, explain the images are not worth anything to him so lets agree a fair price (ideally free but doubt this particular photographer would go for that...given the earlier references to him)

Your contributions to this exchange are verging on the ridiculous to be honest, but the above (which you've repeated a couple of times) is particularly stupid. Of course the pictures are worth something to the photographer. How on earth do you think commercial photographers ACTUALLY MAKE MONEY ? Here, I'll bullet point it for you:

1. They take pictures.
2. They sell them.

Number 2 above is of course normally wrapped up in an agreement of some description, as above, where the OP got exactly what had been agreed with the photographer in terms of albums and DVDs and what not. Now the photographer is being asked for a further service, and you think he should just do it for free ? Can I ask you what you do for a living ? Can I get you to do some stuff for me for free please ? Otherwise I'll call you a meany all over the interweb ! A MEANY !

Corkbah

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Your contributions to this exchange are verging on the ridiculous to be honest, but the above (which you've repeated a couple of times) is particularly stupid. Of course the pictures are worth something to the photographer. How on earth do you think commercial photographers ACTUALLY MAKE MONEY ? Here, I'll bullet point it for you:

1. They take pictures.
2. They sell them.

Number 2 above is of course normally wrapped up in an agreement of some description, as above, where the OP got exactly what had been agreed with the photographer in terms of albums and DVDs and what not. Now the photographer is being asked for a further service, and you think he should just do it for free ? Can I ask you what you do for a living ? Can I get you to do some stuff for me for free please ? Otherwise I'll call you a meany all over the interweb ! A MEANY !

Hold on a second !! ... read what I said throughout the thread - the couple are left with three options:

1. pay the money and get the images
2. dont pay the money and dont get the images
3. try to sit down and come to an agreement with the photographer

I work fulltime have have worked fulltime as a photographer for many years - I explained in the thread how wedding photographers made their money and the difference between "old skool" wedding photographers and the new generation of digital.

I was offering the OP advice on how to deal with the situation ...I understand that the photographer had been paid 2K in this situation and had some sort of agreement "we'll take care of you" ...nothing on paper - which was the couples second mistake - the first mistake was not knowing what they actually wanted beforehand.

I'm not saying they bad mouth the guy - simply that they ensure that no-one who was present at the wedding will recommend him to their friends - wedding photography is very word of mouth and the OP who was a guest even said earlier in the thread that the photographer was very professional (in gear and manner) - I'm not advising the OP to do anything which would legally get him (or the bridal party in trouble) - explaining the situation to the other guests simply ensures they will not recommend him - which given their experience I'm sure they would not want their guests to recommend him to anyone.

The fastest resolution to the matter is to pay the photographer but the couple do not want to do that and from reading the thread the photographer does not want to give a CD/DVD of images without a substantial payment (which is justified ...not the amount just the payment...I disagree with the amount given the photographer had already been paid approx 2K) - I told the OP to try to negotiate and to leave it for a bit of time to see if the photographer changes his mind.

Financially the images are useless to the photographer - unless he gets some payment from the couple to me €350 seems excessive - at the moment the images are only going to be taking up space on a hard drive or cloud storage - which the photographer would have to pay for...so the images are only costing the photographer money !! - the longer he stores them the less the couple are going to care about the missing images, so the value is gone.

I dont know how you operate (or if you work as a professional photographer) - but goodwill goes a long way - the odd extra for free or a discount here and there ...even hanging around an extra 30mins taking photos - the way this situation is going ... its only going to leave a sense of anger at the photographer.

sebphoto

Corkbah wrote: »

A model release form is only used in commercial photography - if the image is used in advertising or promotion !!...and a model release form is the same as a wedding contract all it does it outline what the photographer and the couple are allowed to do with the photos.

[cut]

Maybe i don't understand your last post, but take it easy and tell me please how do you think, for what purposes the photographer will use these images?
He won't use them for advertising or promotion?

Corkbah

I dont think the photographer will or can use the images - but he does not need a model release form to put the images on his website, or put them in his studio window.

a model release form is an agreement between the model and photographer ... allowing the two people to use the images in a select number of ways (ie. online, commercial adverts, etc )

sebphoto

Corkbah wrote: »

I dont think the photographer will or can use the images - but he does not need a model release form to put the images on his website, or put them in his studio window.

a model release form is an agreement between the model and photographer ... allowing the two people to use the images in a select number of ways (ie. online, commercial adverts, etc )

Don't get me wrong, but I do know what MR is, but I don't understand on what grounds the photographer is going to use such images without clear permission from people being on the photographs. Could you provide a link to legal act to learn more about it please?

Paulw

sebphoto wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, but I do know what MR is, but I don't understand on what grounds the photographer is going to use such images without clear permission from people being on the photographs. Could you provide a link to legal act to learn more about it please?

Could you provide a link to say his use would be illegal? If you can't clearly show it's illegal, then, ergo, it is legal, and he can do it.

meenaghans

Your friend is not alone zippy. A girl i work with has just gotten her album from the wedding and was looking for extra prints.

The price the photographer gave them for the dvd with the digital prints was between 150-200 euro.

It is probably still cheaper to pay this amount because as mentioned earlier if a person wants a copy of a print from the photographer it is going to cost around 20 euro.

So buying the cd and printing ten photos for relatives instead of them buying it from the photographer would make the money back.

The girl from work hasnt decided whether or not to buy the dvd yet so i will let ye know if she does and what quality the photos on it are like

FlipperThePriest

Suppose this is just the country we've become, where ever there's a chance you can be taken advantage of... you more than likely will be. Still, bit of a difference between 150 - 200 and 350 which is what my friend is being asked to pay. Yeah keep me posted.

sebphoto

Paulw wrote: »

Could you provide a link to say his use would be illegal? If you can't clearly show it's illegal, then, ergo, it is legal, and he can do it.

Ha, that's why i am asking for legal source. I would not use such photographs if i would not have signed model release form or whatever you will call it - written permission from bride and groom.
In my opinion they might sue him and they have huge chance to win this case. Anyways I'm not a lawyer, however it would be worth to talk with the solicitor even though contract between them was not signed.

FlipperThePriest

sebphoto wrote: »

they might sue him and they have huge chance to win this case. Anyways I'm not a lawyer, however it would be worth to talk with the solicitor even though contract between them was not signed.

Who is they? Who even said if he's used photos from the couple in question? You are both speaking entirely hypothetically and missing the point of the thread.

Paulw

sebphoto wrote: »

In my opinion they might sue him and they have huge chance to win this case.

But sue him for what??? He has done nothing wrong. He owns the copyright. I don't see any legal position for them to sue him, and don't see how you can see they might sue him and win.

Please explain your logic there.

magicbastarder

this may help:

Right to privacy in photographs and films
114.—
(1) Subject to the exceptions specified in subsection (3), a person who, for private and domestic purposes, commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have the work or copies of the work made available to the public.

that's from the copyright act of 2000.
the subsection mentioned covers the use of snippets being used in reviews, use of the copyrighted image as a minor part of another work, and issues related to the administration of law.

Paulw

But displaying of images or having images as samples on their website would not be making the images available to the public, it would only be having images on show. Making available would mean that the images would be for sale.

magicbastarder

are you sure about that?

massa

Corkbah wrote: »

anyway ...more modern photographers (who contribute to the damaged reputation of the art of photography) .... offer the images on a CD/DVD because they dont want the hassle

This bit really annoys me.

So if I go to the exact same wedding, shoot the exact same photographs, labour over them while editing for the exact same number of hours, and finally put together an album with the exact same care and precision BUT i hand over the images as a digital file rather than as a hard copy, then I'm damaging the reputation of photography??? And the guy who takes crap photos but retains the digital files is an artist?

Oh come on.

Borderfox

massa wrote: »

This bit really annoys me.

So if I go to the exact same wedding, shoot the exact same photographs, labour over them while editing for the exact same number of hours, and finally put together an album with the exact same care and precision BUT i hand over the images as a digital file rather than as a hard copy, then I'm damaging the reputation of photography??? And the guy who takes crap photos but retains the digital files is an artist?

Oh come on.

couldnt agree more

Corkbah

massa wrote: »

This bit really annoys me.

So if I go to the exact same wedding, shoot the exact same photographs, labour over them while editing for the exact same number of hours, and finally put together an album with the exact same care and precision BUT i hand over the images as a digital file rather than as a hard copy, then I'm damaging the reputation of photography??? And the guy who takes crap photos but retains the digital files is an artist?

Oh come on.

this part translates to me as .... you sell the processed images on a DVD/CD which means that the buyer does not appreciate the value of the images and this is the part that I believe is devaluing the reputation of photography.

Do you ever think about what happens to those images afterwards ??? do they goto tesco/harvey normans or do they visit a proper high quality printers and have the work reproduced properly ?

Assuming they goto tesco's etc and have it printed ... the quality of the printed image is what will reflect your work ...not the quality of the image taken.....and this is what their friends/family will see .... this has the potential to devalue photography.......but what do you care ...you get paid for your day of work and day or two of post processing !!!

How long have you been working as a professional ? Boarderfox?? Massa ??? anyone else

of course you are entitled to you own opinions on the matter.

Borderfox

You are entitled to think whatever way you feel

I give my clients a written and email copy of instructions of how best to get their pictures printed.

Professional for 6 years

Corkbah

so if they ignore your advice and go with the cheapest place ...you don't have an issue with them showing off your work printed by someone who may not do a professional job.

you obviously considered this in the past - which is why you recommend they spend money on proper professional printing, so its a cost saving measure from your end which means you can offer a cheaper service but that (in theory) means there's potential for a printer to ruin your reputation.

Borderfox

If a photographer that charges 2k and supplies prints sells the dvd of hires images then that's ok to print in Tesco?

massa

Corkbah wrote: »

you sell the processed images on a DVD/CD which means that the buyer does not appreciate the value of the images

Why? I genuinely don't understand this. And it's not as if professional photographers weren't willing to sell their negatives for a price, even during the golden age.

See, you're not teaching people to value good photography. You may think you are, but you're not. You're just relying on people being careful with expensive things. They won't actually feel that the photography is any better, they'll just be aware that it "cost more" so it must be good. In fact they probably won't really think about it at all. Certainly you'll have given them no love for the art or passion for your craft. Because if you truly were educating them on what makes a good photograph, and opening their eyes to the beauty of the decisive moment, then you could give them all the digital images, every last one, happy in the knowledge that they would never dream of going to Harvey Norman's. But you don't do that, because at the end of the day you don't trust them. You don't trust them to do what is best for the photographs.

And if *even you* don't trust them to do the right thing by the photographs, then do you really believe that you've taught them to respect the art of photography?

Promac

Corkbah wrote: »

so if they ignore your advice and go with the cheapest place ...you don't have an issue with them showing off your work printed by someone who may not do a professional job.

you obviously considered this in the past - which is why you recommend they spend money on proper professional printing, so its a cost saving measure from your end which means you can offer a cheaper service but that (in theory) means there's potential for a printer to ruin your reputation.

I'd challenge you to take digital images of a wedding shoot from any working photographer here and have them printed out by a machine at tesco or harvey norman so badly that the photographer's reputation would be at stake. Printers these days are not crap. I have a 50 quid colour printer in my office that prints beautifully up to A4.

Corkbah

Promac wrote: »

I'd challenge you to take digital images of a wedding shoot from any working photographer here and have them printed out by a machine at tesco or harvey norman so badly that the photographer's reputation would be at stake. Printers these days are not crap. I have a 50 quid colour printer in my office that prints beautifully up to A4.

are you asking me to break copyright laws ???

or are you asking me to befriend a wedding photographer so I can attempt to test if I could ruin their reputation by printing in a non-professional printer.

Seriously !!

if you can supply an image I know exactly which shop and which printing booth to goto (for the last 2yrs) I've seen the same machine print with lines through print (feint lines but noticeable) and on occasion with colour casts.... company dont want to repair/replace and customers still use it.....and I'll repost the image up here to show you that the printer can cause issues even when given a decent image.

SerialComplaint

On a side issue, is 2k a crazy price for a wedding, relative to the cost of a high quality commercial photographer?

Ballyman

SerialComplaint wrote: »

On a side issue, is 2k a crazy price for a wedding, relative to the cost of a high quality commercial photographer?

Not really depending on what kind of albums etc you are getting as well as when you consider the time, work, skill and equipment involved. There are low, mid and high range album options so it's up to the couple to decide on their budget and the photographer to provide them with the best service he can for their budget.

I spend nearly a day alone just copying files, uploading to online gallery, backing up, burning to CD, designing and printing covers, packaging and shipping after a wedding and that's before all the time taken sorting and editing files, meetings, album design/proofing, design changes, ordering & delivery.

And of course there is also the small matter of up to a 16 hour day on the day of the wedding

And if you can find a commercial photographer who will do all of the above (on his own and not a team) for €2K or anywhere near it then hire him. Immediately.

Pandybelly

Hi,

I photograph weddings, take portraits and shoot events e.g. debs dances etc. I believe I charge a fair price for my services and always endeavour to provide the best images to the client. I print all my own work up to A2 and calibrate my monitors regularly to ensure consistency. I do all this because I believe the client deserves the best I can offer and that word of mouth will get me more business.

I recently had a debs job cancelled because the students decided they did not want photographs as my price was excessive. My package was a 7"x5" of the couple and a 10"x8" of the class, both prints in presentation folders and a .jpg for their Facebook page. Total cost €22 per student. My usual equipment for this type of job is a Lastolite Hilite background and train to give a clean white background and foreground, 4 x Elinchrom studio flashes and Nikon full frame DSLR's. I have to pay my professional indemnity and public liability insurance and contribute to the tax man. After the event, I discover that the students hired someone to take photos at a fiver a pop for a 7"x5".

Then I start to get contacted by people wondering if I could copy some photos and for them. I initially thought they were old photos for restoration etc. but they were actually photos of the students from the debs. In each of the 7"x5" prints of the couples, the top of the boys head was cut off, the the yellow colour cast had to be seen to be believed and the wrinkled sheet used as a background could have done with a good wash. Several were out of focus and the group shot was taken from a balcony as the kids were having a drink, chatting etc with less then 50% of them looking towards the camera. I refused to copy these as there are copyright issues.

There are two points I want to make here.
1. The average person has no concept of what good photography is. I suggested to these people that they should look for a refund as their images were terrible. Not one of them could see what I was talking about. People are now willing to accept a very low standard of photography provided the price is right. I spend hours touching up blemishes, colour correcting and editing photos because it must be right. I always hope that there is one person who will see them and appreciate the work that has gone into them.
2. In many ways digital has been detrimental to photography. When I shot weddings on film there were very few people willing to chance it or do a nixer. The long wait for the negatives to come back and everything to be ok was a sobering experience that is no longer there thanks to the LCD screen on the digital camera. I have a wedding on Saturday and no doubt I will be told that Uncle Mick wants to take some photos as "he has a good camera TOO".

Sorry for the rant.

dirtyghettokid

Pandybelly wrote: »

I have a wedding on Saturday and no doubt I will be told that Uncle Mick wants to take some photos as "he has a good camera TOO".

this happens a lot. i was asked to shoot my brother's wedding this summer, and i was paid to do it. it was stressful enough for me. i didn't really "see" my brother getting married, as i was more focused on the job and not enjoying the wedding. but a ton of my bro's wife's family had cameras and they were getting in my way, stepping in an taking over with poses and ideas and then and tutting at me when i was taking pictures! i went mental. it made me decide i never want to do a wedding again! i agree that digital has wrecked things a little. if cameras weren't so cheap, every joe soap wouldn't think they were a photographer.

Borderfox

More and more weddings will have people with more and more cameras so it will be a fixture of life going forward, if you let it get under your skin your head will be wrecked and your day will suffer.

If I come across this I have a chat with the group of them and organise that I get my picture first and then let them go at it and take pictures of them taking pictures. This is usually enough to let them know (in the nicest possible way) that I am the boss.

And Pandabelly, either educate them or they are not the clients you want. Put the price up and on to the next one.

SerialComplaint

I'm one of those enthusiastic amateurs at family events with an inflated sense of my one photographic abilities. I'd certainly never get in the way of a pro photographer. I'd have thought that a paid professional should be able to set the happy couple's expectations for how things have to work without too much difficulty.

On the broader issue of photography being devalued, I think there may be some truth in this. I'm always amazed at the lack of editing or even filtering among the amateurs who share photos. Why not show the 10 decent photos, and cut out the 90 crap ones at the start, instead of just uploading everything.

My one criticism of the professionals has been the slow progress towards delivering in digital formats. You rarely see schools photographers providing a digital version as standard. Nice to see the debs photographer above offering the digital version as part of the standard package.

dinneenp

I used to think wedding photography was expensive (if talking €1,500+)

I've shot two weddings for friends and have changed my thinking.
1,500 - tax (300 or 600 roughly) so down to €1,200 or €900
Time:
Meet the couple once, maybe twice before the big day.
Scout the location if you haven't been there before.
The big day.

Afterwards (as someone mentioned above): transfer, backup, backup photos. View, select photos, PP (even if basic straightening, crop etc)
Print/order photos & create album (if doing it)
Meet the couple afterwards to present products.

Having said that it's still good money (I think) and it's doing something you love (even though it's work so you're not getting the same pleasure as shooting for fun). But it's better than doing something you don't love...