Oh, to be a wedding photgrapher...

DaireQuinlan

eas wrote: »

Maybe client filtration is one of the purposes of the site?

I had no trouble figuring it out. Here's a tip - when the pointy arrow thing turns into a hand with a pointed finger - click there.

Right ! That's it ! (crosses Savo off the list. Decisively)

eas

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Right ! That's it ! (crosses Savo off the list. Decisively)

Job done!

Borderfox

Freddie59 wrote: »

I see where you are coming from, but less materials cost. Apparently these 'storyboard' albums are being done in Italy at a cost some €500-€700. I recetly was a guest at a wedding where the photographers gear amounted to around €6k - and he was charging €2.5k for the wedding. In fairness, that amounts to a bit more than €10 per hour.

I know two professional photographers, and, having talked with them, I don't think that you could actually say it would take 50 hours. Any takers from the pros on here? Without spinning the company line?

Realistically, how much time does it take you for PP/selection, etc after the wedding itself? Would you do more than one wedding per week?

I work it on a day for the wedding and the selection is done on the day, most times during the meal while waiting on the cutting of the cake and one full day for PP (probably around 10-12 hours) so in total approx 20-24 hours.

minikin

Wedding Photography strikes me as something that isn't that difficult, but im saying that from the standpoint of someone who is not very well informed.

tiger woods makes professional golf look easy, a top surgeon makes surgery look easy, an accountant makes accountancy look easy, etc etc etc

the point is that when something looks easy to an onlooker it's because the person doing it is a consummate professional... professional photography is just the same as any other profession... it takes years to learn your profession... just like owning a golf club, scalpel or calculator will not make you a pro golfer, surgeon or accountant... owning photographic equipment does not make you a competent professional photographer.

ThOnda

The fact that somebody is "professional" in some field or that they charge a lot for their services (products) does not mean neither that they are good in their field nor that they are worth the money.

To be a wedding photographer - you can always try it. Just get "Wedding photography for dummies"-like book, borrow a camera and give it a go.
But personally, the more I learn about photography (and related processing), the more I am certain that I don't want to try that.

Seán_B

While I had the utmost respect for wedding photographers already, I carried out my first wedding as sole photographer a few weeks back and for all of the armchair critics out there I can confidently say that a good wedding tog earns ever penny.

In my case, the lighting was difficult, kids were less than co-operative and it was unnaturally warm (not an irish wedding obviously). It is a steep learning curve and as many of the excellent lads/ladies here who cover weddings have stated, expensive tog doesn't neccessarily equal quaility.

xprepairs

Using Craigslist in the USA has helped me immensely in my Beach and Wedding Photography. A free ad I update every 3 days and I offer an hourly rate plus the people can keep all the origional photos which I burn onto CD's or Thumb Drives or zip them and e-mail them to the clients within 3 hrs of the shoot.

I make good money and don't have to edit or print out any photos. Makes my life much easier as I am a perfectionist when it comes to editing, etc. This way, they get the pics and can do whatever they like with them and I of course make the money up front and then it's all done....works for me!

Paulw

For those who think that anyone can do it - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218248/Newlyweds-win-court-battle-1-500-wedding-photographer-shoddy-pictures-include-missing-heads-car-close-ups.html

CabanSail

Paulw wrote: »

For those who think that anyone can do it - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218248/Newlyweds-win-court-battle-1-500-wedding-photographer-shoddy-pictures-include-missing-heads-car-close-ups.html

Saw a condensed version of that article in this mornings Metro. I don't know what they are complaining about really. :eek:

Tallon

Paulw wrote: »

For those who think that anyone can do it - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218248/Newlyweds-win-court-battle-1-500-wedding-photographer-shoddy-pictures-include-missing-heads-car-close-ups.html

They are actually a discrace

Click Clicky

I'm surprised there aren't more cases like this going to court. Maybe there are, we just don't see them.

While I have every sympathy for the couple in this case, you have to wonder what sort of research they did in finding their photographer. In saying that, it's quite easy to pull the wool over someone's eyes. There's one photographer in Ireland who uses stock photography in his wedding gallery, claims it as his own, and still gets bookings. It drives me crazy, but nothing you can do about it really. The guy in the article could've done something similar.

Freddie59

Borderfox wrote: »

I work it on a day for the wedding and the selection is done on the day, most times during the meal while waiting on the cutting of the cake and one full day for PP (probably around 10-12 hours) so in total approx 20-24 hours.

Fair play to you Borderfox. That sounds more than reasonable.

Freddie59

Paulw wrote: »

For those who think that anyone can do it - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218248/Newlyweds-win-court-battle-1-500-wedding-photographer-shoddy-pictures-include-missing-heads-car-close-ups.html

Oh my God.:eek:

I think I would have even done a better job on the stills. As for the video...........shudder the thought.:mad: I think a similar case might have happened in Ireland a few years ago when the videographer fell and injured himself in the church (badly). Couldn't go on and I think the couple were awarded several thosand euro.

Paulw

Click Clicky wrote: »

you have to wonder what sort of research they did in finding their photographer.

Well, this particular guy is a member of SWPP. But, it seems that his website is currently out of service. I wonder why?? :eek:

A wedding photographer is important to most couples. I know only too well, after having to pick one for our wedding. But, for me, the choice was fairly easy. I picked someone from boards, someone I knew, and someone who's work I always liked. Of course, the proof will come after the wedding day, but I'm not in the least bit concerned, and am confident we'll get brilliant photos to remember the day by (no pressure there).

Research is very important. Ireland isn't exactly big, so word of mouth spreads very fast.

I know there are cheap and expensive wedding photographers out there. Some are great photographers, and some are ok. Some are cheap and very good, and some are expensive and just ok. You have to find just what you want. I know ours is not cheap, but I think it's worth the price.

eas

Freddie59 wrote: »

Fair play to you Borderfox. That sounds more than reasonable.

that leaves out album design and consultation - which in my case usually takes 10-15 hours hours all said.

Click Clicky

Paulw wrote: »

Well, this particular guy is a member of SWPP.

You do realise Joe the Plumber can become a member of the SWPP by sending them €99? It's the biggest false badge of security in the industry. The IPPA, for all its faults, at least has proper membership criteria.

Paulw

Click Clicky wrote: »

You do realise Joe the Plumber can become a member of the SWPP by sending them €99? It's the biggest false badge of security in the industry. The IPPA, for all its faults, at least has proper membership criteria.

I know, I'm a member of SWPP myself. Ok, at least I don't do weddings.

I've never looked at IPPA, but to me, being a member of something certainly doesn't give any quality guide at all.

Cameraman

One issue is that most brides-to-be will never have hired a photographer before (or at least not for a situation like this) and will probably never need one again. So, they are unlikely to know all the potential pitfalls in choosing someone.

Although word-of-mouth does play a part, 'bad' photographers can keep going for quite a while on the basis of a good website and a plausible manner.

eas

Click Clicky wrote: »

There's one photographer in Ireland who uses stock photography in his wedding gallery, claims it as his own, and still gets bookings. It drives me crazy, but nothing you can do about it really.

who who who??? name and shame!

What's even worse is finding your own photography in other peoples wedding portfolios. Some photographers are trying to limit the use of photographs from facebook,bebo, flikr and such for this reason.

Paulw

eas wrote: »

who who who??? name and shame!

What's even worse is finding your own photography in other peoples wedding portfolios. :eek:

Copyright infringement? People using your photos should certainly be exposed.

eas

Paulw wrote: »

Copyright infringement? People using your photos should certainly be exposed.

hasn't happened to me personally - not to my knowledge anyhow. I'd have no issue exposing them if it did. I'd like to meet the person who'd think they could get away with doing that in such a small market like Ireland, they'd put new meaning to the definition of "dumb"

B\

CabanSail

If it's Stock Photographs then I am guessing he has the rights to use them.

Passing them off as his own work is dishonest but I wonder if it's a violation of copyright?

Click Clicky

eas wrote: »

who who who??? name and shame!

What's even worse is finding your own photography in other peoples wedding portfolios. Some photographers are trying to limit the use of photographs from facebook,bebo, flikr and such for this reason.

Christ, has this happened to you? Your style is very unique, you'd spot it a mile away. I thought someone used one of mine in an advert before, but it wasn't the same. Identical setup, but a couple of subtle differences.

Click Clicky

CabanSail wrote: »

If it's Stock Photographs then I am guessing he has the rights to use them.

Passing them off as his own work is dishonest but I wonder if it's a violation of copyright?

It's not the copyright infringement that bothers me though, it's the fact that, as Cameraman pointed out, brides have usually never booked a photographer before so won't know what to look for. They go to a guys website, see the photos in 'his' gallery, and naturally assume he took them. Very annoying.

eas

Click Clicky wrote: »

Christ, has this happened to you? Your style is very unique, you'd spot it a mile away. I thought someone used one of mine in an advert before, but it wasn't the same. Identical setup, but a couple of subtle differences.

no - not me personally. The stories that I know of are people in the US taking photos from 2 very well know UK wedding photographers. These guys where saying that it happens to them all the time.

eas

CabanSail wrote: »

If it's Stock Photographs then I am guessing he has the rights to use them.

Passing them off as his own work is dishonest but I wonder if it's a violation of copyright?

there must be some laws regarding misleading advertising that can be acted on if needed?

AnCatDubh

Click Clicky wrote: »

You do realise Joe the Plumber can become a member of the SWPP by sending them €99? It's the biggest false badge of security in the industry. The IPPA, for all its faults, at least has proper membership criteria.

I think the problem with most trade associations (and perhaps this is but one of the faults expressed) is that there is a major reluctance to 'out' anyone. How many photographers have either of these organisations prevented from using their accreditation as a result of bad experiences that a client may have had with them? As far as I can see there are none or if i'm wrong then certainly they aren't well publicised.

So even if you have something that says that i've "BIPF" accreditation (Boards.Ie Photography Forum) - Unless BIPF are going to monitor their work, and more importantly the customers experiences with the photographer then squat diddley's is about the worth of choosing your photographer on the basis of accreditation. I've seen enough poor customer experiences from accredited organisations / gold partners / etc.. to know that they actually mean very little.

BTW - BIPF accreditation only costs €98 and is available by sending cash in a brown envelope to the pm address above. Full accreditation will be provided and for this sum you get to use the BIPF designation. Riches and admiration of the world follows your use of BIPF. All you need to do to qualify is post three images or more to the random thread, and, and, and...... :rolleyes:

right, well there's Christmas sorted for me

Borderfox

eas wrote: »

that leaves out album design and consultation - which in my case usually takes 10-15 hours hours all said.

Albums would be extra time but also extra money, album's are on my option list so the 20-24 hours is for the Wedding shots only.

Paulw

I see now that SWPP has now revoked his membership. He has clearly broken some of their rules and clauses.

Freddie59

eas wrote: »

that leaves out album design and consultation - which in my case usually takes 10-15 hours hours all said.

Two working days........to pick out photos and design an album??????