Photographer's query :

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 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!

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!

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.

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 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?

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.

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 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.

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!

Bump:
OP - Did the photographer cough up the photo or did you out him?

Bacchus, sorry you didn't get the shot in the end! It might be worthwhile contacting him bu phone (no publicity, no pressure) asking if he can recover the image, you would be happy to pay a"nominal" fee to have print - just don't post it here!

I have done a few "family" weddings as favours. It took about 40 hours work per wedding (meeting couple and then priest,checking out church and hotel, planning fallback loactions for inclememt weather, editing 300+ photos as a short list - about 3-5 minutes each, final editing of 200+ images, including B&W options). If they wanted an extra image then no problem. But the cost was over twice what you paid.

Once, I was asked for an iage with a "select" group of people in it, after the event (over a year later). It wasn't a shot I had been asked for initially and as luck would have it, it was one I didn't take. These things happen. (I had asked for a list of "desirebale" shots and provided all of them.

A "tog" can only do their best. And most people get defensive if asked for something they mightn't have done/done well.

IMHO best option is to talk to the guy, off the record, and see what is possible.

It might even work!