Advice for booking wedding photographer

[Scottland]

Hi,

Myself and my fiancée are getting married in August 2016, and are in the process of finding a photographer. We've come across a couple we like, but having never done this before I've got a few questions I wanted to ask, and as I figure as there's a few photographers on here it would be a good place to ask...


What's typical for deposit/payment? Not in terms of cost, but we've seen some people want 50% deposit now and the rest xx weeks before the wedding, whereas others have asked for a couple of hundred upfront only.

Some of the photographers we've seen have most of their images in the same style of post-processing, I would assume most would have no qualms about us asking for a different style of processing? Or should we try and find a photographer who's style more matches what we'd prefer?

We'd quite like a short 5-10 minute video doing, but don't really want a full length video or the costs of having a videographer for the day. Do many photographers offer some video coverage as well? We're not looking to cut corners, but we literally just want a highlights video and it seems silly to spend quite a lot of money on a separate videographer for just that, we'd probably rather do without.

We're quite happy to just get pictures on a USB stick so we can choose our own for an album, and a public album (e.g. Flickr) to share with friends and family. We might decide to edit a couple ourselves to suit, is it out of bounds to ask for the raw images as well as the processed jpegs?


Appreciate any feedback or advice

 

[Raymond Lin]

Find a photographer with the style that you like, period. Do not ask them to change their style. It's like asking a sushi chef to cook you Italian, it's just doesn't make sense. If you want Italian, go to a good Italian chef.

There is no rule on deposits, and it's something you can negotiate between you and the tog.

Some tog offer videos, some don't, but those that who do will be at a costs. It's a different skill set and something you would have to pay extra for.

As for RAW, you can ask, but most will say no. Nothing stopping you asking. These will normally come at a cost extra though if they do release them.

Other things to ask for is ask to see a whole set of photos, not the best of.

Hope that helps.

 

[Scottland]

Find a photographer with the style that you like, period. Do not ask them to change their style. It's like asking a sushi chef to cook you Italian, it's just doesn't make sense. If you want Italian, go to a good Italian chef.

This was my thought too, like I said though - it's not they style of the images they're capturing it's just the post processing style.

Some tog offer videos, some don't, but those that who do will be at a costs. It's a different skill set and something you would have to pay extra for.

Yeah, expected to pay extra but haven't found that many that actively offer both so wasn't sure if many did it at all.

As for RAW, you can ask, but most will say no. Nothing stopping you asking. These will normally come at a cost extra though if they do release them.

I figured as much, just the inner geek in me wanting to play in photoshop. Probably wouldn't use them anyway when it came down to it

Hope that helps.

It does, thanks

 

[Raymond Lin]

Don't ask them to change processing style either, I know I wouldn't because it's more than click a button, there is a skill knowing how to get images consistently looking the same throughout the day in different lighting conditions. A different processing is a new learning curve, and it will inevitable result in sub standard work, at least not without lots of practice to perfect it, and you don't want your photos to be the guinea pig.

Also ask for how long their shooting time is, and would those be good enough for you.

 

[PU7E]

As Raymond said really, processing style is a bigger part of it then you might think. I've recently started to really develop my post processing skill and what I've learnt is it's really hard to replicate a style or type of post processing you just either don't like or don't have a feel/eye for it.

In short go for someone where you like both the style of shooting and the post processing, the rest really has already been covered

 

[D.P.]

You might find photogrpaher a that is happy to use different processing styles. E.g. If you really like B&W and the tog you are interested only does a few B&W then nothing stops you asking to have a higher ratio. A good photographer can proces different styles and more importantly should be honest with you and tell you that e.g. He is not good at processing B&W. However, as Raymond point out, it is safer to pick a tog that has a look you like, because then there is no chance that he is loving to get custom and there is less risk.


Some togs won't mind giving RAWs because it saves them processing, others will give exposure and WB corrected full res jpegs. My older sister got RAWs and another good friend got the jpegs. Both saved a bit of cash by doing this. However, Many won't be happy because the processing style is part of what they are selling. So,e might argue that they don't want someone making ugly processed images but this is a bit of a misnomer because nothign stops people processing the jpegs they receive anyway.

Don't underestimate how long it takes to process images and how difficult it is to get good consistent results. Getting unprocessed images is only worth it for people that really know what they are doing. My sister and her husband are both photographers and they actually do some weddings themselves now. He makes a lot of money selling images on Getty. My friend that did similar is also an accomplished photographer.

You don't want to spend a month loosing your evenings processing. Been there, done that.

 

[AHarvey]

I don't know many wedding photographers that are willing to change shooting or editing style. I shoot for B&W and I like bright and strong colors too. A lot of wedding photographers use a washed out lightroom preset which I'm not a huge fan of myself.

I also wouldn't be trusting a photographer who gives RAW either, if they are willing to hand over the negative for you to edit yourself it shows that they take little pride in their own work. I had a client take a lovely photo and edit the hell out of it with cheap presets, result looked like something from 40 years ago, soft and quite frankly **** so I had to comment on it stating it wasn't my editing.

As Raymond says, 3 things to consider:

1) Do you like their style?
2) Do they offer the services you want within your budget?
3) Are they within budget?

Make sure they have insurance, some venues require it.

Don't be pulled in by "Member of X wedding photographers association" comments on sites, a large majority are simple annual membership payments with zero requirements for a skill level.

As for video, I don't know any local to me that do stills and video, it's a different ball game and requires a different approach to editing etc. It's something I am looking at myself but its a lot to take it and equipment to get. If you do want video, ask if any friends have an GoPro's, set them up around the wedding and leave them. Better than nothing.

I like to do a slideshow of images of the day, it's thrown in the package and is kind of a highlight real of the day. Very popular. Ask any photographers what extra's they offer and be clear what is part of the original package.

 

[divuk83]

Before you agree to anything look at the website and actually meet the photographer and have a chat about it. It's one thing to be able to take pictures, quite another to be a wedding photographer. I have met grumpy ones that bark orders at people, a good wedding photographer can arrange all the photos they want by being friendly and chatty rather than just telling people where they want them. It's worth adding that just because the can cobble together a professional website it doesn't make them a wedding photographer, neither does owning a full frame camera and a load of fast lenses.

We chose our wedding photographer based largely on the style of photo, then found he wasn't available however he recommend another photographer who was, thankfully after meeting him he was really good and we liked his style. I think I declared my hatred of selective colouring and photos taken at a jaunty angles but that was about all I specified. Oh I think I jokingly made out that I was disappointed when I found out he shot Cannon (I'm a Nikon man). We chose a package that basically got us a DVD with the non watermarked, full size jpeg files and no albums or other stuff. JPEG is fine for me as they are not my photos, they are photos of me and if I didn't like what I got then perhaps I should have chosen a different photographer. Any prints we wanted could be made by ourselves. We did get several books and lots of prints made for relatives and probably saved a fortune by doing them ourselves. Albums and books are very expensive for something that you will just stick on a bookshelf and only look at occasionally.

Good luck.

Dave

 

[DBT85]

My wedding tog gave me the raws when I asked and for no additional charge as we were talking about my burgeoning interest in photography. He also did all his own edits and supplied the JPGs for those (about 500). That was 5 years ago though.

 

[D.P.]

I also wouldn't be trusting a photographer who gives RAW either, if they are willing to hand over the negative for you to edit yourself it shows that they take little pride in their own work. I had a client take a lovely photo and edit the hell out of it with cheap presets, result looked like something from 40 years ago, soft and quite frankly **** so I had to comment on it stating it wasn't my editing.

Nothing stops them doing that with a processed JPEG, the only difference being the results might be even worse, so that argument is completely invalid.

Unless you only provide prints then there isn't much you can do about it.even then if they are determined they will scan them anyway.


I actually think it looks bad on the photographer if they aren't willing to give away RAWs. Are their straight out of camera images actually any good? Do they have to do extensive corrections of exposure, white balance, composition, framing, etc. Do they rely on a heavy processing workload or strong preset actions to try to make their photos shine? I liken photography to other arts, say playing the guitar. A good musician can make a basic acoustic guitar sound phenomenal, and they may be able to make an electric guitar with a lot of effects peddles really sing but the raw essence of music was there to begin with in the unadulterated unplugged version.


It doesn't make sense for most people but if you are photographer yourself, you know how to process images, you have your own style etc then it can make sense. It can also work out cheaper because it saves the photographer a lot of time. Both people I know who got RAWs saved quite a chunk of cash doing it that way.

 

[An Exception]

^^^
If a photographer was an amateur shooting a wedding for a friend then yes, it would possibly appear unreasonable to withhold RAW files.

However the comment AHarvey made regarding pride is correct. What I have noticed is that photographers who are willing to hand over RAW files are either amateurs or entry level pro's. From what I can tell, there are very few exceptional photographers that will hand over their RAW files. I'm assuming they become exceptional photographers (as well as other reasons) because they take a great deal of pride in their work. Such a person't wouldn't want others to see their work in an unfinished state.

Regarding what you say about strait out of camera images being any good. What actually matters from the perspective of a client is what the pictures look like when the photographer hands them over. Of course if you book a photographer who is producing work of a high standard, then it's also likely his RAW files will also be above average.

To echo Raymond, if a couple find a photographer and his/her work isn't quit what they are looking for, they should move on. They will likely be much happier with their pictures if they look for a photographer who's work they love and ask for more of the same.

 

[Genoma]

My wedding tog gave me the RAWs and XMPs for his work, something I hugely appreciate given that I now have the highest possible quality backups for my digital photos. If anything it's one set of photos that I haven't tweaked.

 

[Russinating]

You won't get a photographer that offers a video too, ie one person on the day doing both. It just doesn't work. Is he supposed to shoot or your film your vows, kiss etc? Plus the rest of it. And half the cost of a video is in the editing anyway so the most you'll be 'saving' is half.

If you want a video then spend a decent amount and get it done properly or don't bother and spend the money elsewhere/save it. A half-hearted attempt will be pointless and you just won't watch it.

 

[D.P.]

^^^
If a photographer was an amateur shooting a wedding for a friend then yes, it would possibly appear unreasonable to withhold RAW files.

However the comment AHarvey made regarding pride is correct. What I have noticed is that photographers who are willing to hand over RAW files are either amateurs or entry level pro's. From what I can tell, there are very few exceptional photographers that will hand over their RAW files. I'm assuming they become exceptional photographers (as well as other reasons) because they take a great deal of pride in their work. Such a person't wouldn't want others to see their work in an unfinished state.

Regarding what you say about strait out of camera images being any good. What actually matters from the perspective of a client is what the pictures look like when the photographer hands them over. Of course if you book a photographer who is producing work of a high standard, then it's also likely his RAW files will also be above average.

To echo Raymond, if a couple find a photographer and his/her work isn't quit what they are looking for, they should move on. They will likely be much happier with their pictures if they look for a photographer who's work they love and ask for more of the same.

The photographer for my sisters wedding charged £2700 and is a renowned wedding photographer in Scotland that despite trying to book 3 years in advance they ended up shifting their wedding date to get a weekend where he wasn't booked. That price includes a discount for handing of RAWs and not having to processing them, and he also didn't photograph the reception, that duty fell to me.

Your argument is bogus. As I have repeatedly said, nothing stops a client from doing some ghastly processing of the provided jpegs so there is nothing more to fear from giving them RAWs.

 

[An Exception]

Out of curiosity, have you got a link to his site?

 

[a1ex2001]

As Raymond says, 3 things to consider:

1) Do you like their style?
2) Do they offer the services you want within your budget?
3) Are they within budget?

Missed the key thing for me:
- Do you like them as people?

You spend an awful lot of time in the company of your photographer on the day and they will interact with your guest throughout so pick someone you get on with an feel relaxed around.

We went to meet about 4 togs in our area we chose the ones to meet based on style, price and availability but the final decision was easy because we really like the couple who eventually got the job they were like having extra guests who just happened to be amazing photographers

 

[Scottland]

Thanks for all the replies guys.

Don't underestimate how long it takes to process images and how difficult it is to get good consistent results. Getting unprocessed images is only worth it for people that really know what they are doing. My sister and her husband are both photographers and they actually do some weddings themselves now. He makes a lot of money selling images on Getty. My friend that did similar is also an accomplished photographer.

Oh, I know how long it takes - we don't want the unprocessed images to do ourselves, but in addition to the processed jpgs that we want the photographer to do - that's a large part of it I know. To be honest the raw thing was more curiosity than anything, it would be nice to have them in addition but absolutely not that bothered about it and certainly wouldn't affect our decision.

I don't know many wedding photographers that are willing to change shooting or editing style. I shoot for B&W and I like bright and strong colors too. A lot of wedding photographers use a washed out lightroom preset which I'm not a huge fan of myself.

We've seen this, the 'vintage' look. I don't like it, and we've come across some photographers that really over use it. Also the big, bold, vivid colour thing, not our cup of tea - we just want nice, natural, balanced pictures.

You won't get a photographer that offers a video too, ie one person on the day doing both. It just doesn't work. Is he supposed to shoot or your film your vows, kiss etc? Plus the rest of it. And half the cost of a video is in the editing anyway so the most you'll be 'saving' is half.

If you want a video then spend a decent amount and get it done properly or don't bother and spend the money elsewhere/save it. A half-hearted attempt will be pointless and you just won't watch it.

Some photographers will shoot with a partner, so I wasn't sure if this would allow some video options. We don't really want a 60min+ feature film, only a small highlights video, so we'd rather not have one at all then pay ~£1500-2000 for a specific videographer when we only want a 5-10 min vid. As you say, there's plenty of other places we can spend that money!

 

[Raymond Lin]

A small highlights will require hours of film due to editing, otherwise you'll get 3 mins of real time footage which will be naff to put it bluntly.

 

[Raymond Lin]

To give you an example, this is one of the weddings I photographed in 2014, I was there from like 9am to midnight. The videographer was there for around 11am to 11pm.

The video is 3:30 long, there were 2 of them, all day shoot. So that's a lot of footage for 3 min and 30 seconds of highlights.

See if you can spot me in 2 of the scenes lol





https://vimeo.com/117476946

 

[AHarvey]

We've seen this, the 'vintage' look. I don't like it, and we've come across some photographers that really over use it. Also the big, bold, vivid colour thing, not our cup of tea - we just want nice, natural, balanced pictures.

Yep that's the look, I know lots that do it too but it just doesn't feel right to me.

When I say vivid colours, check out Raymonds above, that's the kind of thing I do and like. Makes it look like a great vibrant day.

If you go to far though it just looks over processed and **** which is probably what you don't like