Photographer Dilemma

Impet_Limpet

Just to clarify I think you are mixing up reproduction rights with copyright. The photographer will always retain copyright because it is his work. Reproduction rights are when they allow you to re print the photographs as you want.

I doubt any photographer would be willing to give you unprocessed images to use as someone else has already said it is their reputation. For each album of images they produce there are many more pictures that don't make the final cut, they wouldn't want their "poorer" images to been seen - can you imagine if you saw a picture of yourself mid word with your mouth open and one eye shut?! or if some of the wedding party were fake tan orange next to someone nan? A great amount of time is used afterwards processing the images and can make the difference between good and "wow". However your idea of having an album made at a later date may be a good compromise.

Do shop around as you may find someone who can do post production for £700. :j

You should definitely have the same photographer doing the touch up afterwards. When pictures are taken photographers are composing something towards the final result they imagine. Someone else doing post processing may lose that (I know what I am trying to say but I'm not that great with words!)

Lavendyr

Actually, we were offered by one of the togs we saw our photos in RAW format so it's not impossible. The price was around £900. Ultimately my hubby didn't 'click' with him personality-wise and didn't feel he was the right fit so we went elsewhere.

The photographer we eventually settled on gave us all our pictures in hi-res on DVD (JPG = fine for us) for us to reproduce personally as we pleased (NB reproduction rights are NOT copyright) and the proof book to keep, for £950. The DVD pics had been slightly edited for colour etc, but my dad actually ordered an album with some of the pics in and the difference in the level of work that the photographer had put into those was phenomenal - so much more detailed editing than the ones we received on DVD.

It's worth noting that this photographer has been in the business for 50 years (yes he's getting on a bit but still has a great eye for a good picture!) and therefore is not just some chancer setting up a part-time business on the side or trying to get into the business. Even the guy who offered us RAW format has been doing this for well over 20 years. Well-established photographers are now offering this sort of deal as there is so much competition from cheapie semi-pros that they have to offer these things to win the work. It's unfortunate but for us we couldn't afford more than a grand so that was what we had to go for.

Mrs_Moore_To_Be

Impet_Limpet wrote: »

Just to clarify I think you are mixing up reproduction rights with copyright. The photographer will always retain copyright because it is his work. Reproduction rights are when they allow you to re print the photographs as you want.

Impet_Limpet wrote: »

Nope our photographer gave us the copyright to the pics (and advertises this on his webiste where in the package it actually says 'copyright free'). He said that he didnt think it fair that he had them. It goes back to him actually deciding he wanted to get the copyright of his from years ago and the photographer wanted to charge some ridiculous amount.

Since then he has said he wouldnt do the same to others, his point is what is he gonna do with them? So thats why we got copyright too

Mrs_Moore_To_Be

abi-em-mum83 wrote: »

Hi would you be able to send me his details plz, he sounds great!

Ive PM'd you x

Spencer_Li

Impet_Limpet wrote: »

You should definitely have the same photographer doing the touch up afterwards. When pictures are taken photographers are composing something towards the final result they imagine. Someone else doing post processing may lose that (I know what I am trying to say but I'm not that great with words!)

This is what I wanted to say, but didn't know how to say it!

Also, the photographer will have an idea of how an album should be composed so that it tells a story.

Spencer_Li

clearing_out_my_pockets wrote this in another thread.

clearing_out_my_pockets wrote: »

I know it's not under £500, but our photograper (in Kent) was at the bride's house from 12 right up to the wedding breakfast and had a second photographer with her (who mainly did the reportage photos). They gave us all hi-res photos on a CD for £550. They don't try and force albums on you and even if you do want an album you don't order or pay for it until after the wedding and you've seen the photos of your day.

Not sure if I'm allowed to post a link, so PM me if you want the details.

She sent me the details if you want them.

Idiophreak

Impet_Limpet wrote: »

Just to clarify I think you are mixing up reproduction rights with copyright. The photographer will always retain copyright because it is his work. Reproduction rights are when they allow you to re print the photographs as you want.

This is a distinction well worth noting on this thread. My mum took my sister's wedding DVD to boots to get some prints made - and they refused, pending proof of the right to reproduce. So it's probably worth getting something in writing along with the disk stating your rights, just to head off this possibility (I was fairly shocked that Boots employ people that vigilant tbh).

I have to say, I'm surprised by how low some of the prices on this thread are. £700 for two people all day...seems very low to me.

Putting myself in a photographer's shoes:
You've probably got to spend a couple of hours meeting and greeting before the contract's agreed - 2 hours.
Maybe another hour answering questions and so on afterward - 3 hours
Then the preshoot 3 hours - 6 hours
Two hours processing and selecting the preshoot photos - 8 hours.
Maybe 10 hours' coverage of the wedding - 18 hours.
Four hours processing and selecting the wedding photos - 22 hours
Two hours designing the album - 24 hours
Couple of hours faffing with the album printer/supplier and handover to client - 26 hours.

So if you've got two photographers doing that, you're getting 52 hours' work for £700 = 13.50/hour. Take taxes etc out of that, rent on a premises, costs of attending the show they (may have) met you at and travel back and forth - I just can't imagine any photographer worth their salt being bothered for that small a return.

I guess if it's a part time job out of their bedroom, it might be a little different...

Mrs_Moore_To_Be

Idiophreak wrote: »

This is a distinction well worth noting on this thread. My mum took my sister's wedding DVD to boots to get some prints made - and they refused, pending proof of the right to reproduce. So it's probably worth getting something in writing along with the disk stating your rights, just to head off this possibility (I was fairly shocked that Boots employ people that vigilant tbh).

I have to say, I'm surprised by how low some of the prices on this thread are. £700 for two people all day...seems very low to me.

Putting myself in a photographer's shoes:
You've probably got to spend a couple of hours meeting and greeting before the contract's agreed - 2 hours.
Maybe another hour answering questions and so on afterward - 3 hours
Then the preshoot 3 hours - 6 hours
Two hours processing and selecting the preshoot photos - 8 hours.
Maybe 10 hours' coverage of the wedding - 18 hours.
Four hours processing and selecting the wedding photos - 22 hours
Two hours designing the album - 24 hours
Couple of hours faffing with the album printer/supplier and handover to client - 26 hours.

So if you've got two photographers doing that, you're getting 52 hours' work for £700 = 13.50/hour. Take taxes etc out of that, rent on a premises, costs of attending the show they (may have) met you at and travel back and forth - I just can't imagine any photographer worth their salt being bothered for that small a return.

I guess if it's a part time job out of their bedroom, it might be a little different...

I think thats a casting aspersion (sp?)

Our photographer was that amount and is in no way a part time out of the bedroom type.

He is a full time award winning photographer. We did our research and attended a wedding he photographed before meeting with him to discuss our ideas.

Yes we got 2 photographers, our own copyright, a book, discs etc and its a bargain, but its just that, a bargain not a rip off, we discussed with him our findings on prices and he told us he enjoys it, is lucky enough to have other photography work in the week (including being a photographer for the PM) and so he sees no need in charging over the odds. Probably hence why he is booked up so far in advance.

I understand your concerns but sometimes a real gem is just that and there is no hidden nasties.

ampafc

Our photographer is costing us £1300.

For that, we get three photographers to be with us for the entire day (or less if we so choose)

We also get a large album of photos on very high quality paper, and a few other things which I'm not totally sure of. Having seen the quality/style of many photographers, I think you get what you pay for!

Idiophreak

Mrs_Moore_To_Be wrote: »

I think thats a casting aspersion (sp?)

Our photographer was that amount and is in no way a part time out of the bedroom type.

He is a full time award winning photographer. We did our research and attended a wedding he photographed before meeting with him to discuss our ideas.

Yes we got 2 photographers, our own copyright, a book, discs etc and its a bargain, but its just that, a bargain not a rip off, we discussed with him our findings on prices and he told us he enjoys it, is lucky enough to have other photography work in the week (including being a photographer for the PM) and so he sees no need in charging over the odds. Probably hence why he is booked up so far in advance.

I understand your concerns but sometimes a real gem is just that and there is no hidden nasties.

I didn't mean to infer that photographers at that price point were all bedroom types, just said I was surprised by how low some of the prices were. I'm glad you got a good deal, but I'd guess the number of photographers around willing to work the weekends for pretty much minimum wage is rather small...