Photographer's query :

Mocho Joe Joe

During our wedding day last year, my father in law and my husband asked our photographer to take a particular family shot. ( it was the first time they had all been in the one room for more than 20years) When we received our photos on CD, this shot was not included. My father in law rang to enquire about getting the pic emailed or on USB and he was told the charge was €200!!! This pic is now being treated as a separate 'reunion' photo and an extortionate fee applied!! This photo was of the grooms aunties and uncles, all obviously our wedding guests. I understand the photographer is there to document our day and if random guests were all asking for individual shots etc it would be a nightmare. But this was of immediate family! As a side note, 2 of our main prior requested group shots in the photographers notes, were scrapped on the day as some of our friends were delayed after the church, so i told him to move on without them. So we hadn't even added to his number of shots on the to do list or time schedule! Is he in the right to do this?? Or are all photos taken on the day legally ours? As my husband put it - it's like he's making a 'nixer' for himself on the side from our shots!! Any help to know if we are in the wrong to be annoyed would be appreciated!

punisher5112

Offer him 50 and if he doesn't budge name and shame on Facebook etc.

That's a scummy thing to do....

Mocho Joe Joe

punisher5112 wrote: »

Offer him 50 and if he doesn't budge name and shame on Facebook etc.

That's a scummy thing to do....

That's the annoying thing, my father in law was actually ringing to offer a payment for it as it was a particularly important photo to him, and €50 is what he was willing to spend. We only knew this was going on after my FIL filled us in on the huge cost, he didn't want us stressing or trying to sort it. Being honest I wasn't even happy that he wanted to spend €50 - i feel this should have been included in our CD to begin with.

twowheelsonly

Name and shame.

Any fella that would risk his business for the sake of this deserves to be shamed. As it is he's probably lost any business that you might have put his way. Name and shame and add a few more to that.

€200 for a family shot at a wedding ???

As far as I'm concerned he was contracted for the day to record memories and he hasn't fully lived up to his side of the agreement (unless of course his contract stated that he would only be taking specified shots)

Homer

Did you sign a contract of any description? I have a contract and while it states that the copyright remains with the photographer, I would NEVER charge extra for a shot taken on the day?!
Pretty shocking behaviour to be honest.

Bacchus

That's a scummy thing to do. The photographer is probably not under any obligation to provide you with SPECIFIC photos though. As long as he fulfilled his obligation (as your wedding photographer) to photograph your wedding to the standard that his portfolio suggested (i.e. he doesn't advertise himself as one thing and deliver another) then he has technically done his job. He does not have to deliver every single photo he took that day (no photographer does that). The photos are his and he can sell them if he wants to. So, unless you have a contract that states otherwise then he's technically doing nothing wrong (aside from being morally wrong).

Name and shame seems like the best course of action to retaliate but just be careful you don't end up in some sort of slander case because (as mentioned above) it doesn't sound like he has done anything (legally/technically) wrong. He's just being an incredible ass.

gloobag

The OP hasn't even approached the photographer themselves as far as I can tell (just the father in law), and people are calling for him to be named and shamed? That's madness.

If you feel wronged, at least talk to the guy yourself first and see if he can make it right before you go ****ing with his livelihood.

Mocho Joe Joe

gloobag wrote: »

The OP hasn't even approached the photographer themselves as far as I can tell (just the father in law), and people are calling for him to be named and shamed? That's madness.

If you feel wronged, at least talk to the guy yourself first and see if he can make it right before you go ****ing with his livelihood.

Name and shame is not my kinda thing at all. We just want the photo. But we wanted to know if we were in the right, before argueing this with him in private! And the shot was also requested by my husband (the groom) on the day, so pretty much the person paying him!

Mocho Joe Joe

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Name and shame.

Any fella that would risk his business for the sake of this deserves to be shamed. As it is he's probably lost any business that you might have put his way. Name and shame and add a few more to that.

€200 for a family shot at a wedding ???



As far as I'm concerned he was contracted for the day to record memories and he hasn't fully lived up to his side of the agreement (unless of course his contract stated that he would only be taking specified shots)

No there was no 'specified shots' contract. He was a really sound and easy going man, had the usual meeting before the day to write down a few of the types of shots we wanted, and as he put it - whatever we think of on the day, just shout and he'll do it! So this has really taken us by surprise. Our entire package was €450 for the day, so €200 to email one shot is laughable. It'd be less extortionate if it was being printed and framed for that price!!

Mocho Joe Joe

Bacchus wrote: »

That's a scummy thing to do. The photographer is probably not under any obligation to provide you with SPECIFIC photos though. As long as he fulfilled his obligation (as your wedding photographer) to photograph your wedding to the standard that his portfolio suggested (i.e. he doesn't advertise himself as one thing and deliver another) then he has technically done his job. He does not have to deliver every single photo he took that day (no photographer does that). The photos are his and he can sell them if he wants to. So, unless you have a contract that states otherwise then he's technically doing nothing wrong (aside from being morally wrong).

Name and shame seems like the best course of action to retaliate but just be careful you don't end up in some sort of slander case because (as mentioned above) it doesn't sound like he has done anything (legally/technically) wrong. He's just being an incredible ass.

Thats what we wanted to know, cheers for the reply. So legally not in the wrong, but just a ****ty thing to do! Good to know before we follow up with him on this!

gloobag

€450 for a full wedding package is very low, to be honest. That would indicate to me that the photographer is a part-timer/inexperienced, which could account for the pricing faux pas. Maybe he viewed your father in law as a sperate client. Many wedding photographers make extra cash this way. Selling images to family members/friends.

My advice would be to just email the guy and request the photo yourself. Don't mention money or your father in law. As you are the original client, he may just give it to you. If he doesn't, then you know exactly where you stand.

Mocho Joe Joe

gloobag wrote: »

€450 for a full wedding package is very low, to be honest. That would indicate to me that the photographer is a part-timer/inexperienced, which could account for the pricing faux pas. Maybe he viewed your father in law as a sperate client. Many wedding photographers make extra cash this way. Selling images to family members/friends.

My advice would be to just email the guy and request the photo yourself. Don't mention money or your father in law. As you are the original client, he may just give it to you. If he doesn't, then you know exactly where you stand.

Our package was for the church and hotel, as we didn't want shots in the brides house. And it was also a cheaper rate as we were going with the 'cd' option instead of a printed album. His packages are all pretty standard rates, and this guy is a full time professional well known in our area!

punisher5112

How long was his day. 450 is very cheap for a wedding.

Mocho Joe Joe

punisher5112 wrote: »

How long was his day. 450 is very cheap for a wedding.

From walking down the aisle, to cake cutting. 2-5pm and no album included.

punisher5112

Mocho Joe Joe wrote: »

From walking down the aisle, to cake cutting. 2-5pm and no album included.

3 hours wow I think that's expensive so to be honest.

dinneenp

Like others said OP contact photographer directly and ask for the photo.

Effects

punisher5112 wrote: »

3 hours wow I think that's expensive so to be honest.

Yeah, it's pretty steep considering he lives at the hotel and doesn't have to travel to the shoot. And as soon as it hit 5pm he probably just popped the cards out of the cameras and handed over the cards without doing any processing and went home.

Bacchus

€450 is cheap... well cheap might be too strong a word... maybe "a really really good deal" and I don't think any high end photographers would sell their services so cheaply. Ok to you it's 3 hours but it's much more for the photographer, not to mention that he cannot book another wedding on that date. I mean, take his expenses and tax out of it and he's probably coming out with about €200. I obviously can't know the quality of the photographer but this looks like one of those "if it looks too good to be true..." situations. He appears to me that he has a strategy of upselling in order to make the day more worthwhile for himself.

Again, legally he's not obliged to deliver all the photos he takes during the day. A contract probably wouldn't have helped you either as it wouldn't have specified delivering ALL photos taken on the day. Do you have it in writing anywhere (email?) where he says or agrees to providing formal family photos. If you have that, you could have a case that he agreed specifically to provide formal family potraits in the package and he is withholding one of those photos.

Homer

If he persists in asking for the additional money for a simple group photo then ask him politely for a VAT receipt for your records.. That should soften his cough.

Effects

He might not be registered for vat, but you can ask for an invoice.

Homer

Effects wrote: »

He might not be registered for vat, but you can ask for an invoice.

Agreed but you get my point and vat registered or not asking for an official receipt might get him to cop on.

Heebie

A "normal" wedding package price is generally €3,000 and up for an established wedding photographer. I know people who get €10k plus expenses.
The photographer's job may only involve a few hours at the wedding and reception, but involves many times that in processing and editing time etc.. after the fact. There's a lot of tweaking, retouching, and then processing of files to make them print properly involved.
There may be 3-8 hours put in on the wedding day, but there could be tens or even hundreds involved depending on the lighting in the venue, the age and other factors relating to the guests in the photo etc..
Retouching a single photo can take anywhere from a couple of minutes to some number of hours depending on the quality of the skin of the person in the photo and how the photo is lit.

Bacchus

Heebie wrote: »

A "normal" wedding package price is generally €3,000 and up for an established wedding photographer. I know people who get €10k plus expenses.
The photographer's job may only involve a few hours at the wedding and reception, but involves many times that in processing and editing time etc.. after the fact. There's a lot of tweaking, retouching, and then processing of files to make them print properly involved.
There may be 3-8 hours put in on the wedding day, but there could be tens or even hundreds involved depending on the lighting in the venue, the age and other factors relating to the guests in the photo etc..
Retouching a single photo can take anywhere from a couple of minutes to some number of hours depending on the quality of the skin of the person in the photo and how the photo is lit.

Don't know where you are getting you prices but you can get very high end Irish wedding photographers from about €1800 up. Your more run of the mill togs (or those building portfolios) will start from about €1k.

I have no doubt at all that there are wedding photographers charging more than €3k and even up to €10k in Ireland but once you go past €4k they are rare breed and are not "normal". You get those prices much more commonly in the US, Australia and with the "Destination Wedding Photographer".

This probably going OT though.

Just to add... a quick Google search of the usual wedding sites in Ireland show the average cost of a wedding photographer in Ireland to be about €1500.

pullandbang

Mocho Joe Joe wrote: »

During our wedding day last year, my father in law and my husband asked our photographer to take a particular family shot.

There's your answer in your first sentence. It's you and your husband's wedding so YOU ask your photographer for the photo. He is then obliged to give it to you.

Mocho Joe Joe

Heebie wrote: »

A "normal" wedding package price is generally €3,000 and up for an established wedding photographer. I know people who get €10k plus expenses.
The photographer's job may only involve a few hours at the wedding and reception, but involves many times that in processing and editing time etc.. after the fact. There's a lot of tweaking, retouching, and then processing of files to make them print properly involved.
There may be 3-8 hours put in on the wedding day, but there could be tens or even hundreds involved depending on the lighting in the venue, the age and other factors relating to the guests in the photo etc..
Retouching a single photo can take anywhere from a couple of minutes to some number of hours depending on the quality of the skin of the person in the photo and how the photo is lit.

This is irrelevant to the question asked. But thanks!

awec

Heebie wrote: »

A "normal" wedding package price is generally €3,000 and up for an established wedding photographer. I know people who get €10k plus expenses.
The photographer's job may only involve a few hours at the wedding and reception, but involves many times that in processing and editing time etc.. after the fact. There's a lot of tweaking, retouching, and then processing of files to make them print properly involved.
There may be 3-8 hours put in on the wedding day, but there could be tens or even hundreds involved depending on the lighting in the venue, the age and other factors relating to the guests in the photo etc..
Retouching a single photo can take anywhere from a couple of minutes to some number of hours depending on the quality of the skin of the person in the photo and how the photo is lit.

A normal wedding package is nowhere close to that price.

Bacchus

pullandbang wrote: »

There's your answer in your first sentence. It's you and your husband's wedding so YOU ask your photographer for the photo. He is then obliged to give it to you.

Not necessarily. Again, it really comes down to any specific terms/conditions outlined in a contract or even over email. The photographer owns the copyright to all the photos. He has basically just been hired to take and provide photos of the wedding. There is only the reasonable expectation that what he advertises on his website/portfolio is representative of what he ultimately delivers. When it comes to specific photos, unless there's something written about it, it's not as clear cut as you make out.

OP, do you have ANY written information from the photographer when you booked him? Anything about what he delivers or anything that would mention the "formal family photos"? Another angle to look for is if he mentions anything about exclusivity... i.e. he is only working for you on that date. If there is something like that, then you can catch him out on earning money from other clients on your day.

I assume by now you have contacted the photographer btw. What did he say. It's one thing to attempt to charge a third party (your father in law) for a copy of a photo but you, as the client, requesting a specific photo does change the dynamic a bit. I still don't think that TECHNICALLY he HAS to give you the photo but if he refuses you, it is better grounds to go down a small claims court route. Ideally though, you would have some written evidence that would support your expectation that this photo (or any photo) would be made available to you. It's tricky though. I've had clients request ALL the photos taken on their day (which would be 2000+ photos, I only edit about 500) and it's just a firm but polite "no". There's no expectation that I would deliver all those photos. The photographer could argue the same here with this specific photo.

wersal gummage

Heebie wrote: »

A "
There may be 3-8 hours put in on the wedding day, but there could be tens or even hundreds.....

Retouching a single photo can take anywhere from a couple of minutes to some number of hours....

I haven't shot a wedding and not friends with any wedding photographers so, in fairness, this is just opinion.... But... I don't believe that for a minute. There is no way that a remotely competent wedding photographer is spending "hundreds" of hours processing a wedding shoot, and equally no way a competent photographer is spending "some number of hours" on a single wedding photo. Surely if you find yourself needing to spend hours on a single photo you made a balls of the photo in the first place? This comment is only for weddings, I'm not talking about some other types of photography where people are clearly moving away from anything resembling reality or the original scene. Surely for a wedding you want people to look more or less as they actually look? Are you slimming people and whitening teeth?!

A professional should be able to shoot correctly for the conditions on the day. How could you possibly spend hours on a single wedding photo and expect to run a business like that?

I know that my own wedding photos, taken by a pro, appear to have just been run through some lightroom presets. The photos are all correctly exposed and composition is fine.

Anyway, just my opinion. Would be interested to hear if wedding photographers are really spending the time you suggest at post processing

the_pen_turner

whats the normal expectation of what will be photographed.
i would expect photos of all formal or organised events and a good atempt to photgraph the spontanious ones. he cant be in 2 places at once.

surely all the uncles and aunts standing for a photo would be very standard



to me its like getting a painter to paint your house , then changing the coulour slightly in the sitting room before he paints it. unless thee is ore work then the colour is irrelivent

Bacchus

the_pen_turner wrote: »

whats the normal expectation of what will be photographed.
i would expect photos of all formal or organised events and a good atempt to photgraph the spontanious ones. he cant be in 2 places at once.

surely all the uncles and aunts standing for a photo would be very standard



to me its like getting a painter to paint your house , then changing the coulour slightly in the sitting room before he paints it. unless thee is ore work then the colour is irrelivent

The painter comparison doesn't work. What is expected to be delivered by a wedding photographer vs a painter just doesn't line up for the analogy... sorry. In that case, why doesn't every photographer just deliver all the photos (edited and unedited) to the client... there's no more work in doing so.

Normal expectation would be based on the photographers portfolio and any written record (email or contract). For example, you book a photographer who shoots 70% colour, 30% B&W but decides to change things up for 2018 and focus more on B&W. Now you end up getting 70% B&W and 30% colour photos. It would be reasonable to complain to that photographer that they did not deliver what they advertised.

It's similar with the formal/casual mix of photos. You expect them to deliver something in line with their portfolio. It's their portfolio that sold you on that photographer, that is your expectation. Assuming the photographer took more formal family photos than just this one that is in dispute, and delivered those to the OP, then he has provided formal family photos in line with expectation. However, he just didn't deliver this one (for whatever reason, malicious or benign). Now, he was asked by someone who was not his client for that photo. To play devil's advocate, he now has to edit that photo so there technically is a cost to him... even if it is just 5 minutes work.

The issue here is more of a moral one, in that he's charging an extortionate rate to deliver that one photo. Personally, I'd just happily send over the photo and have a happy client but this is the approach he has taken. It's hard to understand though. I can't imagine he has much success converting this tactic into sales and he's damaging his reputation.

the_pen_turner

Bacchus wrote: »

The painter comparison doesn't work. What is expected to be delivered by a wedding photographer vs a painter just doesn't line up for the analogy... sorry. In that case, why doesn't every photographer just deliver all the photos (edited and unedited) to the client... there's no more work in doing so.

Normal expectation would be based on the photographers portfolio and any written record (email or contract). For example, you book a photographer who shoots 70% colour, 30% B&W but decides to change things up for 2018 and focus more on B&W. Now you end up getting 70% B&W and 30% colour photos. It would be reasonable to complain to that photographer that they did not deliver what they advertised.

It's similar with the formal/casual mix of photos. You expect them to deliver something in line with their portfolio. It's their portfolio that sold you on that photographer, that is your expectation. Assuming the photographer took more formal family photos than just this one that is in dispute, and delivered those to the OP, then he has provided formal family photos in line with expectation. However, he just didn't deliver this one (for whatever reason, malicious or benign). Now, he was asked by someone who was not his client for that photo. To play devil's advocate, he now has to edit that photo so there technically is a cost to him... even if it is just 5 minutes work.

The issue here is more of a moral one, in that he's charging an extortionate rate to deliver that one photo. Personally, I'd just happily send over the photo and have a happy client but this is the approach he has taken. It's hard to understand though. I can't imagine he has much success converting this tactic into sales and he's damaging his reputation.

why doesnt it hold up.
you are paying someone for a service . both are on price. the work load is the same. if the painter paints the room cream or magnolia it make no diference. if the photogrpher takes a pic of mary and tom or sean and joe.


i dont agree about the extra work editing. even at 5 minutes its not extra work. that pic should have been chosen for editing at the start over a diferent pic.
now if the customer wants more ppic editing then fair enough

Bacchus

the_pen_turner wrote: »

why doesnt it hold up.
you are paying someone for a service . both are on price. the work load is the same. if the painter paints the room cream or magnolia it make no diference. if the photogrpher takes a pic of mary and tom or sean and joe.

Did you even read what I wrote after the bit you put in bold. I explain there a simple reason why it doesn't hold up. The work load is not the same because photographers do not edit and deliver all photos. The comparison would work better if painters only painted half the room... with the other half being analogous to all the photos a photographer isn't expected to deliver.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i dont agree about the extra work editing. even at 5 minutes its not extra work. that pic should have been chosen for editing at the start over a diferent pic.

5 minutes > 0 minutes. It is extra work. Yes, it is tiny and it is such a stingy thing for this photographer to be charging €200 for but it is technically extra work. Who's to say that picture should have been choosen from the start. For all we know, he delivered 20 combinations of formal group photos and this one just didn't make the cut for him. Maybe he has a hard limit of 400 photos in his package and that formal photo didn't make the top 400. The point here is that it is at the discretion of the photographer what photos to deliver (providing of course, as I've said countless times, that he delivers within reason what his portfolio advertises).

the_pen_turner wrote: »

now if the customer wants more ppic editing then fair enough

But (not that I agree with the photographers approach) that is technically what is being asked of him. The client is asking for a photo that photographer did not already edit and deliver. To deliver it, he has to edit it first.

Look, I DO NOT agree with this photographer's approach but what you're saying is wrong.

Heebie

wersal gummage wrote:

A professional should be able to shoot correctly for the conditions on the day. How could you possibly spend hours on a single wedding photo and expect to run a business like that?

Shooting for the conditions doesn't adjust people's soon tone, remove zits, learn the appearance of wrinkles, or even out the skin tone of each person prominently displayed in each photo.
A good wedding photographer does these things.
If your wedding photos like like they were just put through some Lightroom presets, then your photographer sucks at wedding photography.

wersal gummage

Heebie wrote: »

wersal gummage wrote:

A professional should be able to shoot correctly for the conditions on the day. How could you possibly spend hours on a single wedding photo and expect to run a business like that?

Shooting for the conditions doesn't adjust people's soon tone, remove zits, learn the appearance of wrinkles, or even out the skin tone of each person prominently displayed in each photo.
A good wedding photographer does these things.
If your wedding photos like like they were just put through some Lightroom presets, then your photographer sucks at wedding photography.

Is this what people want in wedding photography? Airbrushed nonsense? Sure if the bride has a big spot or something, fine. But getting rid of elderly relatives wrinkles?? "skin tone", I'm guessing you mean giving pale people a bit of a tan?

Anyway, I guess there are lots of wedding photographers providing different styles and people pick the one they like. I would be mortified to have a Hollywood style result where nobody actually looks like themselves.

Are you actually a wedding photographer? How do you shoot 2 or 3 weddings a week and manage the hundreds of hours of processing work as well?

Sorry to off the point originally raised and I won't continue down this line further!

wally1990

Bacchus wrote: »

Don't know where you are getting you prices but you can get very high end Irish wedding photographers from about €1800 up. Your more run of the mill togs (or those building portfolios) will start from about €1k.

I have no doubt at all that there are wedding photographers charging more than €3k and even up to €10k in Ireland but once you go past €4k they are rare breed and are not "normal". You get those prices much more commonly in the US, Australia and with the "Destination Wedding Photographer".

This probably going OT though.

Just to add... a quick Google search of the usual wedding sites in Ireland show the average cost of a wedding photographer in Ireland to be about €1500.

10k ! What the absolute F *ck!!!

Are people insane
€3000 even seems mental to me

Not saying it’s not being done and it is a big special day bla bla,

just I’d have to save for a while for it and that’s one cost of a big expense for a day

I’m in the wrong job by the sounds of it

Homer

Heebie wrote: »

Shooting for the conditions doesn't adjust people's soon tone, remove zits, learn the appearance of wrinkles, or even out the skin tone of each person prominently displayed in each photo.
A good wedding photographer does these things.
If your wedding photos like like they were just put through some Lightroom presets, then your photographer sucks at wedding photography.

Absolute rubbish! I earn a living as a professional photographer and shoot quite a few weddings each year and I can promise you that apart from correcting white balance (colour temperature) and tint to make sure skin tones look correct, I do no other facial edits or airbrushing. If people have wrinkles so be it! I deliver minimum 700-800 images and if you think I am airbrushing all the images with people in them, zits or not, you are mad!! If the bride had a special request for a particular image they wanted blown up I would look at that separately but standard airbrushing on all images no way..
I use lightroom for 95% of my images shot at weddings so I guess I must suck at wedding photography so!

the_pen_turner

Bacchus wrote: »

Did you even read what I wrote after the bit you put in bold. I explain there a simple reason why it doesn't hold up

you havnt explained even the slightest.

all you have done is explain some of the steps a potographer takes and whats in their portflio


if you hire a photogropher to supply 400 photos (or whatever is in the package) then they will take loads more. if the customer specifies that one of thos 400 should be of uncle tom and paddy .
the contents of the pic are irrelivent once they are inline with the photographers 'vision'.
its the same as the painter painting the room white or magnolia.

Bacchus

wally1990 wrote: »

10k ! What the absolute F *ck!!!

Are people insane
€3000 even seems mental to me

Not saying it’s not being done and it is a big special day bla bla,

just I’d have to save for a while for it and that’s one cost of a big expense for a day

I’m in the wrong job by the sounds of it

I stress that 10k is an outlier. It is not the norm. I was just trying to meet the poster halfway in my reply. Most high-end are in the 2k to 3k range.

Bacchus

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you havnt explained even the slightest.

all you have done is explain some of the steps a potographer takes and whats in their portflio


if you hire a photogropher to supply 400 photos (or whatever is in the package) then they will take loads more. if the customer specifies that one of thos 400 should be of uncle tom and paddy .
the contents of the pic are irrelivent once they are inline with the photographers 'vision'.
its the same as the painter painting the room white or magnolia.

Your continued attempts to somehow draw parallels to someone literally painting a defined square footage of wall a specific colour, to someone who takes 1000s of photos in a dynamic situation, goes through the process of culling them, editing selected photos and then delivering them continues to make no sense. They are two jobs with no commonality except that someone has paid them to do it. Frankly its bizarre. Can we please move on from it.

Regarding your point about the client specifying the exact photo. I agree with you in principle (and said so already) however I don't think it's clear cut because, if taking your example of a 400 photo package, they already delivered that, then what is being asked is going beyond that package. Again, I do not agree with this approach but objectively this is potentially the situation. The client has no right to that photo, unless there is something in writing to support them. Doesn't matter that the father in law or even the groom asked the tog to take that photo either. If he delivers on what he was hire to do, he can be as much of an ass as he wants about this specific photo.

Bacchus

Heebie wrote: »

Shooting for the conditions doesn't adjust people's soon tone, remove zits, learn the appearance of wrinkles, or even out the skin tone of each person prominently displayed in each photo.
A good wedding photographer does these things.
If your wedding photos like like they were just put through some Lightroom presets, then your photographer sucks at wedding photography.

Ah yes, removing zits and wrinkles. The cornerstone of a truly exceptional wedding photographer Skin tone is important yes, but 90% of the time you get that right in camera... you know... cause their professional photographers. The other 10% is simple tweaks in Lightroom that you knock out in a few seconds. Fine you will have some tricky shots to work on if the lighting was poor but even those will be a minute each tops to correct.

the_pen_turner

Bacchus wrote: »

Your continued attempts to somehow draw parallels to someone literally painting a defined square footage of wall a specific colour, to someone who takes 1000s of photos in a dynamic situation, goes through the process of culling them, editing selected photos and then delivering them continues to make no sense. They are two jobs with no commonality except that someone has paid them to do it. Frankly its bizarre. Can we please move on from it.

Regarding your point about the client specifying the exact photo. I agree with you in principle (and said so already) however I don't think it's clear cut because, if taking your example of a 400 photo package, they already delivered that, then what is being asked is going beyond that package. Again, I do not agree with this approach but objectively this is potentially the situation. The client has no right to that photo, unless there is something in writing to support them. Doesn't matter that the father in law or even the groom asked the tog to take that photo either. If he delivers on what he was hire to do, he can be as much of an ass as he wants about this specific photo.

you seem to think that being a photogropher is vastly different to other trades. its exactly the same. like most you learn your skills and apply the to basic taks throught the job.



i dont believe for a second that a photogropher has the right to choose which photos the clients get. i can understand there mighnt be a great pic of the great aunt gerty but a group of uncles and aunts that specifically stood there for a pic should definetly be there.

wersal gummage

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you seem to think that being a photogropher is vastly different to other trades. its exactly the same. like most you learn your skills and apply the to basic taks throught the job.



i dont believe for a second that a photogropher has the right to choose which photos the clients get. i can understand there mighnt be a great pic of the great aunt gerty but a group of uncles and aunts that specifically stood there for a pic should definetly be there.

In fairness, standing painting a wall is hardly highly skilled now is it? Want to stop for 5 minutes and scratch your balls, no problem. Want a cup of coffee, no problem. Make a mistake, no problem just fix it at your leisure (I'm not a painter, or a tradesman, but the same thing more or less applies in my job too). Photographing a wedding is a very different thing, certain key elements of the day last a few moments and can't be repeated, so if you mess up it's a problem. Why would you try and compare wedding photography to painting a bathroom ceiling ?

Secondly, of course a photographer has the right to choose what photos to supply! Subject to any contractual obligations. Every photo that is supplied is capable of being put on social media and ruining your business. I guess with digital photography, these days a wedding photographer might take over 2k photos in a day. Loads of them will be rubbish, people's eyes closed, maybe the odd missed focus etc. Why would you supply a poor photo to someone, that they will show to others?

When a carpenter (given you are so keen to compare to trades) comes and fits a wooden floor he cuts it to fit, the off cuts are discarded. Would you insist that a carpenter must stick these off cuts to the floor, making a balls of an otherwise perfect job?

the_pen_turner

wersal gummage wrote: »

In fairness, standing painting a wall is hardly highly skilled now is it?being a proper painter is a very highly skilled trade. Want to stop for 5 minutes and scratch your balls, no problem. Want a cup of coffee, no problem. Make a mistake, no problem just fix it at your leisure (I'm not a painter, or a tradesman, but the same thing more or less applies in my job too). Photographing a wedding is a very different thing, certain key elements of the day last a few moments and can't be repeated, so if you mess up it's a problem.i undersatnd that. thats why the price reflects that Why would you try and compare wedding photography to painting a bathroom ceiling ?

Secondly, of course a photographer has the right to choose what photos to supply! Subject to any contractual obligations. Every photo that is supplied is capable of being put on social media and ruining your business. I guess with digital photography, these days a wedding photographer might take over 2k photos in a day. Loads of them will be rubbish, people's eyes closed, maybe the odd missed focus etc. Why would you supply a poor photo to someone, that they will show to others?i can understand that you wouldnt want a bad photo going out. who would.the diference is that its ok to not have a pic of the time somone did something spontainious but not ok to not have an organised pic screwed up. the organised one is waiting for the photogropher to do their thing, the subject isnt going to disapear like a spontainious pic. if a photogropher cant get a good pic of a group of people standing in a line when they have all the opertunity to do so then thye must be a terrible photogropher

When a carpenter (given you are so keen to compare to trades) comes and fits a wooden floor he cuts it to fit, the off cuts are discarded. Would you insist that a carpenter must stick these off cuts to the floor, making a balls of an otherwise perfect job?

but the carpenter has done their job fully. the job was to fit the floor. the photogropher is missing a part of their job

Heebie

wersal gummage wrote: »

Is this what people want in wedding photography?

Yes. Weddings are very often an exercise in vanity. They want everything to be perfect.
I'm sure there are people that aren't all that discerning who'd accept whatever comes along... I wouldn't want to work for those people, that's for sure. I want to provide exceptional artworks for my clients, not snapshots that could have been taken with a mobile phone.

Anyway, I guess there are lots of wedding photographers providing different styles and people pick the one they like. I would be mortified to have a Hollywood style result where nobody actually looks like themselves.

There are indeed lots of styles, and capturing the "feel" of the event is *the* most important thing. The "feel" you're expected to capture is sometimes not the actual feel in the room, which makes pleasing the client a PITA!

Are you actually a wedding photographer? How do you shoot 2 or 3 weddings a week and manage the hundreds of hours of processing work as well?

Photographer: Yes
Wedding Photographer: No

I have shot one wedding, as a present for a friend. He was having a Renaissance themed wedding. I shot the wedding with several antique cameras of varying formats and black & white film, processed the film by hand, scanned it, edited it, removed the photos that were crap, and presented it to them.
Using digital today takes the film development and scanning out of the picture, but the rest of the work remains.

I have, however, PRINTED all the photography for hundreds of weddings while working in a high-end photolab. None of the wedding photographers that used our services charged less than $2,500 USD per wedding. Generally $3,000-5,000. This was back in the tail end of the last century and the beginning of this century. A wedding package was generally about 20 "posed" shots taken of the wedding party, with about 4 of them eventually becoming 8x10" or so prints, perhaps 50 shot at the wedding itself with maybe 4-5 getting printed, and perhaps as many as 200 candids at the reception resulting in 50-100 4x6" prints of various groups and individuals to put in the album.
Generally there were months from the date they were hired to the wedding and it was 60-90 days AFTER the wedding before the final prints/album were delivered.
If you want to get good quality, you still need to pay for it.
If I were getting married, I only know of two photographers in the world that I'd trust to get it right... both of whom I've printed dozens of whole weddings for... both of whom will spend however long it takes to get the images right. Having to have them come across the Atlantic, their price would probably be in the $20,000-30,000 USD range. (They do both work internationally on a regular basis.)

Truly gifted wedding photographers might shoot 2-3 weddings in a week, but then they'll have a week where they just work on the images, then a week where all they do is meet potential new clients and show proofs to clients who are mid-process, then a week of reviewing the results of the week working on the images, tweaking a little more and having them printed.

This is the type of work flow They aim for: shooting week, lab week, schmoozing week, lab week, repeat.

They charge prices commensurate with supporting this work flow, and will turn down clients who's wedding dates don't fit into it. Different photographers will have their own variations on this, but this workflow staves off burnout by enforcing variety in tasks, while also allowing the photographer to be deep into the mindset necessary for doing this week's work without having to switch back and forth quickly.

Homer wrote: »

so I guess I must suck at wedding photography so!

I didn't say that... but I wouldn't hire you. Lightroom is a fantastic tool, and if you know how to use it, you can actually do a lot of the job there, but some things need to go out to Photoshop. If you want to do any split-frequency editing to get skin-tone & texture looking good, for example.

Bacchus wrote: »

Skin tone is important yes, but 90% of the time you get that right in camera... you know... cause their professional photographers.

You must not take many photos with dark-skinned people in-frame at the same time as light-skinned people, or any weird lighting. (I can see the lack of highly varied skin tone here in Ireland.)
If you're not lightening up the deep shadows and doing some split-frequency smoothing of granny's wrinkles, she's not going to look very nice. Would you rather your client's reaction is "gran looks fantastic" or "gran looks like she's on death's door"
I know which I'd rather as a photographer and as a client.

wersal gummage wrote: »

In fairness, standing painting a wall is hardly highly skilled now is it? Want to stop for 5 minutes and scratch your balls, no problem. Want a cup of coffee, no problem

Standing and painting a wall is highly skilled.. to get it right. My Dad tried to teach me his trade, painting houses. I couldn't learn it.
He never had to advertise in his entire career because word-of-mouth gave him more work than he and his brother could do. They learned from their father.
Their specialty was "Painted Ladies" (see: Painted Ladies) and their father's was church interiors.
They were able to charge basically whatever they wanted because their customers wanted THEIR work, and wouldn't settle for lesser quality.
Denigrating painters is just not cool. There are plenty for whom it's just a way to make a few bob, yes, but there are others who are artists.

It comes down to: Are you a photographer who takes pride in your work and creates art, or are you a journalist who just documents the events as they were?
I suppose if you're the journalist type, handing off 700-800 basically unretouched photos for a grand is fine. If you're proud of your work, and you have a brand-name/reputation to protect, you absolutely don't let anything mediocre get into public view with your name attached to it.

As for the actual subject of this thread: The photographer was asked to do another specifically-posed (I'm making an assumption from the description) photo that wasn't included in the package discussed when hired. I can see charging extra for that, especially if his price was already in the "budget" range.

Note to OP: I'm sorry if this seems off-topic.. the discussion appears to have taken on a life of its own.

Bacchus

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you seem to think that being a photogropher is vastly different to other trades. its exactly the same. like most you learn your skills and apply the to basic taks throught the job.



i dont believe for a second that a photogropher has the right to choose which photos the clients get. i can understand there mighnt be a great pic of the great aunt gerty but a group of uncles and aunts that specifically stood there for a pic should definetly be there.

On the one hand you have a task that is "paint that wall, this colour". On the other you have "shoot my wedding". The second task has so many more components to it and is entirely subjective. The analogy does not, and will never work. Boiling it down to "learning a skill and doing a job" papers over the detail of what is involved entirely and conveniently allows you to miss the point I'm making.

Regarding your second point. Believe it or not, it is entirely up to the photographer to choose what photos to deliver. As a business person he should be bending over backwards to keep a happy client but technically he is not obliged to go beyond that and deliver specific photos that he did not originally include.

At this point I'm not sure there is any getting through to you, so I'm done with this conversation now.

Bacchus

Heebie wrote: »

You must not take many photos with dark-skinned people in-frame at the same time as light-skinned people, or any weird lighting. (I can see the lack of highly varied skin tone here in Ireland.)
If you're not lightening up the deep shadows and doing some split-frequency smoothing of granny's wrinkles, she's not going to look very nice. Would you rather your client's reaction is "gran looks fantastic" or "gran looks like she's on death's door"
I know which I'd rather as a photographer and as a client.

I'm a professional photographer. A good one at that. I stand by my stats that 90% of the time skin tone is not an issue in post processing and when it is, it is a minute tops to fix. It's far from the hundreds of hours you claimed it takes to edit a single wedding.

TBH, I'd be embarrassed to deliver photos that airbrushed out grannies wrinkles. I don't do it and granny still looks a million dollars. I bang out a wedding edit in about 8-10 hours and I've never had anything but gushing compliments about my work.

I totally get that there are some clients that would prefer the airbrushed or "glossy mag" look but they are not the target market I aim for. It's a matter of personal choice. Clients book me based on my portfolio, they know what they are getting and they are more than happy with it.

EDIT: Should correct myself on the 8-10 hours I noted above... when you include doing backups, culling and then delivering the photos you can probably notch that up to more like 12-14 hours for a single wedding.

the_pen_turner

Bacchus wrote: »

On the one hand you have a task that is "paint that wall, this colour". On the other you have "shoot my wedding". The second task has so many more components to it and is entirely subjective. The analogy does not, and will never work. Boiling it down to "learning a skill and doing a job" papers over the detail of what is involved entirely and conveniently allows you to miss the point I'm making.

Regarding your second point. Believe it or not, it is entirely up to the photographer to choose what photos to deliver. As a business person he should be bending over backwards to keep a happy client but technically he is not obliged to go beyond that and deliver specific photos that he did not originally include.

At this point I'm not sure there is any getting through to you, so I'm done with this conversation now.

where is the line with on what has to be included and what doesnt. bride and groom , bridesmades and groomsmen, parents of the couple. you telling me that a photogropher could do what every they wanted after that and there is nothing the customer can do.



as for my painter example. you clearly know nothing about being a profetional painter. you seem to be comparing the pro photogropher to a fly by night painter that just slaps paint on the wall.
both a photogrpher and a painter are verry highly skilled trades near the top .
both people are being paid to do a job . customer wants a very small change that makes no diference to either the painter of photogropher.
you are being paid to take pictures of the guests as well as the wedding party.
i can understand if they wanted you to take landscape of the area or outside of the church etc but not a pic of tommy instead of mary

Bacchus

the_pen_turner wrote: »

where is the line with on what has to be included and what doesnt. bride and groom , bridesmades and groomsmen, parents of the couple. you telling me that a photogropher could do what every they wanted after that and there is nothing the customer can do.



as for my painter example. you clearly know nothing about being a profetional painter. you seem to be comparing the pro photogropher to a fly by night painter that just slaps paint on the wall.
both a photogrpher and a painter are verry highly skilled trades near the top .
both people are being paid to do a job . customer wants a very small change that makes no diference to either the painter of photogropher.
you are being paid to take pictures of the guests as well as the wedding party.
i can understand if they wanted you to take landscape of the area or outside of the church etc but not a pic of tommy instead of mary

The poster you are trying to reach has unsubscribed from this conversation. All answers to your queries have been provided in previous posts and do not warrant repeating.

the_pen_turner

Bacchus wrote: »

The poster you are trying to reach has unsubscribed from this conversation. All answers to your queries have been provided in previous posts and do not warrant repeating.

except that you havnt actually backed up what your saying. just repeating it .

wersal gummage

To Heebie, thanks for a detailed response. You seem to be based in the US and I suppose there are cultural issues (extreme white teeth, fake breasts etc are more prevalent). I suspect that most Irish people would not want heavily airbrushed photos to the extent that people are presented dramatically differently to how they actually appear. I would be embarrassed sending around photos that have been given the magazine shoot treatment. But then I'm getting older and maybe all the young people with the Instagram etc so what heavily edited style.

I wasn't seeking to denigrate painters at all and was aware that my comments could come across like that, hence I added the comment that my own job is like that too (I mean lack of responding to spontaneous events, particularly important one off events that must be correct etc). I work in a controlled environment, like a painter. Also I was talking about (presumably the majority of painting which is) painting bedrooms, living rooms etc, not the Sistine Chapel.

I actually think your own comments about photographers are more denigrating (people looking dead, photos might as well be taken on an iPhone etc if they are not elaborately altered like you would prefer).

So, so far away from the topic, but I don't think painters or photographers are in fact trades at all are they? I can advertise my services as either in the morning? It is about quality of work rather than a qualification I think?

Anyway thanks for the response!

Bacchus

wersal gummage wrote: »

I wasn't seeking to denigrate painters at all and was aware that my comments could come across like that, hence I added the comment that my own job is like that too (I mean lack of responding to spontaneous events, particularly important one off events that must be correct etc). I work in a controlled environment, like a painter. Also I was talking about (presumably the majority of painting which is) painting bedrooms, living rooms etc, not the Sistine Chapel.

I'd actually like to echo that point. I've nothing against painters, their trade, nor the skill required. It was just the bizarre analogy that I was arguing.