Wedding Photographer Query

mel_nibot

Hi
I'm getting married in August this year and our photographer was one of the first people we booked last year. We have given him a €300 deposit but he wants the remaining €1900 2 weeks before the wedding day.

Is this normal? - I thought the balance didnt have to be paid until the proofs were picked out afterwards. Now people are telling me that the price is way too high and i must be mad to spend so much.
Now I'm totally confused and dont know whether I should cancel him and find someone else or hire a professional camera for the day!

Some help from other photographers and brides / grooms would be much appreciated.
Thanks!

Covey

The price doesn't seem exorbitant to me.

Asking for full payment prior to the wedding may be a tad unusual. Do you have a contract? what does that say?

What are you going to do if you hire a camera? Whos going to take the shots then?

Paulw

My question would be - what did you agree when booking? What does your contract say?

roadruner

mel_nibot wrote: »

Hi
I'm getting married in August this year and our photographer was one of the first people we booked last year. We have given him a €300 deposit but he wants the remaining €1900 2 weeks before the wedding day.

Is this normal? - I thought the balance didnt have to be paid until the proofs were picked out afterwards. Now people are telling me that the price is way too high and i must be mad to spend so much.
Now I'm totally confused and dont know whether I should cancel him and find someone else or hire a professional camera for the day!

Some help from other photographers and brides / grooms would be much appreciated.
Thanks!

50% up front and the rest after mel, that's the way to do it, get it in writing and signed if this guy is dodgy, worst case senario he keeps you waiting forever for your pics or doesn't turn up!
If he is the genuine arcticle insist on the 50/50 and he should have no problem with that.
As for the price, well if he is a pro and depending on what part of the country you are in the price might be right, personally I think it's OTT.

PM me if you want more info

fade2che

I think that is a little on the high side. I know someone who does it cheaper, depending on what is required. PM sent.

DotOrg

mel_nibot wrote: »

Is this normal? - I thought the balance didnt have to be paid until the proofs were picked out afterwards. Now people are telling me that the price is way too high and i must be mad to spend so much.

or hire a professional camera for the day!

it is normal, some photographers do it that way some ask for full payment after the wedding. the risk for the photographer is that the couple look at the pictures afterwards, don't like the look of their faces in the pictures and don't pay, leaving the photographer unable to pay his rent that month

€2000 is an average price for a very good photographer who has been doing it for years

and as regard your last comment of hiring a pro camera, you'd also have to hire several pro lenses, a pro backup body, a couple of flashes, a tripod, memory cards, software to edit the photos afterwards, backup storage in case something happens to the computer etc etc

the cost of hiring just the equipment in Ireland would be getting on for about €2000

Eirebear

2200, is fairly high...but at the same time not unusual for a very good wedding photographer.

ALWAYS check these things out before you hire him though...youll have signed a contract..once youve done that you have no argument really.

As for hiring a camera....first person viewpoints might be quite interesting, although im not so sure your bride/groom to be will be too happy if your not in any of the shots yourself!

mikeanywhere

DotOrg wrote: »

it is normal, some photographers do it that way some ask for full payment after the wedding.

As DotOrg says.

It really is based on the way that particular photographer wants to run his business and what his terms & conditions will be. Did you sign a contract/agreement when you originally booked him as it should state it in there? If you signed it then you agreed to those terms and have to abide by them.

€2200 is not cheap but is defo not expensive either. Again, it will depend on what has been included as part of that price ie album (& type of album), prints, proofing etc etc etc. Until we know that then to be honest that can not be fairly commented on.

Roen

I'd expect full payment two weeks in advance to be honest. But look over your contract as the lads have said above. Secondly just call him, if he's worth his salt at all he should have a good answer to any of your questions and will allay your fears.

If the worst comes to the worst you can book someone else and lose the deposit.

As for hiring a professional camera for the day, I'd put that out of your head unless you have a professional photographer to stand behind it all day.

mel_nibot

Hi guys - Thanks for all your replies and PM's - I didnt sign any contract.
It was quite informal. He came to our house, showed us his previous work and gave us a signed receipt from a duplicate book for €300.
The price of €2200 includes 1 leather album.
He sent us a confirmation letter a few days later which didnt have any terms and conditions set out.
It was basically just 1 paragraph saying that he had received the €300 and confirming the date and location of the wedding.
Thanks again.

Paulw

It sounds somewhat surprising that you don't have a full contract in place. You should certainly ask for one, especially with details of exactly what you get for your money. This would be standard for most professional wedding photographers.

Eirebear

I have seen photographers who operate like this before....but most would have a contract for the simple reason that it protects themselves let alone anyone else.

My advice would be to call him ASAP, he should be able to put your mind at rest...if not, then get him cancelled quickly.

AnCatDubh

hi mel, with fully processed images, album included, assuming that there's a reasonable amount of coverage included on the day, and assuming the guy/gal is seasoned at his trade - is 'professional' (ie. does this for a living) then the cost does't appear extortionate - it's far from bargain basement though and you are buying into a particular point of the market.

The idea of 'pay before you play' is one that appears to be arriving in from the US as is the norm on many forums which i've had cause to participate in and for the reason(s) dotorg states. So while it isn't overly normal - it doesn't immediately mean that the photographer is in any way dodgy. Perhaps he's been bitten before and once bitten twice shy.

Good luck with the wedding and in your married life.

pippatee

Hi there,

the price is reasonable for a Wedding Photographer, as is payment in full prior to the day....

I would question the lack of contract....I never shoot a wedding without one for 2 reasons....

1. It lets the client know what to expect from the day regarding coverage, extenuating circumstances, co-operation, etc.

2. It covers me against a range of unforseen circumastances, including cancellation and return of deposit..

therefore, if there is no contract, then you should by rights be able to cancel and get full return of your deposit...

Best of luck with your day and have a happy life together,

Philip

mel_nibot

Thanks again for all your replies - You've been a great help. I'm not too worried about paying 2grand if the photos are good and from his website they seem to be. My biggest worry was paying in full before the wedding day so I think the best thing to do judging by all your replies is to contact him and ask for terms and conditions and contract and take it from there.
Fingers crossed it works out. Cheers everyone!!

eas

just to add to the information above - a contract does not need to be in traditional contract form...

"If an e-mail or chain of e-mails clearly states an offer for entering into a deal with all of the material terms, and the other side responds by email accepting the terms, then there's a good chance that a valid contract has been formed — even though no signatures have been exchanged. "

thedarkroom

I have done some weddings in the past and tend to avoid them. I would feel that this person's price is reasonable but would be a bit concerned about the lack of a written contract of some sort and this is primarily from his perspective. Depending on whether the photographer uses a professional processing lab for his/her production work or does it all in house, the costs involved before adding the time factor, can be quite high.
A good quality leather album for say 36 photographs with two parent albums and a small presentation album for the proofs can cost up to €600, or even more if you want to be really extravagant. You can get cheap albums and some reflect this but if you want a quality product then you have to expect to pay for it. That €600 is for the books only, that wouldn't include the cost of the photographer's time or the photographs to insert in to it, etc. etc.
A photographer doesn't just turn up on the day to take photographs. Quite often (in my case anyway) there will be at least two consultations with the client before any photographs are taken. There will be the initial consultation to discuss requirements, present sample portfolio and discuss price. I will then always meet them at the venues to show them what they should expect and what I would expect in return when taking photographs on the day. Before the second consultation I will already have done a visit to the areas to plan the day's shoot and investigate additional locations along the route between the bride's home, church and hotel for additional variety.
I will explain to the prospective couple what to expect of me on the day and that while I will be busy and unobtrusive as much as possible, there will be a requirement that there will be a certain amount of cooperation involved from them to get the pictures they want. There generally is never a problem once there is an understanding of all this. There were only two occasions where uncooperative brides resulted in albums that I was not happy with, they were happy however but I always try to satisfy myself as well as the couple as I am my biggest critic (That's how it should be. Or is that an inherent feeling of insecurity? Discussion for another day).
I would feel that a contract is important to protect the photographer as much as the couple. A contract should lay down all the requirements and expectations of all parties. There is no point in the couple complaining afterwards if there are shortfalls in the album if the reason for it is that they were uncooperative. In the two cases I referred to above the couples didn't express reservations about the albums even though the presentations were different to what I felt I was contracted to produce. In the first case, the wedding was in an idyllic Sylvanian setting in a small rural church (Kiltennel, near Gorey) in a wooded location. I did my investigations, met the couple and explained everything. All fine. On the day, I was'nt allowed in to the church (aaargh!!!) and afterwards the bride didn't want to linger at all. They had said previously that they only wanted photographs at the church, not house or hotel (Marlfield House in Gorey!!!!). It was their choice and I had to respect that but I felt what a waste. A written contract beforehand would have enlightened us all to the expectations and requirements.
The photographer spends a lot of time in preliminary work before a photographs is even taken. Afterwards, there is a lot of sorting and preparation to produce the album. There is a lot of work which is invisible to the customer and this has to be accounted for. While digital photography has removed the previous expensive processing costs of the pre-digital days, that is not to say that other areas have not added to it. Expensive equipment has to be paid for (a digital Haselblad can be €25,000 before you even put a lens on it), rental on a premises, staffing and other overheads,..... and then you have to earn a living.
I don't do weddings anymore, only for friends and family, and even then that can be the most troublesome. If you have a photographer that will do you an album (and maybe two parent albums) for €2200 and you are happy with the quality then I would say go for it, it sounds reasonable.

mikeanywhere

Very well put Darkroom!!

Fionn

yes very well put indeed, i'd concur with everything that dark said.

it's vital that the photographer and the client know fully the expectations of each other prior to the event.

It's just soo easy for people to think "big camera" = piece of cake job!!

decsramble

Getting paid in advance might be normal but to me it does seem a little strange to expect full payment of €2200 in advance and yet not be bothered to provide a contract? If you were looking to get your washing machine fixed would you be happy if the the guy showed up in advance took your money and promised to return next week? It seems like a careless way to run a business.

kensutz

mikeanywhere wrote: »

Very well put Darkroom!!

Except it's painful to read

thedarkroom

Yeh, sorry about that, I went on a bit.

mikeanywhere

kensutz wrote: »

Except it's painful to read

That it may have been but it was explained better than the rest of us did.

LaVidaLoca

to try and take work away from wedding photographers.

But 2000 Euro to take some photos seems exorbitant.

My mates just got a friend who was a pretty good photographer to do it for free on a whatever decent DSLR they have (pretty much everybody knows somebody whos a decent enough photographer these days) and then handed out several Argos-bought digital snapshot cameras to the guests and told 'em to "go nuts"

It means you get the formal posed shots for the mantlepeice, and 100s of nice fun shots of people enjoying themselves (which, lets face it, are the ones you're actually going want to look at in 20 years time. ) .

Thirdfox

Supply and demand - if no one pays 2000 euro then the price will come down until people do not feel that they can support themselves financially as a wedding photographer.

In you example - you could easily argue that the friend just gave them a 2000 euro wedding present by doing the photos for free. If he doesn't want to charge he doesn't have to - if we all just get friends to do these things then the wedding photography profession will just die out (like barrel making and tanners in Ireland - obsolete professions are constantly replaced).

Personally I do fear for professional photography. The quality of work from non-professionals is quickly catching up (and in some cases surpassing) professionals and clients have the advantage of being able to select from thousands of freely available portfolios on the web (in terms of stock photos).

Professional photographers need to adapt to this changing environment...

But LaVidaLoca - how much would you pay to have someone paint oil paintings of the wedding? 2000 might cover the cost of the frame Photography is art in a different form and art costs money - there's a difference between sculpture/painting and photography but what you're paying for is not the cost of the equipment mostly but rather the brilliance of the artist's mind (I could paint you an oil painting too but it wouldn't be worth 10 euro).

LaVidaLoca

I didnt mean to disparage the art of photography or those who practice it.

But the fact is that the digital age has made it easier.

It used to be bitch hard to learn to be a photographer. You had to start out with film and take notes of your exposure and shutter speed settings and wait days/weeks for your prints to come back from the lab to see what went right and what went wrong. It took a couple of years at least for a regular person to even start taking decentish looking pictures. And longer to be able to do it reliably.

If you printed you own photos in any way (let alone in colour!) you had to know a Gazillion things about chemicals and various processes and skills that are , to put it simply, now unneccessary.

You'd have to be a bit of a gimp now not to be able to take pretty good photographs now (from a technical perspective) as you can bracket as many times as you want at no extra cost, process in photoshop till doomsday, crop, clone stamp out distracting elements, try black and white, sepia and colour all on the same pic and all the rest.

Now of course you've still got to have an eye for a decent photograph and all the rest, though I gotta admit Ive rarely seen wedding photography that stretched many boundaries of creativity. Group shots where you get everybody in and make sure they're in focus and a couple of nice intimate pics of the Bride and Groom, say 30 photographs altogether? C'mon, can you really still charge 2000 quid for that? Surely 500 for a decent days work, and a little post processing is all you'd get for that now?

I mean I come from a different place (audio engineering) that has been affected hugely by digitalisation: Studios closing everywhere as bands elect to record themselves. In the audio world , only the most top-flight guys are still making big spondulix - most everyone else is doing it for themselves, or for free.

I aint saying Im happy about it, but there it is.

Fionn

yes people are trying to do things themselves, thing is you'll never see the crap shots they've done!! the bride in tears the parents outraged etc.
i'd say the digital camera has provided instant feedback of your shots, but that doesn't mean that everyone will correct and take better shots, the digital camera is certainly capable of out performing some of the film cameras of previous years, of course there are still weddings being shot in film.

What concerns a lot of couples and families is - what happens if the friend isn't as good a photographer as he says he is? what happens if the batteries die and he has only the one set? what happens if the friend gets distracted and goes at the champers (after all he is a guest) some couples feel that because they are under a compliment that they cant ask the 'friend' exactly what they want. If it's a family member that takes the shots and they're not happy with them it can cause all sorts of friction. There'll hardly be a contract with a friend or relative. If a wedding is photographed by a photographer who has experience in this type of work it usually means that these unforeseen scenarios are handled in a professional manner and the wedding photographer will consistently produce the goods whereas the friend or family member may never had to shoot such an event before, may not have the confidence, skill, experience nor the proper equipment nor the creative energy for that matter. So it could be a hit and miss affair.

And it's not just friends or family members trying to do it, I was at a wedding late last year where the (hired) photographer who, it was obvious had never did an event like that before with a cheap squeaky tripod (price still on it) :rolleyes: and a bridge camera with a pop-up flash and a p&S, he attempted to shoot the wedding but resulted in a disaster, no one has ever seen any of the shots, i don’t know have the couple even got an album.

But it's all relative really - like you could do the catering at home get a few sixpacks and a few CDs get the bus back from the church with the friend to take a few snaps with his mobile - hey presto!! wedding on a shoestring.

Some couples want a lot more than that, ask anyone in the wedding photography business - it's just as about as stressful a job as it can get in photography - besides War photography. Everyone thinks it's very easy!! try getting 150 people to group in such a way that all of them will be visible in the photograph. Even the time it takes to review, rate and select from maybe a few thousand photographs.
For wedding photography there’s a lot more involved than simply turning up and taking a few snaps, but ultimately it's up to the couple themselves what they want on that special day!!

I would agree that the digital age has had some profound effects on the photographic scene and that traditional photographers may be struggling a bit to keep up with the new trends, but change is inevitable it's move with the times or get out i guess.

Borderfox

Lol Love that statement Fionn

"But it's all relative really - like you could do the catering at home get a few sixpacks and a few CDs get the bus back from the church with the friend to take a few snaps with his mobile - hey presto!! wedding on a shoestring."

thedarkroom

I agree with Borderfox to a certain degree. I asked a photographer one time why he would spend a small mortgage on a professional kit when he could get equipment at a fraction of the cost and the results would be identical. His response was that the customer would be impressed with the kit and would have more confidence in him as a photographer. This response, while sounding ridiculous, seemed to get him the gigs considering his work (in my opinion) was average to mediocre. It would appear that size matters.
I would also think that a good photographer would be able to produce a very good album using a compact camera. I see results from cameras such as the Canon G9 or the Canon iXus 850 IS and (while not of Haselblad standard) are exceptional for such small packages. In the right hands they would produce the goods. Don't confuse technical competence/ability with creativity.

thedarkroom

Sorry folks but I appear to have great difficulty writing one-liner replies.

Calina

Fionn wrote: »

....
Some couples want a lot more than that, ask anyone in the wedding photography business - it's just as about as stressful a job as it can get in photography - besides War photography. Everyone thinks it's very easy!!

I'm on the record as saying I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. The money is just not worth it.

Paulw

I've been asked by a few people to do their weddings. Some are friends and some would be friends of friends. On every occasion I've said no thanks, and pointed them towards other photographers here on boards that do cover weddings.

It's just a side of photography that I will stay away from, especially as a primary photographer.

eas

thedarkroom wrote: »

I agree with Borderfox to a certain degree. I asked a photographer one time why he would spend a small mortgage on a professional kit when he could get equipment at a fraction of the cost and the results would be identical. His response was that the customer would be impressed with the kit and would have more confidence in him as a photographer. This response, while sounding ridiculous, seemed to get him the gigs considering his work (in my opinion) was average to mediocre. It would appear that size matters.

Sounds like that person made a good business decision. Making it as a wedding photographer has more to do with logical business and marketing/branding than it does with the photos produced. You're never going to set the world on fire if you don't have the talent, but you'll be able to make a living.

thedarkroom wrote: »

I would also think that a good photographer would be able to produce a very good album using a compact camera. I see results from cameras such as the Canon G9 or the Canon iXus 850 IS and (while not of Haselblad standard) are exceptional for such small packages. In the right hands they would produce the goods. Don't confuse technical competence/ability with creativity.

I'm not sure about the above. A good photographer could produce a good album using any camera if they had to. My point is, under perfect conditions the cameras mentioned may be able to produce similar results, but once you find yourself out of the comfort zone of the compacts I'm sure the differences would become obvious.

Either way, a hired photographer using anything less than a semi-pro SLR as their main camera at a wedding would be irresponsible in my opinion.

thedarkroom

eas wrote: »

Either way, a hired photographer using anything less than a semi-pro SLR as their main camera at a wedding would be irresponsible in my opinion.

Absolutely. While the two cameras I mentioned are excellent, I wouldn't rely on them to do professional looking prints above 10x8, particularly with cropping.

PaulieC

I would very much disagree with whats above. I have a Canon 30D and a G9 and the difference in quality between the two is really apparent. While a good photographer would be able to compose the shots necessary for a quality album, the lack of quality in the lenses and small sensors would render most wedding shots unuseable, especially anything taken inside

Borderfox

Personally I find shooting weddings not stressfull at all, if I was shooting a horse show (I amnt comparing the subject of each just the work) I find that much more stressfull because every 90 seconds I have a new subject to shoot in mostly crap light, but at a wedding its all orchestrated on front of me and I can be far more creative than most other shoot for pay work I do.

I can understand the reasoning behind getting expensive gear but if you havent got the talent it worthless, weddings are as much about marketing and business sense if not more than the camera talent

mathias

Everyone thinks it's very easy!!

I just have to throw my 2 cents in here ,

Wedding photography is far from easy , besides being good with the camera , you have to be good with people ,

Right from the start of the day your dealing with nervous and sometimes frightened people and you need to be able to handle that , also getting people together for the shots is no joke , disturbing the little mini dramas that happen during the day to remind people to pose for shots can end in personal abuse if not handled correctly.

Its an extremely busy and stressful day , running from about 9 in the morning to about 6 in the evening .

So , anyone thinking of getting into it should keep all that in mind , and as a parting shot , theres no way you can do quality shots inside any church with todays point and shoot compacts , they just arnt up to it , in general , people think they are , but they absolutely are not.
Dont even think about it folks , its a stressful enough day without looking at the photos the next day and realising they are all noisy crap ... then you have to ring the bride and tell her so !! I wouldnt wish that on my worst enemy.

FreeAnd..

I dont think i'd do a wedding for less than 5k...anything less than that is just not worth it...not a way i'd fancy to make a living