Problems with our wedding phographer

LOD

Hi,
Apologises for the long post
We are having some problems with our wedding photographer. He is a friend of my husband’s family. We booked him because of this. My husband did all the dealing with our photographer before the wedding and it was all verbal. We got a good price €550. I thought that it was a mate’s rate price and because he was only starting out on his own (He had been working with his Dad before this). I now feel we got what we paid for but am still looking for some advice on what to do next.

We got married in July ’13 and received a 60 page photo-book album September ’13 that we are reasonably happy with. We received a disc with around 350 water marked photos on it. I asked could we get the disc without he water mark so we could print them ourselves, he refused saying he wouldn't trust anyone else to print his work. He gave us a price list for getting prints from him. We found it difficult to decide want ones to print and then got side track so it ended up being September ’14 before we actually went about getting photos printed.

I couldn't find the prices he gave me so I emailed him for a price list. The prices this time were way higher that the originals ones. I searched and eventually found the original prices. We got contacted him with the original prices he said they were no longer valid as they were a year old and he no longer printed the pictures himself. The new prices were from the website he had uploaded our photos to and we could order them direct from this. The first picture I wanted to get printed was a panoramic which the company didn't do so I had to go back to the photographer and get him to print it for us. Since then we have been selecting photos and saving them in our online cart to print (while saving money a 5x7 is €5). I tried to access our account two weeks ago and the link was broken. I contacted our photographer to tell him this and he said that the link had expired as it was up since Sept and we had not ordered anything. I know that is 6 months ago but he never told us that there would be a time limit on it. Just like he never told us he was going to stop printing pictures himself and would be using a website that would be more expensive. I had thought that we would be getting a disc to print photos ourselves whenever we wanted and when I realised that this wasn't going to happen I at least thought that we would still be able to print our pictures at our own leisure. He has said that when we know what pictures we want print and when we are going to print them he will reactivate the account.

So I know we can print our pictures but it has to be all at once and as we are still doing up our house I would like to have more flexibility than this. We have had other problems with our photographer along the way but I won’t go in to these now. Any advice on what I should do any would be appreciated. Thanks.

lazygal

Do you have a contract?

We left it a very, very long time before ordering our album and prints. It was over a year after our wedding when we ordered and received them. In our contract there was no time limit specified on the order and once we had paid a set amount (50% of the total I think we paid), we paid the balance on delivery of the album and prints. The link to our online gallery still works, and we're married nearly four years. But you need to check the terms and conditions.

MrWalsh

What good is a disc of watermarked images to you?

Unless a contract stipulates otherwise Id be asking him for a disc of non watermarked images.

Milly33

Sounds like maybe tis a bit of fault on both sides. Ye did take quite a while to come back to him so things do change. Sounds like maybe because he was a friend of the family and all was done verbally things did not get laid out properly..

Maybe you should just try and approach him again (with a keg of beer) and say sorry things got messy etc etc, that since now he doesn't print himself, would he mind if ye paid a flat few to get the cd of photos without the water mark and that's it ye are finished with him

Luckydog69

When we got married we also received a CD of our photos ...all watermarked as well. Perhaps every photographer does this with their wedding work. However herself was on to me about getting some prints done for hanging on walls etc.. We didn't want to remove any photos from the album permanently so here is what I done... I scanned the chosen photo from the album into the computer ( I have a fairly decent scanner) and then printed it off from the computer... Also I just copied ( photocopied ) a chosen photo and obviously used A4 Photo paper and it came out perfect. With the CD of the album I opened one of the photos in Photoshop and painstakingly removed the watermark! Alternatively you could use the following program to do it for you... theinpaint.com Sorry can't post a link to it, just google it and you will find it.

Effects

MrWalsh wrote: »

What good is a disc of watermarked images to you?

Unless a contract stipulates otherwise Id be asking him for a disc of non watermarked images.

He owns the copyright on the images, unfortunately, so he doesn't have to produce a disk of non watermarked images.

Seems like he priced the days shoot low and is now making his profit as he has the client over a barrel. Who is he using online to print his images?

Mrs OBumble

Luckydog69 wrote: »

When we got married we also received a CD of our photos ...all watermarked as well. Perhaps every photographer does this with their wedding work. However herself was on to me about getting some prints done for hanging on walls etc.. We didn't want to remove any photos from the album permanently so here is what I done... I scanned the chosen photo from the album into the computer ( I have a fairly decent scanner) and then printed it off from the computer... Also I just copied ( photocopied ) a chosen photo and obviously used A4 Photo paper and it came out perfect. With the CD of the album I opened one of the photos in Photoshop and painstakingly removed the watermark! Alternatively you could use the following program to do it for you... theinpaint.com Sorry can't post a link to it, just google it and you will find it.

What did you did is illegal.

When you hire a photographer, unless the contract specifically says otherwise, they own the copyright of the images.

Personally I think this sucks, I would never hire a photograhper unless I owned the work that he produced. But that's not the standard agreement.

MrWalsh

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What did you did is illegal.

When you hire a photographer, unless the contract specifically says otherwise, they own the copyright of the images.

But doesnt copyright only apply to commercial use of the image? Presumably the poster just printed off the image for their own enjoyment.

Milly33

Not really.. It is their work so therefore if you wanted copies you should ask. It is nothing major just technically speaking it would have been illegal, just like taking a picture of a nice picture and printing it off without asking the person who done it first

lazygal

When we were getting married I ruled out loads of photographers for certain things (extra charges for staying later than 6pm was a big one). The main one was that we would have the right to print our images ourselves. We went with one that gave us colour corrected and edited pictures on a disk and online gallery, and it stipulated in our contract that we had the right to use these images ourselves. I wanted to make up albums for our parents and print off different shots to the professionally printed ones we chose. There are photographers who hold onto the rights, and while they are entitled to do so we didn't give them our business.

Effects

MrWalsh wrote: »

But doesnt copyright only apply to commercial use of the image?

No. The photographer automatically has copyright and controls the use of his/her images unless otherwise agreed.

Presumably the poster just printed off the image for their own enjoyment.

Think of it like someone burning a CD of a band's music without paying for it, or downloading a movie and watching it without paying for it. People do it even if they aren't supposed to.

MrWalsh

Effects wrote: »

No. The photographer automatically has copyright and controls the use of his/her images unless otherwise agreed.

Fair enough - bit of a silly notion though, completely unenforceable, he would never ever know if the person removed the watermark and printed the image purely for their own photo album.

Effects

I'd say your best bet is to offer him a figure to have all the edited and retouched images on a disk. Start low for when he pitches a higher price.
When you get that disk make at least two further copies and keep one at someone else's house or online.

Effects

MrWalsh wrote: »

he would never ever know if the person removed the watermark and printed the image purely for their own photo album.

That's why the image res is usually small and it's hard enough to remove a watermark without trace. It should all be discussed before the shoot. The photographer is the one who should bring it up though seeing as he's aware of it and a wedding client usually isn't.

Luckydog69

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What did you did is illegal.

What I did was illegal??? How come? I paid the photographer for his work and received the merchandise, he issued me a receipt for same so I am now the rightful owner. Perhaps you would have a valid point if I was making a financial gain by posting said photos on a photo sharing websites and claiming credit for them. Copies I made were for hanging up in the study. You should have stated that the inferred illegality was your own opinion and not have stated as it were actual fact.

lazygal

Luckydog69 wrote: »

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What did you did is illegal.

What I did was illegal??? How come? I paid the photographer for his work and received the merchandise, he issued me a receipt for same so I am now the rightful owner. Perhaps you would have a valid point if I was making a financial gain by posting said photos on a photo sharing websites and claiming credit for them. Copies I made were for hanging up in the study. You should have stated that the inferred illegality was your own opinion and not have stated as it were actual fact.

Did your contract state what the position on ownership of the copywrite was? Ours specifically state that it was ours and we had the right to reprint the images. Other photographers had clauses stating there was to be no reproduction without permission.

Effects

So if I buy a DVD I can make copies and give them away legally to people as long as I don't charge anyone?

MrWalsh

Effects wrote: »

So if I buy a DVD I can make copies and give them away legally to people as long as I don't charge anyone?

Any DVD I've ever bought has a big spiel on copyright and not allowed to reproduce or show or make copies etc...

Dunno what kind of DVD you mean though (as in, maybe you mean someone privately filming a party in your home?). I suppose if it wasn't explicitly covered in the contract or stated at the start of the DVD then the videographer wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on as you'd have paid him for the service including ownership of the DVD.

Gatica

Luckydog69 wrote: »

What I did was illegal??? How come? I paid the photographer for his work and received the merchandise, he issued me a receipt for same so I am now the rightful owner. Perhaps you would have a valid point if I was making a financial gain by posting said photos on a photo sharing websites and claiming credit for them. Copies I made were for hanging up in the study. You should have stated that the inferred illegality was your own opinion and not have stated as it were actual fact.

Unfortunately that is the case. People's work is automatically copyrighted to them without them having to state it. A photographer will always have copyright over his work, but he may give the client permission to reproduce it at will. Many photographers will have T&Cs surrounding the reproduction of it, e.g. they will only print it themselves, or at least mark (watermark) their work and one may not modify it without their permission.

I'm on a crafts forum and I can tell you that those that make knitting/crochet and such designs are very vehement about their rights/T&Cs concerning their patterns; e.g. just because something is free, doesn't mean there's no copyright involved, they may specify that you can use it for personal use but not commercial (even if you've paid for the pattern), you cannot annotate the pattern, you cannot make copies of it, etc...
The same goes for code you find on the net, it was written by someone and usually have copyright notices and licensing information, especially when it comes to open sources licensed under different GPLs or BSD. It's free to use, but may not be reproduced without abiding by their T&Cs, e.g. making derivative work available to others, etc...

This doesn't help OP anyway. LOD, I can understand why you didn't have a written contract with someone who's supposed to be a friend. It sounds like he's making a bit of a mark-up on his work now by charging high prices for copies of photos. You should chat to him informally about the fact that now that he's no longer printing pictures himself (which is the reason he gave for not giving you the digital images) can he not just give you the copies of the photos. Also say that when you were making wedding shoot arrangements he never told you (seeing as you didn't have a written contract) that he wouldn't give you the photos or that he'd be watermarking them. Since you're doing up your house now, I presume you don't have a lot of time or cash left over, so appeal to his humane side, that you cannot afford such expensive photos especially as you never thought you wouldn't be able to make albums or prints yourself.

Most photographers do stipulate how long they will keep copies of your photos, usually at least a year. So if you lost your copy for example they can give you a new set. However, considering how many weddings some photographers may shoot, it would be unreasonable to expect them to keep all photos from all weddings for evermore. I'm sure they keep their best shots for their own portfolio, but it wouldn't be the whole range of pics one gets as a client.

Effects

MrWalsh wrote: »

I suppose if it wasn't explicitly covered in the contract or stated at the start of the DVD then the videographer wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on as you'd have paid him for the service including ownership of the DVD.

That's not how the law works and ignorance is no excuse for breaking it.
If you get caught speeding at 100kph in a 60kph zone, do you think the excuse you didn't see the sign means you don't have to pay the fine/ticket?

Effects

Gatica wrote: »

However, considering how many weddings some photographers may shoot, it would be unreasonable to expect them to keep all photos from all weddings for evermore. I'm sure they keep their best shots for their own portfolio, but it wouldn't be the whole range of pics one gets as a client.

I'd imagine most decent photographers keep backups going back a long time. Storage is cheap these days.

skallywag

Lazygal wrote: »

Did your contract state...

My reading of the situation is that there was never a contract in the first place and that this was a completely verbal agreement. Which in itself is probably key to the issue it seems ...

MrWalsh

Effects wrote: »

That's not how the law works and ignorance is no excuse for breaking it.
If you get caught speeding at 100kph in a 60kph zone, do you think the excuse you didn't see the sign means you don't have to pay the fine/ticket?

No, but Im interested to know how (in the example you used), it would come to anyones attention that you had given copies away for free. And if someone did bring it to the videographers attention - if the person who gave the dvd away made no money off it there would be very little to sue for.

Motorists are required to pass driving tests, have a knowledge of the rules of the road and roads are monitored by cameras and the police etc... And there is no commercial aspect to speeding. Its not really a like for like analogy.

Effects

I'm sorry to have to point things out to you using analogies.
There is copyright law. You are not supposed to infringe on someones copyright.
The fact that you do this and are not detected doesn't mean you are not infringing copyright.
You seem to think you have the right infringe someones copyright and break the law just because you want to and you won't get caught doing it.
I'm sorry that you can't understand or grasp the facts of the matter.

Gatica

I agree with Effects on this... Unfortunately, just because there's no one to see you break the law, doesn't mean it wasn't broken. You can swipe something in someone's home and not get caught, it doesn't mean that stealing is not unlawful.
I'm sure there's photographers/videographers there who if they did find out you made copies of their work, may give out but not bother to sue you, or even not get bothered maybe. However, that still doesn't mean that copying copyrighted works is A-ok. Now, that's not to say that lots of people don't go online and download movies, or copy and edit photos, etc.. However, if you're going to talking about the legality of it, unfortunately copyright belongs to the original producer of the work, in this case the photographer, even if you paid him to take those photos, they still belong to him unless he expressly gives this right away to you.

MrWalsh

Effects wrote: »

I'm sorry to have to point things out to you using analogies.
There is copyright law. You are not supposed to infringe on someones copyright.
The fact that you do this and are not detected doesn't mean you are not infringing copyright.
You seem to think you have the right infringe someones copyright just because you want to and you won't get caught doing it.
I'm sorry that you can't understand or grasp the facts of the matter.

Theres no need to be so passive aggressive just because you dont like (or indeed understand) what Im saying.

Take your attitude problem elsewhere, Ive no interest in pandering to it.

MrWalsh

Gatica wrote: »

I agree with Effects on this... Unfortunately, just because there's no one to see you break the law, doesn't mean it wasn't broken. You can swipe something in someone's home and not get caught, it doesn't mean that stealing is not unlawful.
I'm sure there's photographers/videographers there who if they did find out you made copies of their work, may give out but not bother to sue you, or even not get bothered maybe. However, that still doesn't mean that copying copyrighted works is A-ok. Now, that's not to say that lots of people don't go online and download movies, or copy and edit photos, etc.. However, if you're going to talking about the legality of it, unfortunately copyright belongs to the original producer of the work, in this case the photographer, even if you paid him to take those photos, they still belong to him unless he expressly gives this right away to you.

Yeah I wasnt disputing any of that - I was simply interested in how it might come to light and if indeed it did, what might happen in court.

However it appears my curiosity is not welcome in this thread so I bid you good day.

skallywag

MrWalsh wrote: »

I was simply interested in how it might come to light and if indeed it did, what might happen in court

I think that the music CD / movie DVD analogy here is a good one. If I copy a music cd and give it to my friend for free then it is also the case that this is just as unlikely to come to light, but the fact still remains that the law has been broken.

AndersLimpar

lazygal wrote: »

When we were getting married I ruled out loads of photographers for certain things (extra charges for staying later than 6pm was a big one)

Do you get paid extra for staying late at work and working overtime?

lazygal wrote: »

There are photographers who hold onto the rights, and while they are entitled to do so we didn't give them our business.

Any photographer with half a brain does not give away copyright but will give you a licence for personal use and to print the images as you wish. This is pretty much standard these days and most modern photographers will give you this licence as part of your wedding package.

People confuse copyright with licence all the time. They are not the same but a licence is all anyone ever needs.

lazygal

AndersLimpar wrote: »

Do you get paid extra for staying late at work and working overtime?

Nope, don't get paid overtime. My job is task-based, so if the number of tasks increases, I stay to cover them.

AndersLimpar

lazygal wrote: »

Nope, don't get paid overtime. My job is task-based, so if the number of tasks increases, I stay to cover them.

Self employed people generally get paid by the hour

lazygal

AndersLimpar wrote: »

Self employed people generally get paid by the hour

Really? Our photographer and videographer had a price for their packages, not an hourly rate. My husband has been self-employed and didn't get paid by the hour, but for the job for which he was hired. My mum is self employed and doesn't charge by the hour for her services.

AndersLimpar

And black is white as well

Effects

AndersLimpar wrote: »

Self employed people generally get paid by the hour

That's not generally the case.
I'm self employed and I usually price a job based on the task, not an hourly rate. Sometimes if it's a job that can't be worked out time wise then an hourly rate might apply.

lazygal

AndersLimpar wrote: »

And black is white as well

What do you mean by that?

Luckydog69

I always find it amusing how a person on post #1 of this thread was looking for some advice from fellow Boarders and now 30+ posts later arguments are ensuing between people which aren't helpful to the person who started the thread...its a bit like watching something on youtube and 4 or 5 clicks later you could be watching a lion eating a buffalo even tho' you started out watching Mozart's 5th Symphony!

lazygal

Luckydog69 wrote: »

I always find it amusing how a person on post #1 of this thread was looking for some advice from fellow Boarders and now 30+ posts later arguments are ensuing between people which aren't helpful to the person who started the thread...its a bit like watching something on youtube and 4 or 5 clicks later you could be watching a lion eating a buffalo even tho' you started out watching Mozart's 5th Symphony!

I think its this forum. It does something to you.

skallywag

Luckydog69 wrote: »

I always find it amusing how a person on post #1 of this thread was looking for some advice from fellow Boarders and now 30+ posts later arguments are ensuing between people which aren't helpful to the person who started the thread

I can see that you have not been on boards very long :pac:

AndersLimpar

lazygal wrote: »

What do you mean by that?

Without wanting to go around in circles arguing - a self employed person GENERALLY will quote for a job based on the time it will take them to do it thus that is their hourly rate. A day rate is essentially their hourly rate multiplied by 8,9,10 or whatever amount of hours they expect to work.

Your photographer and videographer quoted you based on how long they expected the task to take.

Button_y

The photographer is probably trying to provide a solution to help you order photos to a standard that he is happy with. If that doesn't work for you, how about contacting him and asking if he can help you with a contact sheet of photos or if you know how print yourself do. Then you can mark what photos you want and sizes and go back and arrange printing with the photographer.

By the sounds of things it doesn't sound like your photographer is making money from extra prints but more providing you a facility to order.

As a photographer I would never give clients a copy of photos on CD with the intention of them being used for print. I would want to have control over the quality of the prints. I wouldn't want to spend time perfecting my work to have someone print on a home printer/tesco/boots instant prints
It sounds like you are looking to hang some photos? It would be essential to me that the photos are sized/adjusted etc correctly for the printer being used. I work with a couple of local printers and know the consistency of their prints what adjustments settings I need when preparing photos for their printers and the like. I'd rather a client contacted me and work with them to get prints that we are both happy with than having crap prints hanging on a wall.

I'm sure there are photographers that use extra prints to make additional money and only provide watermark prints for that reason, its probably more common for portraits/studio shots were the agreement is for X amount of photos but the photographer takes lots and any additional are paid for.

Sligo1

Button_y wrote: »

The photographer is probably trying to provide a solution to help you order photos to a standard that he is happy with. If that doesn't work for you, how about contacting him and asking if he can help you with a contact sheet of photos or if you know how print yourself do. Then you can mark what photos you want and sizes and go back and arrange printing with the photographer.

By the sounds of things it doesn't sound like your photographer is making money from extra prints but more providing you a facility to order.

As a photographer I would never give clients a copy of photos on CD with the intention of them being used for print. I would want to have control over the quality of the prints. I wouldn't want to spend time perfecting my work to have someone print on a home printer/tesco/boots instant prints
It sounds like you are looking to hang some photos? It would be essential to me that the photos are sized/adjusted etc correctly for the printer being used. I work with a couple of local printers and know the consistency of their prints what adjustments settings I need when preparing photos for their printers and the like. I'd rather a client contacted me and work with them to get prints that we are both happy with than having crap prints hanging on a wall.

I'm sure there are photographers that use extra prints to make additional money and only provide watermark prints for that reason, its probably more common for portraits/studio shots were the agreement is for X amount of photos but the photographer takes lots and any additional are paid for.

But isn't it up to the couple to decide what quality prints they want hanging on their wall? Why should you have control over this? I understand you want them to have the best photos possible as it obviously reflects your ability as a professional photographer. But I still think it's a bit rich wanting to "control" the images people hang on their own walls in their own homes.

My photographer was an A class witch tbh. She is the only regret I have on my whole wedding. Having said that the album she provided me with was excellent. But I would have preferred a more average album than the stress she put my in on the day... And after the day. We paid her over 2k. And in my ignorance "thought" a disc would be avaliable for printing. I never even thought to ask as I had never hired a photographer before. Turns out she wanted €10 (6x4) each for a small photo and €50 for a slightly larger one. I never went back to her for those images. And my in laws just printed a few of the watermarked ones and framed them. I won't give her a penny more of my money. (Needless to say I'm quite bitter over the whole situation). My wedding was a dream apart from her (the elephant in the room).

Sligo1

Also, when you say you spend a lot of time perfecting your prints and getting the right quality etc... Then you wouldn't want yor hard work to be wasted by people putting up prints printed from tesco etc up. But isn't this up to the couple? Haven't they paid you for your hard work? Don't get me wrong... I'm under no illusion how long it can take to perfect images etc. but the couple have paid you for this work. We paid ours over 2 grand.

I work in a hospital. And it would be like me saying. We I spent ages with this patient. I educated them on what to do and what not to do, what not eat and not to smoke as it could exacerbate their condition. I could spend hours with them doing this. Encouraging them, motivating them. Yet when I see them again for follow up they have taken none of my advice. There's nothing I can do
About that. I'm still paid for my work irregardless. Yes I spent a lot of time with that particular patient... But I was paid to do so. And what they do after is their perogative irregardless of what I think or would like.

The only difference is... Legally, you guys (photographers) do have the final say. As you have the copyright. Its something that irks me massively....

lazygal

I used to work in retail, one job involved working on commission. I'd often spend ages with a customer, only for them to walk away and say they'd think about buying and I knew I'd never see them again or they'd head to a shop and buy a cheaper imitation product. I had sales targets to meet and monthly reviews and if I didn't meet the targets I got a grilling. Just because your job involves spending a lot of time on something doesn't always mean you'll get a payoff.

Sligo, that is a pain. I spent a good bit of time choosing our photographer and I had been warned to choose someone I wouldn't mind being around on the day and to scrutinise the contract. We saw someone else badly burned by these things before we got married. It isn't nice to have those bad memories of your wedding day.

Sligo1

lazygal wrote: »

I used to work in retail, one job involved working on commission. I'd often spend ages with a customer, only for them to walk away and say they'd think about buying and I knew I'd never see them again or they'd head to a shop and buy a cheaper imitation product. I had sales targets to meet and monthly reviews and if I didn't meet the targets I got a grilling. Just because your job involves spending a lot of time on something doesn't always mean you'll get a payoff.

Sligo, that is a pain. I spent a good bit of time choosing our photographer and I had been warned to choose someone I wouldn't mind being around on the day and to scrutinise the contract. We saw someone else badly burned by these things before we got married. It isn't nice to have those bad memories of your wedding day.

Lazygal, I could actually go on and on and on tbh. I barely even made my own drinks reception due to her dragging me all over the place posing. My wedding planner had to give out to her at one stage as she was continuously holding everything up. I chose her because I liked her images. But as I said I would've preferred somethig slightly more unintrusive.

Then she wanted another €300 for a disk of images that she had already edited and perfected (as they were in our album). So there was no extra work she would've been doing.

I still look at her as the only thing I would've changed about my wedding. As she has a massive impact if I'm honest. I only really relaxed and started enjoying myself after she left at 6pm. Anyway... I will stop my rant now.

lazygal

God that sounds awful. I had been to so many weddings where the couple disappeared for hours getting photos done that we agreed a half hour max for family shots and a few of us. I'm so happy we did because everything went so smoothly and we spent most of our time with the guests enjoying ourselves. I think if anyone can learn from your experience its to really think carefully about what you really want from a supplier.

Button_y

Sligo1 wrote: »

But isn't it up to the couple to decide what quality prints they want hanging on their wall? Why should you have control over this? I understand you want them to have the best photos possible as it obviously reflects your ability as a professional photographer. But I still think it's a bit rich wanting to "control" the images people hang on their own walls in their own homes.

I guess what I mean is I'd like to ensure that the prints the client receives are of a high quality, if they choose to put it in a pink sparkly frame or hang upside down then that's their decision. BTW I'm not a wedding photographer. I have given a customer soft copies of photos to view, which they then printed on a home printer. Customer was delighted but I nearly wept when I saw them. I'm sure the florist would not supply the flowers and materials and let the couple put the arrangement together. To me its similar, the process of printing or orgainising printing is part of the work of the photographer.

Sligo1 wrote: »

My photographer was an A class witch tbh. She is the only regret I have on my whole wedding. Having said that the album she provided me with was excellent. But I would have preferred a more average album than the stress she put my in on the day... And after the day. We paid her over 2k. And in my ignorance "thought" a disc would be avaliable for printing. I never even thought to ask as I had never hired a photographer before. Turns out she wanted €10 (6x4) each for a small photo and €50 for a slightly larger one. I never went back to her for those images. And my in laws just printed a few of the watermarked ones and framed them. I won't give her a penny more of my money. (Needless to say I'm quite bitter over the whole situation). My wedding was a dream apart from her (the elephant in the room).

That sounds like a nightmare. My wedding photographer provided us with a CD but specifically asked if we would come back to him for prints which he would gave to us at cost price. He was excellent on the day and really took his cue from us and understood what we did and didn't want. I wanted stress free! I think its important to have a trust and a good understanding with your wedding photographer. For most people it will be the 1st and only time they will hire a wedding photographer.

AndersLimpar

lazygal wrote: »

I used to work in retail, one job involved working on commission. I'd often spend ages with a customer, only for them to walk away and say they'd think about buying and I knew I'd never see them again or they'd head to a shop and buy a cheaper imitation product. I had sales targets to meet and monthly reviews and if I didn't meet the targets I got a grilling. Just because your job involves spending a lot of time on something doesn't always mean you'll get a payoff.

Thats not really relevant, is it? That job was commission based and you were paid accordingly on commission. I have to meet lots of couples before their wedding and some of them take up an awful lot of my time - some book, some dont. I dont get paid for all this time either!!

Wedding photographers dont work on commission. They work by the hour/day so they get paid by the hour/day so this cant be compared to a job in retail where you are paid on commission.

An event photographer on the other hand takes photos and sells them onsite at the event. He would be comparable to a commission based job as he gets paid what he sells, regardless of how many hours he puts in.

You're obviously not self-employed so I can understand why you dont fully understand this so I will leave it at that

Triceratops Ballet

I think what people don't consider is that when they pay a photographer they're not paying for photos, (except for the ones included in their package) they're paying for the service of having photos professionally taken by someone who is trained in what they're doing.

While I don't disagree that they are expensive, its comparable to commissioning a painting and being annoyed that the artist doesn't want to paint on the euro shop canvas you gave them. This is their art and they're entitled to want to ensure it's presented in the best way. if you're not fussed about the quality of prints you hang in your living room why not just print out photos taken with an iphone or other guests camera, plenty of guests will stand behind the photographer and take the exact same shots anyway (copyright belongs to the guest who took them but I'm sure they wouldn't mind you printing them!)

lazygal

AndersLimpar wrote: »

You're obviously not self-employed so I can understand why you dont fully understand this so I will leave it at that

I might not be currently self-employed, but as I have said I know people who are. And I have used the services of a couple of photographers, not just for my wedding but for family shots, so I'm familiar enough with different pricing structures. Your model means you get paid by the hour, the photographer we used and were extremely happy with didn't and her standard shooting schedule for the day was from morning prep at about 11am until 10pm (when we got some of our favourite shots). Photographers who charged X extra per hour weren't getting our business.

MrWalsh

Ive used 2 professional photographers in the past and in both cases I was simply given a disc of the hi res originals afterwards so it wouldnt have occurred to me to specifically ask for this.

What I have learned from this thread is:

Never use a photographer who wont give you exclusive use of hi res images afterwards to print whichever way you choose.

Never use a photographer who wants extra money for working past a certain time.

Never use a photographer who is going to be intrusive and cause a lot of stress during the event itself.

Get a contract that stipulates the above and read it carefully.

AndersLimpar

lazygal wrote: »

the photographer we used and were extremely happy with didn't and her standard shooting schedule for the day was from morning prep at about 11am until 10pm (when we got some of our favourite shots). Photographers who charged X extra per hour weren't getting our business.

You're still not getting it. You even said her "Standard Shooting Schedule" This means she knows how long it takes and has priced herself accordingly.

Lets just say you paid your photographer €1100 (just to make this easy I'm not going to include editing time or anything else to do with your wedding including meetings, emails, packaging, travel etc.) She worked 11 hours on the day so she was obviously happy with a rate of €100 per hour. She had all this pre-arranged with you so she based her quote on the time she would spend with you. She didnt agree a fee and then turn up taking photos until you told her she was finished. This would be stupid on her part so she had an agreed time with you so she knew how long it would take and charged accordingly.

Now lets look at the other photographers business models who didn't get your business. The first one quoted you €900 (just to make this easy I've made up this figure and I'm not going to include editing time or anything else to do with your wedding including meetings, emails, packaging, travel etc.) but he was going to finish at 6pm. His hourly rate was €128 for the 7 hours. However you wanted him to stay until 10pm (or first dance which is usually by 10pm) so he agreed to do this for an additional €200. As you have now booked more hours with him he has given you a discount and his new hourly rate is €100. This is the same as the photographer you booked. He didnt agree a fee and then turn up taking photos until you told him he was finished. This would be stupid on his part so he had an agreed time with you so he knew how long it would take and charged accordingly.

Now there was also another photographer out there who didn't get your business. He quoted you €1100 (just to make this easy I've made up this figure and I'm not going to include editing time or anything else to do with your wedding including meetings, emails, packaging, travel etc.) but he was also going to finish at 6pm. His hourly rate was €157 for the 7 hours. However you wanted him to stay until 10pm (or first dance which is usually by 10pm) so he agreed to do this for an additional €200. As you have now booked more hours with him he has given you a discount and his new hourly rate is €118. This is less than the photographer above was quoting you for finishing at 6pm! He didnt agree a fee and then turn up taking photos until you told him he was finished. This would be stupid on his part so he had an agreed time with you so he knew how long it would take and charged accordingly.

Three different prices from three different photographers. This is normal. They charge for their time based on their experience, skill level, how busy they are and various other things which affect their hourly rate. A busy and in demand photographer will charge more for his time than one who is quiet.

You are paying a skilled wedding photographer for his TIME. How each photographer packages it up is irrelevant but each and every one of them is paid for their TIME.

You mentioned you have used other photographers for portraits - these are NOT wedding photographers so their pricing model is different. They are selling you a product - Prints, Images, Canvasses etc. - so you are paying them for a PRODUCT. Their time is irrelevant as generally the sale is made when you have viewed the photos from the session and decide what package you would like.

Anyone who works, whether self employed or not and who provide a service are GENERALLY (not always) paid for their TIME.