Wedding photographers rant

Raymond Lin · 6 Apr 2009 at 11:42

Mint_Sauce said:
We do!

What are you going to use the negatives for of someones private wedding? They only really hold real true value to the couple so why withold that from them if they want the RAWs?

Also, it's not like you're losing the only copy you have, RAWs being digital means you still have a copy as well!

Its not about have a copy yourself, its about having the ONLY copy of RAW.

I've seen people (guests, or the brother of the couple) who passes the photographers's wedding as their own when trying to be a wedding photographer themselves. Obviously law suits starts flying and having the RAW file meaning you have more evidence on your end. Yes, i know there are going to be witnesses, contracts, etc but historically, having the film negative is the concrete way to proof that you took the photo. RAW is no different.

They can have Jpeg, full size too if they are willing to pay, but unprocessed RAW file stays in my computer.

Which brings me to another point, i only show people finished work, giving them RAW files meaning they would see your work unedited and unprocessed. A photographer should really show clients his best work, just like a chef don't send out half cooked meals to his customers.

Jotun · 6 Apr 2009 at 11:43

Energize said:
I do agree that people should get the original raw considering they paid for it's creation, I think it's only fair to give people the product they paid for and not a cut down compressed version. It seems to me that some people have an irrational fear that they will lose money because of it, despite having proof of copyright. When I do an artwork commission for someone I give them the uncompressed image and allow them to distribute it as they please, as far as I'm concerned that's what they've paid for, and certainly what a layperson expects to recieve. I find that by charging an amount that your happy with for the IP avoids many many problems.

I think the RAW files wouldn't be much use to 99% of the people paying for photographs though. Chances are they won't even have the software installed to open the file. Even if they do, why would they want to redo the processing done by their professional photographer which they've already paid for? Surely it'd make more sense to ask for a full size jpeg than the RAW files. All they'll want is something they can take down to boots or upload to a printing service and click go, not have to reprocess every photo first. There's not much point adding an extra few hundred quid onto prices for something that almost all of your customers don't care about. It'll just drive them away to someone offering a lower price without the RAW files.

oli collett · 6 Apr 2009 at 11:53

Caged said:
Depends a lot (like these examples being thrown around for the cost of camera kit). Mobile DJs are generally crap because it's not possible to fit everything good in the back of a van. As a rough guide you're looking at £800 per CD player (CDJ-Mk3) and £900-ish for a mixer (something like a Xone:92). £130ish for headphones (HD-25) and about the same again on a mic (e945). Then a few hundred quid of speaker processing and limiting and whatever system they decide to bring. And a few grands worth of CDs/vinyl.

It's all pointless anyway because a good DJ will cost you a lot of money, like a good photographer will.

Why would a wedding DJ need a CDJ1000 and a xone:92? Although I agree with the latter..

Mint_Sauce · 6 Apr 2009 at 11:55

I'm happy for the couples to do as they wish with the RAWs, I understand what you're saying about the future revenue but personally I prefer to charge more upfront and allow the couple to do as they wish. I think most couples just want to print some out for family and that's great. I don't see the need to get them to come back to us specifically if they want to deal with the prints themselves.

We don't supply RAWs as default but they are available if it's specifically requested at no charge and we do ensure they actually realise exactly what they are. We always supply full sized jpegs which are 99% of the time exactly what they want anyway.

In any other commercial area then I would agree to not hand out the RAWs but weddings are a bit more than just another business, it's someones wedding and that shouldn't be tainted by too much commercialism in my opinion. Sounds a bit pamby but we prefer to keep things as straight forward and nice for the couples as possible even if it means missing out on possible future revenues. I may regret and change this in the future but at the moment it's fine as no one has actually wanted the RAWs.

Dave M · 6 Apr 2009 at 12:17

Stev said:
I have the unfortunate prospect of photographing my brothers wedding reception next month, now after thinking about it for a week, i dont think ill be able to do him justice, the amount of gear i think im going to need to buy just to do a decent few snaps will be silly.

...

My brother did the photo's for my sisters wedding and she was happy with them - that said he had spent time before the wedding talking with my sister to find out who was attending, who should be in what photo's, what sort of scenes she wanted. On the day he had a big list of the photo's he wanted to take and had his wife assisting - getting the right people in shot etc. and spent the whole day running around taking opportunist shots.

It helped that he's been through the wedding thing himself so has seen it all from the other side of the camera, and he's been a guest at dozens (that age when all your mates get hitched I guess).

He only had one DSLR though, he might have had a few different lenses I can't remember.

He did say afterwards he'd never do it again if that's any help

Dangerous Dave · 6 Apr 2009 at 12:24

Caged said:
Depends a lot (like these examples being thrown around for the cost of camera kit). Mobile DJs are generally crap because it's not possible to fit everything good in the back of a van. As a rough guide you're looking at £800 per CD player (CDJ-Mk3) and £900-ish for a mixer (something like a Xone:92). £130ish for headphones (HD-25) and about the same again on a mic (e945). Then a few hundred quid of speaker processing and limiting and whatever system they decide to bring. And a few grands worth of CDs/vinyl.

It's all pointless anyway because a good DJ will cost you a lot of money, like a good photographer will.

Over the last couple of years any DJ I have seen working at a Party/Wedding have had a laptop for the mixing a cheap mixing desk for the mic input and feeding into generally active Mackie speakers. No doubt the mp3s on the laptops were not paid for either.

arknor · 6 Apr 2009 at 12:27

Raymond Lin said:
£100 would be expensive to "drag and drop" if those photos came out of google images.

As for £500 an hour, last wedding i did for a friend, 15 hours on the day and i spent a further 48 hours in total processing the 1600 shots i took. I did it as a favour as I knew the bride since she was 8, shes the sister of my best mate, on top of that i gave them this print (which is now hanging in their front room) as a present. They did give me £200 towards a lens i wanted to get as a gift afterwards but for the time and money spent (i hired a lens for £70 as well), minus the money on the print. I made about 90p per hour for that wedding.

I said before, and i'll say again, the client see that they pay £500 for an an hour, but that's if the photographer just turns up on the day, takes 100 pictures, and gets home and burn every shot into a CD. Not if he is worth his salt and be a professional, do processing, albums, and video slideshow etc.

for what you probably paid i'd throw that photo in the guys face a photo of someone in the background taking a photo just spoils it. he should photoshop her camera out!

matt_fsr · 6 Apr 2009 at 13:03

My girlfriend was thinking about getting into wedding photography, did a lot of research into it and found out how much work is required - which as several people have said, is a lot!

She did the photography for a friends wedding around 2 years ago, talked with them about what shots she wanted etc - then on the day, the bride was a nightmare! She would look at ANYTHING other than the proper camera.... people's phones, antique 35mm cameras... just not the damn dSLR on a tripod! :mad:

I went along as backup with a standard digicam as backup incase of catastrophic failure, and managed to get 1 of the best shots of the day - I just turned, and snapped one of the groom and his young lad - no preparation or anything. Don't think I have a copy of that handy, but theres a decent one of inside the church (horrible lighting conditions) here:

I dont think she wants to do weddings any more though - far too stressful!

I'd say if you think £500 is too much, just get a family member to do it and you'll be just as happy and £500 better off (give or take a few £ for albums, prints etc) If you want a professional record of the day, be prepared to pay some proper money.

Raymond Lin · 6 Apr 2009 at 13:07

^^ sorry but that shot isn't that great, it's slanted, its under exposed, and slightly out of focus.

Raymond Lin · 6 Apr 2009 at 13:09

arknor said:
for what you probably paid i'd throw that photo in the guys face a photo of someone in the background taking a photo just spoils it. he should photoshop her camera out!

That's the point of candids, and my style. You capture the moment, i don't photoshop someone out, because that's what happened and that'll stay in it.

knowlesy · 6 Apr 2009 at 13:10

Raymond Lin said:
I prefer Jessica Claire and The Image is Found myself. Particularly the latter.

some good photos on her site

matt_fsr · 6 Apr 2009 at 13:43

Raymond Lin said:
^^ sorry but that shot isn't that great, it's slanted, its under exposed, and slightly out of focus.

Exactly

Not sure why it isnt level, must have been a pre-processing shot, she only put a few online just as an overview, there was a proper album done but nothing hugely fancy.

I'm sure you'd have made a far better job of it, but this was her first event.

She's much happier in a wildlife-based job now though

Too much stress in wedding photography.

Energize · 6 Apr 2009 at 17:46

Jotun said:
I think the RAW files wouldn't be much use to 99% of the people paying for photographs though. Chances are they won't even have the software installed to open the file. Even if they do, why would they want to redo the processing done by their professional photographer which they've already paid for? Surely it'd make more sense to ask for a full size jpeg than the RAW files. All they'll want is something they can take down to boots or upload to a printing service and click go, not have to reprocess every photo first. There's not much point adding an extra few hundred quid onto prices for something that almost all of your customers don't care about. It'll just drive them away to someone offering a lower price without the RAW files.

Sorry when I say raw I mean the final uncompressed image, (obv for me there is no unprocessed version so raw and uncompressed are the same). It doesn't necessarily need to be in the raw format, just uncompressed, a .bmp or .png image will allow it to be opened by anyone and still have 100% quality, that's what I give out rather than a lower quality jpeg version.

jamoor · 6 Apr 2009 at 18:55

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gimiDBAK2wA