Affordable creative wedding photographer wanted

[[GSV]Trig]

The disposables on the tables is a great idea, as long as people remember to leave them behind, you'll always loose a few

[Bobster]

Thankfully the last (and most recent memory ) wedding I was at, the photographer didn't feel like he had to direct the proceedings and got plenty of great natural shots of people enjoying the experience , which is the only reason I posted his link ( that and his brother is 6'11 and would pummel me if I was rude to him )

yeah there are 2 ways of shooting weddings - going for the pap route - sorry the reportage route where you have a photographer or 2 milling around and capturing the day

and the formal bride and groom stand here, and then have mum and dad on either side, smile, snap - great move on to the next set scene..

i like to think that we do both at the wedding and we're firm but friendly at the same time as this is not our day but the bride and grooms

1 thing that is very important about the photographer is that you must meet them before hand. if you have any reservations about them or their ability or you just don't like them, or they don't like you they/you have to say and move on..

we used someone who we thought was a very competent photographer for our big day and it didn't go well at all.. we're currently in the process of getting a re-shoot done (believe it or not the photographs are an important part of the wedding to 75% of brides - can't remember where i saw that stat, think it was a wedding mag)

oh and as for loud waist coat - what the beef, your a photographer, blend

[chrestomanci]

The other point I was making is that ammeter shots allow you to side step the issue of copyright. When I got married, I found it quite grating that we where paying the photographer a lot of money to turn up and take pictures, but he would retain copyright on them, and could charge what he liked for additional prints. If your photographer friend stands close to the professional and takes similar pictures to him, you should get un-encumbered versions of the formal shots as well.

[RANT]
you're not just paying for someone to turn up and take pics - you have to factor in the preperation before the event (checking what the weather is going to be doing on the given day, making a backup if the weather turns bad, contacting the church/venue where you're getting married, contacting the reception - doing a recce of the area for good places to shoot, making a list of which formal shots to take, which shots to take with bride and goom, wear and tear on our equipment (not cheap)
[/RANT]
sorry just gets up my nose when ppl complain about price of professional photography and think all that we've done is come along and press a button..

I thought that might trigger a reaction, though I was not expecting such a lengthy one.

I was not compaining about the cost, and I never suggested that it was a good idea to do without a professional photographer at a big wedding. I understand the importance of what they do, the ways it can go wrong, and how you need someone who knows how to take standard formal groups. I also accept that there is a fair bit of post processing to do to sort out blemishes and blinks. I realise that once you do something as a busness you have to account for the cost of traveling and incedental time that you would otherwise ignore.

What gets up my nose is that you pay the photographer their fee, (however much or little), for your wedding, they have no reasonable expectation of selling the photos they take to the wider public (and neither do you), but they insist that the copyright is theirs, and you must pay them £5 for every tiny print, so you can't even post or email a set to granny who could not come.

I understand that with photographs, the copywright is with the photographer, and I am all for it staying that way. (As opposed to it automatically belonging to the subject or venue). If a photographer came to the wedding on spec, it would be acceptable for them to charge for each picture they sell. For example, a few years ago I was at a cycle race, and a photographer who was there took my picture. He then got my address via my race number and entry form and sent me a picuture asking me to send it back or pay £10. That is fine, I did not pay the photographer to be there before hand, and I am fairly sure the race organisers did not either, so the photographer is entitled to whatever they can charge for pictures. But as soon as the photographer is paid to be there, (and do all the preparation and post processing work) I think it should be the norm that the copyright should belong to the person paying them.

[Bobster]

But as soon as the photographer is paid to be there, (and do all the preparation and post processing work) I think it should be the norm that the copyright should belong to the person paying them.

you can purchase the copyright for photographs, but i'm sure that you wouldn't like the price tag that came with it..

reprints are also part of our business - i give a discount if someone buys more than 1 of the same shot, but all orders must be given at the same time, if its 2 seperate orders then the standard charge applies

another reason for not handing over the files is to stop people from just printing photos out on their home £49.99 elcheapo printer which will affect the quality of the outcome, and if someone was to see these prints and missread that these had come from the photographer and look sub-standard then thats painting the photographers work in a poor light..

i was recently turned down for a wedding over another photographer who promised the photos on disk.. i talked to the groom a couple of weeks back and asked how many photos he'd been given on the disk, he said he got them all, but they were on a DVD slideshow.. (i did chuckle to myself )

[Elmo]

I went to my boyfriend's aunty's wedding a couple of months ago and took a few photos thinking they had a pro photographer etc. Gave them a little photo album with the best of the bunch that I took as a wedding present. Turns out they didnt have a pro photographer and my photos were their best memory of the day *chuffed*

The photos weren't amazing by any means, hindered mainly because my mum flicked the mode switch whilst holding it and I hadnt noticed till i got home and looked at the photos! but after a bit of playing about they're not too bad. Had I known they didnt have a pro photographer i'd have made more effort!

[dancingmatt]

Very interesting thread. Thanks all for taking the time to post.

On the subject of copyright, I understand chrestomanci's idea that if a photographer is hired, then the end product should belong to the hirer. Yes, there is a lot to a wedding photoshoot as illuminated above, but that should all go into the cost of the hire? And selling photos to guests seems ok, but the bride and groom should get the opportunity to do what they like with their pictures?

I work as a Graphic Designer for a Research company. Everything I produce is covered by a standard Intellectual Property agreement in my contract the same as all the other employees, Designers or not. If I take any photos at one of our events, for example, I'm pretty damn sure they belong to my company not me...

DM

[BlueMagician]

<Gives Bobster a round of applause>

Some fine, valid points, very well made sir.

S.

[Bobster]

I work as a Graphic Designer for a Research company. Everything I produce is covered by a standard Intellectual Property agreement in my contract the same as all the other employees, Designers or not. If I take any photos at one of our events, for example, I'm pretty damn sure they belong to my company not me...

ahh yes but thats in your contract that any work you do for them, on computer or otherwise belongs to teh company

however if you freelanced for them, you would own the rights and they'd pay you for the use of.. unless you signed a contract that said otherwise..

either way i don't know of any pro photographer that would give up the rights to the images they took for free..

[Steve B]

im still sniggering at photofuhrer

[limpduck]

you could try http://www.davidhughesphotography.co.uk

he is based in northamptonshire, i used him for our wedding a few years ago, but he has got alot more popular since then so i have no idea how much he costs now.

[Bobster]

arg.. broken website..

[Alex]

Bobster, I'd be very interested to know what you think of other people coming to the wedding with nice cameras, coming along to where the wedding photographer is setting people up, and taking pics, basically duplicating what the official photographer is doing, and then giving hi-res pics which look like the official ones to the couple for free?

I haven't actually done this, but the arranging people etc is what I'd think is onf of the main things the photographer is getting paid for, and I presume theres nothing in your average contract to prevent people doing this?

I can imagine your average wedding photographer wouldn't like this, but do you think they have any right to get miffed about it?

[Bobster]

I can imagine your average wedding photographer wouldn't like this, but do you think they have any right to get miffed about it?

its in my contract that the bride and groom sign - no other person is to take shots while the photographer is working or the photographer will end the photography and walk..

when the contract is signed 1/3 of the fee is paid as a non-refundable deposit unless the Photographer cancels that date. the remainder is to be paid a week before the big day..

we usually give 10 seconds or so for family members to take the shot after i'm done - but by that time people have lost interest and we move on to the next shot..

shots of the bride and groom are taken after the group shots when everyone is doing other things - drinking, catching up with one another..

[chrestomanci]

its in my contract that the bride and groom sign - no other person is to take shots while the photographer is working or the photographer will end the photography and walk..

Jeeez. You have the wrong atetude. If someone was continusly getting in front of you, or otherwise in your way, that is one thing, but banning other people from taking picutures is stupid.

What are the people not in the shot supposed to do? At wedding I have been at, including my own there where a lot of different formal groups. Those not in the group where usualy waiting behind the photograher with cameras in their hands, it would be crazy to ask them not to take pictures in that situation.

[IBM]

I'd do the same as bobster if I was in his situation. It's not your average Joe with a disposable camera you're bothered about, but people with light meters, decent DSLRs and L lenses....I'm sure that bobster's not going to sulk if people are taking a couple of random pics, but if you've got some twit attempting to duplicate every single shot then you're not going to put up with it.

Got to remember that this is how some people earn a living, and people trying to rip off somebody's composition is the same as producing counterfit art, or nicking music.

If people want to take pictures, get them to arrange their own photos. If they want a piece of the photographers skill, buy a copy of the print....

[Alex]

My point was that all the arranging etc is what you pay the photographer for.

Also, how can you say in the contract 'may not take photos whilst the photgrapher is working' - surely the photographer is working all the time? And surely, also, the people who would be taking photos would not be bound by the couples contract - only the couple themselves would be bound by their own signiatures? The people taking photos have said nothing to the effect that they won't...