BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Wedding Photography

To love this question, log in above
March 26, 2008

That being said [and, it's truly only my opinion,] if you discuss what you want, I can't see why a photographer wouldn't try to satisfy your requirements. The pictures of your wedding are truly only of interest to you and yours. So, why wouldn't a reliable photographer give you a DVD of the pictures s/he took?

Because of the anticipated arrival of a new granddaughter, I was forced to turn down a wedding job. I was planning to give the B&G a DVD of the original images and only edit a portion of the images taken, depending on what they wanted.

While not a professional wedding photographer, I can't see why a pro wouldn't do this, of course at a fair price. Remember, most pros really makes their money from the print packages they sell. So, discuss the issue with one or more wedding photographers.

To love this comment, log in above
March 27, 2008

The combo of tight budget, and "i just want the RAW files" screams of Craigs List to me. You will find lots of people of CL who will do that for free or $500 I bet. But, who knows what you will get and how much experience they have?

The best overall value is to try to find someone who is kind of new, but maybe has shot for a year or two on their own. You are still looking at $2k to $3k in that case.

The way I see it is like this, you are not buying "pictures" per se, you are buying a service, and that service is to document your wedding from start to finish, and present that story in an album.

So, understanding that that's how many of us view the situation, you can see how we are reluctant to shoot and burn. This is how we distinguish ourselves from the shoot & burners of the world. I cannot afford to shoot & burn as there really is nothing in it for me. The album serves as my gallery. If I just hand you a disc, who knows what you will go do with them, especially the RAW files.

And, John, I don't even know what to say. I am absolutely boiling right now, so I am going to go calm down before I discuss who owns what.

At any rate, handing over the files, IMO, is a losing proposition. There are ways to handle this, however, it's not the way some people are doing it. A business that plans to stay for the long term has to think about how they add value to the process. The photographer always owns the copyright to everything. The bride and groom have very limited personal use rights and that's all.

I had a bride and groom where the groom owned a business, and wanted to use an image from their wedding for advertising because he really liked it and thought it fit in. I'm glad he asked, becuase I would have sued his butt off. No, he couldn't use the image. Even after asking me, he asked his lawyer who reviewed my contract and told him he can't use the image if I say no, which I did. I offered him a price to do this, but he was so pissed off because he thinks they are "his" images. They aren't. They are mine.

Go ask Microsoft who owns the software on your computer. You probably think you own it, but you don't. They own it, and give you the right to use it. When you buy the software all you are buying is a "use license". You don't own it. My photos are the same. You are purchasing my service, and the right to use my photos (in the case where I provide a disc). If I am not providing a disc, as in the case of portraits,you buy prints and you display them and that's all.

Anyway, back to the wedding, I would say that you should be careful who you pick. Anyone that provides what you want, I would really check them out. Find out how long they've shot weddings, and check out several entire weddings that they have shot themselves. If all they have are shots of the bridal party from the side, that means they were a 2nd shooter and not a main shooter. Being a 2nd IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE SAME THING. If someone hasn't shot a wedding before by themselves, I wouldn't let them sort it out at my wedding.

To love this comment, log in above
March 27, 2008

"So, understanding that that's how many of us view the situation, you can see how we are reluctant to shoot and burn. This is how we distinguish ourselves from the shoot & burners of the world. I cannot afford to shoot & burn as there really is nothing in it for me. The album serves as my gallery. If I just hand you a disc, who knows what you will go do with them, especially the RAW files.

"And, John, I don't even know what to say. I am absolutely boiling right now, so I am going to go calm down before I discuss who owns what.

"At any rate, handing over the files, IMO, is a losing proposition . . ."

I guess my answer is very simple. If the customer wants to buy a disc and tells you up front she'll probably make her own pruints, then a photogrpaher can accept or reject the job.

In the case of a wedding, it's the B&G's and not the photographer's day. Because someone has Photoshop skills, there's just no reason to deny her the opportunity to use them. They may be significantly better than yours. Importantly, are you prepared to lose a job because you don't want to give files that the Bride can edit? Not too smart!

If you get properly paid for your efforts and your image files, what else matters? It's her wedding. And, you really want me to believe that because [perhpas] you own the files as photographer, that you'll ever be able to use them in any other scenario? If you did WOW. It happened to my wife and me and we sued the photographer's butt off.

All you did in your response was confirm what I said initially, that wedding photographers make most of their money from the prints and albums they sell. So, just change enough to "shoot and burn" that you make your profit.

I really don't know what "you're boiling about." As I said, satisfy the customer and charge the right fee. I think in today's world, you might just get more opportunities. I know I'd rather shoot than get stuck sitting at my computer editing image after image in the hope that someone might purchase a print or album.

As to an album being your "gallery," if no one shows the album except to family, your gallery certainly doesn't get a lot of publicity. But, what you continue to forget is, it's her wedding!

When my son and daughter-in-law got married, they hired a photographer they had confidence in. She shot color and B&W using her Hassleblad [of course, this was B.D.] When she provided her proofs, she indicated that "only she could make enlargements and albums - because of a "special developing process."

That's like saying only you can use Photoshop. Anyway, she lost the sale completely - no prints, no albums, no profit. And, you know what, prints of my pictures look just great on the wall.

Wedding photogrpahers are certainly entitled to a fair price for their work. Charge for it; use contract language to protect both you and the bride. Give her a usable DVD so she can make prints. Everyone makes out better.

As to you last paragraph, "Anyway, back to the wedding, I would say that you should be careful who you pick. Anyone that provides what you want, I would really check them out. Find out how long they've shot weddings, and check out several entire weddings that they have shot themselves. If all they have are shots of the bridal party from the side, that means they were a 2nd shooter and not a main shooter. Being a 2nd IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE SAME THING. If someone hasn't shot a wedding before by themselves, I wouldn't let them sort it out at my wedding." ... I don't even know what to say. I am absolutely boiling right now, so I am going to go calm down before I discuss who knows what.

To love this comment, log in above
March 27, 2008

I don't provide my RAW files. I just don't. I do provide full-res jpegs upon delivery of the album.

You are talking about different things. I know alot of people who will shoot a wedding for $1500 or so and provide the disc and walk away. That's fine, but stupid. They have to work, and work, and work, and work until they drop. You must not do weddings much or you wouldn't be saying what you are saying.

It's better to shoot maybe 30 a year, get paid really well, not give away your rights, but charge well for whatever you provide, and still be able to support yourself.

I know people who do what you say, and I can tell you that they have to shoot 80 weddings a year, and all they do is work day and night always husseling, always trying to book another wedding.

Also, I only provide finished work. We might not see eye to eye on this, and that's fine, but I provide finished work. So, I don't want client screwing around with MY images. So, I want an album in their hands first. I take great pride in what I do and the service I provide.

So, saying all this, I would not be a good fit for you or your wedding. I just wouldnt and that would be clear right off the bat when we started talking. I am a full-service boutique studio. I am not a shoot and burn photographer. I just don't believe in it, and I don't understand why people do it. It is not a long-term way to build a business. It is very short-term.

Just so you understand, I do know that this mentality is getting more and more prevealant, and I am combatting it by becoming more and more service oriented.

I believe the higher-end, boutique studios that take everything out of the hands of the client, and provide end-to-end service, will do better than the people who succumb to the whims and "desires" of the masses. The reason I say this is because I know for a fact that there are people who whine and cry and raise hell that they want the disc of images, they get it, and do nothing with it. It's too overwhelming for them, they don't know where to start or how to approach it.

Anyway, I do this. I understand the market pretty well. I have positioned my business a few notches out of reach for the shoot and burn client for a good reason. It is not my desire to shoot 80+ weddings a year and drop dead of a heart-attack at age 45. I want to live, like all the other working stiffs, with days off, vacations, a nice house, a good retirement, and I want to retire. That all takes money, and investment in the future of your business.

There's tons more to discuss on this. I know, being a photographer yourself, that over a few beers, I could have you see what I mean, but it would be easier to show you what I do, discuss how it all works, how clients think and behave regarding these things, and then how photographers deserve a good life. This starving artist stuff is a load of bull.

To love this comment, log in above
March 27, 2008

Your photographer must have been a complete idiot to get his butt sued off. There is no way that could happen to me because it's all spelled out, and they do ge the disc of image. No judge would tell my clients that it's OK for them to sell my images, or something like that.

I own the copyright, no matter what else happens. I also send all my images to the US Copyright office and have them registered, just in case there is any question about it later on.

To love this comment, log in above
March 27, 2008

I hope this clarifies things a little better for you. I am not one to take anything away from your art or your bussiness. I just want some flexibility on the issue. And I guess I'm going to have to do some research and legwork before I settle on the right photographer. And obviously read all the print (big and small) on the contract.

Thank you both for your imput, it's been really helpful.

To love this comment, log in above
March 27, 2008

Pictage is balony, and I really cannot condone people who use it. I could tell you why, but it would take too long.

In defense of photographers, some people dont' realize how it all works because they are disconnected. But a popular method these days for wedding photographers (and this is growing due to a really high-end guy promoting this method) is to not do any work on the images at all. Just post them right out of the camera. Then, when someone orders, you fix them up, do the proper corrections, and ship the print. This is growing in popularity because photographers feel they spend too much time behind a computer correcting images that may never get ordered...and what's the point of that?

So, the bride knows this, the groom knows this, but everyone else looking at the online gallery has no idea.

Because of this disparity with people understanding how it works, and that images straight out of a camera are not usually great, if you keep your settings proper (low contrast, no sharpening, etc) then, people will see not so great images. I can't do that, so I work them all and make them all look like winners. People love it. Grandma loves it. But, now Grandma thinks my 5x7 price is crazy because she can get something at Costco for less than $.30. My answer to that is, you can buy a piece of paper for almost nothing. You can take your own damn picture, and get one made at Costco for cheap, or you can get the image you want of you grandkids, or whatever, from me for the price I ask. It's that easy. BMW does not care what Ford charges, and visa versa. The are not the same thing. The are both cars, but they are not the same. You don't hear people walking into a BMW dealership and complain that they can go get a Ford at less than half the price. It doesn't even make sense. This is the same thing.

Again, with my coverage, you get an album and upon delivery of that album, you get a disc of high res images. So, your wish would come true. The faster you order your album, the quicker you get the disc. I am also priced so that if I don't sell any gallery images, which sometimes I don't, I don't care. It doesn't matter. I love selling prints, and I do sell lots of them. But, it's not my bread and butter on weddings.

To love this comment, log in above
March 27, 2008