Photographer

PinkChick

Am I allowed to ask if anyone has used or heard of a particular photographer?

I admit I haven't really read the charter, but there seem to be other threads asking about particular providers so I'm sure it's fine.

PinkChick

Ok. I'll risk it so!! Does anyone know anything about wedding photographer Birthe Pollmeier? Her pic are nice but I'm not sure about the resolution. What should it be?

What do you mean by the resolution? Can you explain a bit further?

PinkChick

We weren't sure if the pics were a bit blurry. She mentioned she doesn't use raw as its too slow and we didn't know if this was a good or a bad thing. She also mentioned she owned the copyright and we didn't know if this was the norm.

Sleepy

Don't touch her with a bargepole.

Anyone not using RAW for wedding photography is a moron.

The copyright of any photo remains with the person who took the picture unless they sign it away to someone else. The best you'll ever normally get from a photographer is license to print and redistribute their photos (of your wedding). Most won't allow you license to edit them and some won't even give you license to print them for fear of poor editing/printing of an image making their work look sub-par.

PinkChick

PinkChick wrote: »

We weren't sure if the pics were a bit blurry. She mentioned she doesn't use raw as its too slow and we didn't know if this was a good or a bad thing. She also mentioned she owned the copyright and we didn't know if this was the norm.

Oh, you already got her to do your wedding. I thought it was a photographer you were considering hiring. My apologies.


If she mentioned resolution, and you think the photos are blurry, and she didn't shoot RAW, my guess is that she accidentally shot in one of the smaller file sizes on the day (most cameras give you an option of what size file you want to shoot. The result is that you can take smaller resolution photographs, and they take up less space).

I don't know of a single photographer that would ever use anything other than RAW for a wedding, so i'd imagine she made a mistake and is now back-peddling to get herself out of the hole she accidentally dug herself into.


That, or she doesn't know how to use a camera and you've got motion blur in all your shots (Caused by darkness in the church/reception venues, etc.).


Could you perhaps post up a photo or two that you're not happy with so we could take a look?


A sneaky trick I see a few photographers doing these days is using google searched images to promote themselves. If you booked this photographer based on a certain style or quality of image, and she delivered something not representative of that, then you could go to court over it.



The photographer generally always retains copyright of their own images, but often grants a license to the customer to use the photos however they wish (so long as they're not making money off them).

PinkChick

We didn't get her. We are trying to find a photographer and she's one we were considering. We met her and saw some pictures. So they should definitely be raw?

PinkChick

PinkChick wrote: »

We didn't get her. We are trying to find a photographer and she's one we were considering. We met her and saw some pictures. So they should definitely be raw?

To be honest, you seem to have more concerns than anything else after having met her. I'd leave her be and find someone who makes you feel more comfortable about hiring them.


Photographer should be shooting everything in RAW for a wedding. If she gives you a disc of images, or such, you'll get JPegs (in my experience it's only inexperienced photographers or those desperate to get the work that offer to hand over the RAW files).

RAW files, are basically, unedited photographs (digital negatives, as they're often referred to), but they contain more information/detail than your average JPeg, so they are much more versatile for when it comes to editing the photograph and retaining image quality.

To much editing on a JPeg can oftentimes result in pixelation or grubby looking photos.



That said, it's always possible that this photographer has a lot of experience and as such is confident she doesn't need the benefits that RAW offers. It's up to you to figure out what you feel comfortable with.


Personally speaking, if you're coming away from her with more questions than answers, and clearly not feeling too good about her, I'd call it a day and find someone else, if I were you.

Chances are you'll only be having one Wedding day. Is it worth the risk?

mrmoo22

Totally agree, not shooting in RAW for a wedding is unprofessional for a modern photographer. If a photo is over/under exposed RAW can get you out of a sticky situation. Personally I would want my photographer to be using the best settings available on a camera for my wedding day. Don't get me wrong Jpeg is great for snaps but for serious photos RAW all the way

WannaBbride

sorry to drag up an old post...

I did a search and this thread came up. I am just wondering if anyone has used this photographer since this thread and what they thought of her work? I seen her name come up on another thread where someones friend used her so I looked her up and shes very reasonable and her photos are really nice.

I met with her and her photos are really good. Here's the but... she had one album she showed me where some of the images seemed blurry, she said it was a bit of soft focus to reduce the flash. It was only in that one album on a few of the images, the other albums where fine. That was my only concern, other than that she was lovely.

I think I might ask her for a few references.

eoglyn

WannaBbride wrote: »

some of the images seemed blurry, she said it was a bit of soft focus to reduce the flash.

I'm sorry, this doesn't make sense as an explanation - were these dancing photos? was there movement in them? were they blurry or soft focus.

Soft focus is a kind of effect that you'd remember from 80s glamour-type photos, if you google soft focus wedding photography, you'll see a ton of examples.

The point is, is this on purpose, and if not, why is she showing you photos that should not have been delivered as part of an album??

WannaBbride wrote: »

shes very reasonable and her photos are really nice.

If you think this, then that's half the battle. If you like her photos and you like her as a person, its a great start.

WannaBbride wrote: »

I think I might ask her for a few references.

Great idea - and try to see full suite of images from one wedding that she has delivered, this will be more reflective of what is delivered.

I just can't imagine that 3 years on that she is not shooting in RAW format, though a quick look at her website, i noticed that some photos from the same day had white balance issues. This is when the skin tone can look a bit yellow or blue - in this case a bit yellow. This is a quick fix in RAW but impossible to fix for jpeg, so hopefully she has moved on. These are only some photos but still ones that she has chosen to display on her website.

WannaBbride

Thanks for the reply. I looked up soft focus there and yes they are like that. They are not dancing photos, posed sitting ones and the image just didnt look sharp. I would prefer not to have soft focus on them unless it was just on the backround.

Should I ask her if she uses RAW?

eoglyn

Its fairly old fashioned, i don't know of any die-hards persisting with it and hoping it will come back into fashion, but you never know. I'm sure you can ask her to ensure that you won't be getting any like that.

Her shooting raw makes no difference to you really. As a photographer i think she'd be mental not to, but if you are happy with her output, that's what matters to you - raw is so that you have more options post-processing, like the white balance issue i mentioned, but for other more technical reasons too.

If you like her output and are confident that she will deliver, that is what is important.

WannaBbride

You're right. Her output is good & she is lovely too.

Phonix photography71

Ive just moved to Dublin and am a wedding photographer and fine art photographer. This post has really concerned me. I have been shooting weddings since before digital was invented. You know...when it used to be an actual craft ( not something that anyone could actually do just because a digital camera is something that a six year old could take pictures with ) and you would have to shoot really great wedding photography in approximately three rolls of actual film and then go into an actual dark room ( yes really!) and actually use chemicals and print the pictures.
When I first started to shoot with a digital camera I used to shoot with RAW. Ask yourself why..? Because if you shoot in raw it allows you to make as many mistakes with exposure, lighting, we just about everything and then it can be corrected later in the computer. Raw Is designed for photographers who are not confident of their abilities and want a safety net. It takes up a lot of room and is entirely unnecessary.
My guess is that this photographer is very competent at her CRAFT, and doesn't need to shoot a wedding with a safety net. My guess is that she knows exactly what she is doing.
You should be more wary of photographers who insist on shooting only in raw.
The only time raw is absolutely necessary is if you are a high end fashion photographer and your work is being blown up to billboard sized images. Unless that's what you plan to do with your wedding photography pics, which I highly doubt. You do not need raw images.
As for copyright this photographer was right, the copyright remains always with the photographer. Unless she/ he sells it to you and signs a copyright contract to waive her copyright rights.
Sorry if ive offended anyone who is on here stating that raw is the only thing to shoot on but I'm so tired of the wedding photography market being awash with born again "photographers" who were made redundant from their everyday, uncreative jobs doing things like accountancy, and decided that in their opinion , because they could use a digital camera that they would set up a photography business. All the gear and no idea... photography takes RAW talent, not shooting on RAW.
Rant over!

Blaise.

eoglyn

eh... Ok

a lot in what you said there,

its not my reason for using it but you could look at raw as a form of insurance, you'd hope not to have to use it, but...

And just like actual insurance many couples look for their photographer to have it.

And maybe it does take up a lot of room - but room is cheap - certainly cheaper than all those rolls of film you used to buy...

if i can, i suggest you take the rest of the rant/debate over to the photography forum - its been quiet around there lately, they'd love to have you - say the thing about the accountants again :pac: