Photographer's query :

Mocho Joe Joe · 11-03-2018 10:45pm #1

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 · 11-03-2018 10:47pm

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 · 11-03-2018 11:20pm

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 · 12-03-2018 7:24am

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 · 12-03-2018 11:54am

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 · 12-03-2018 1:41pm

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 · 12-03-2018 2:00pm

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 · 12-03-2018 2:15pm

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 · 12-03-2018 2:23pm

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 · 12-03-2018 2:29pm

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 · 12-03-2018 4:11pm

€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 · 12-03-2018 4:19pm

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 · 12-03-2018 4:20pm

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

Mocho Joe Joe · 12-03-2018 4:21pm

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 · 12-03-2018 4:27pm

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 · 12-03-2018 4:36pm

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

Effects · 13-03-2018 1:11am

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 · 13-03-2018 12:00pm

€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 · 13-03-2018 12:59pm

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 · 13-03-2018 1:47pm

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

Homer · 13-03-2018 3:19pm

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 · 13-03-2018 7:49pm

A "normal" wedding package price is generally â‚¬3,000 and up for an established wedding photographer. I know people who get â‚¬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 · 13-03-2018 10:13pm

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 · 14-03-2018 12:54am

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 · 14-03-2018 10:52am

Heebie wrote: »

A "normal" wedding package price is generally â‚¬3,000 and up for an established wedding photographer. I know people who get â‚¬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 · 14-03-2018 11:10am

Heebie wrote: »

A "normal" wedding package price is generally â‚¬3,000 and up for an established wedding photographer. I know people who get â‚¬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 · 15-03-2018 12:03pm

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 · 15-03-2018 12:21pm

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 · 15-03-2018 12:36pm

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 · 15-03-2018 1:09pm

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 · 15-03-2018 1:20pm

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

Photographer's query :

Comments