Advice for booking wedding photographer

[An Exception]

Snip..

Nice pictures Raymond.
Just out of curiosity, was it the videographer who suggested they practice their first dance outside?

 

[Raymond Lin]

I say this with the best of intentions and I think it needs to be said in manage the OP's expectation in a positive way.

I get the feeling that the OP underestimates vastly the amount of work involved in both photography and videography. The video I have linked to gives you an example of what 12 hours of footage (or 24 hours as they had 2 cameras) comes down to after 6 months of editing (take into account you are not the only client). Also the idea that a photographer can just change his style of processing on the whim of the client's suggestion is easier said than done.

I am not a videographer but looking at that example will give you an idea how much work is involved, note a lot of the shots are a few second then cut to either another angle or another scene. Editing is a very difficult skillset, there is a dedicated category in the Oscars for it. Very easy to say a few minutes of highlights from the photographer's assistance, all the while he shoots the wedding as well.

If you don't mind something substandard, sure. But for something even half decent, it takes not only skill, but man hours, and lots of equipment.

As for the RAW debate, 2 sides to this. The artist and the economist. As an artist I will never release them, but as an economist, if you pay me enough, you can even have the copyright.

I fully appreciate the urges of wanting the RAW, but if I were getting married, I'd pay someone who I love, get the photos, and may be get the book and be happy. I want to look at them through the eyes of someone else whose work I adore. If I want them to look at it my way then I would hire someone who shoots like me. So in away by tinkering with the RAW suggests you are not happy with the photographer's work in the first place…which begs the question if you had hired the right guy for the job.

As for back up, if you have high quality Jpeg, that is enough. I would never look back at the RAW of any images once I have edited them, because it just looks flat.

However, I do know some togs do release them, for a fee, Sal Cincotta releases them, I think it's at a cost of like $800, that is on top of his already high pricing, about $5k for Chicago and $10k for NYC. His reasoning is that people can't replicate his processing, so what they do with them will not be as good as his and he don't see it as a problem. I see where he is coming from, especially when he already have $10k in the bank ! He is also right in that his processing (which he outsources) is quite photoshopped and its more than just photoshop skills you are paying for, it is his vision on how to get an average photo looking amazing.

Now, on that point, one might argue, "hey, you can now judge a tog's skill from his RAW on how good he is". Well, what if part of the skill set is knowing what he can do from a grey gloomy sky and make it look like a fairy tale, but yet believable. There is a vision there, and that's why you hire the photographer, for his eye, in taking the photo and also in the editing.

Anyway, what is important is hire someone you are 100% happy with, there are a lot of photographers out there, in all sorts of price bracket. Price is not an 100% indicative of quality. And make sure they are nice people too, someone who you can work with, and happy to have around. He is the only person you employ that day which will be there the longest so it is important you guys are on the same page.

Nice pictures Raymond.
Just out of curiosity, was it the videographer who suggested they practice their first dance outside?

Thanks, He did actually. I find videographers to be more "directive" to the couple than I normally do. They would ask them to act out scenes just for a 15 second shot. Look this way, that way. Moments which I ordinarily would be documenting and where I would more often than not wait for that moment or move in position to get that angle. They would ask and get the short instead.

I actually learned quite a lot from them, in there is no harm sometimes to direct the couple for certain documentary moments. Not drastically but tiny little things, like sit in a certain angle, don't sit in the corner when doing make up etc.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Dp

 

[An Exception]

Thanks, He did actually. I find videographers to be more "directive" to the couple than I normally do. They would ask them to act out scenes just for a 15 second shot. Look this way, that way. Moments which I ordinarily would be documenting and where I would more often than not wait for that moment or move in position to get that angle. They would ask and get the short instead.

Same here Raymond. FWIW if a couple are also booking a videographer. Then way before the wedding I ask the couple if I can have them for 20 minutes (usually at golden hour) without the videographer being present.

The reason is I find the experience flows better and the pictures come out more natural and authentic. If the videographer is present, then the photography becomes compromised to varying degrees due to the following reasons.

Firstly. Not always but most of the time the videographer directs way more then I would. The problem for me is the couple are in an 'acting headspace' rather than being more natural and having a good time.

Secondly. If you want to get allot of compositional variation in a short space of time, you can't without the videographer being in the way. If you have to ask the video guy to move more to the side so they are not in your frame. It kills the flow/vibe for lack of a better word, which then affects the 'genuine moments' you are trying to capture.

 

[Russinating]

Thanks, He did actually. I find videographers to be more "directive" to the couple than I normally do. They would ask them to act out scenes just for a 15 second shot. Look this way, that way. Moments which I ordinarily would be documenting and where I would more often than not wait for that moment or move in position to get that angle. They would ask and get the short instead.

I actually learned quite a lot from them, in there is no harm sometimes to direct the couple for certain documentary moments. Not drastically but tiny little things, like sit in a certain angle, don't sit in the corner when doing make up etc.

Bit of a generalisation; we hardly speak to our couples unless needed, beyond the introduction etc, and we've had mother's ask if we turned up because they haven't noticed us.

No matter what anyone says you can't capture a natural shot via video if it's set, and either way there's no memory to the moment if it is directed. We want our couples to watch a film, see themselves laughing and think "I remember that joke! He was talking about XYZ etc.." not "oh, remember when we lost 10 minutes of our day because we were made to dance outside".

Obviously every couple has their own preferences but at the end of the day it's a wedding not a film shoot, and if someone actively wants to do a load of set and directed shots then I find that a bit odd.

Interestingly about 50% of our bookings now are recommendations from photographers, which says something as to the working relationship and lack of interference.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Well, it's all said from my experience. And I only said 15 seconds here and there, not Lawrence of Arabia.

You seem to taken that a bit too personally Russ!

 

[Russinating]

I did? Wasn't intended, sorry! From what I can tell we're more in line with the way you work?

We obviously never work with any other videographers so it's interesting, we certainly hear a lot of horror stories.

 

[Scottland]

..snip

It's not that I underestimate it, it's just that I don't know what people do and don't 'offer'. We've spoken to a few videographers who quoted for a ~60min film and a small highlights video, but we only want the latter - hence the query here

Similarly we've come across a couple of photographers' websites that say they will do both. If that means they're likely to be more jack of all trades, that's all we want to know really...

As for processing style, I completely understand what's been said - like I said it's what I thought too I just wanted to hear from some of the photographers on here for reassurance.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

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.

so day light robbery then?
Ridiculous price - If Chase did weddings I doubt even he would charge that much for so little content.

 

[Russinating]

I know photographers who charge upwards of £3,500 and they're pretty fully booked!

 

[An Exception]

I know photographers who charge upwards of £3,500 and they're pretty fully booked!

Do you know any that charge £2700 for half a day, no editing shoot and burn?

 

[squerble]

I'm only just starting out (hobby) but I can't imagine leaving myself in a position of trust on someone's wedding day. What if you don't perform (have a really bad day)? Big pressure

 

[An Exception]

At some point you just have to trust yourself.

 

[D.P.]

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

I'm 90% sure it is David Ho,
http://davidho.co.uk/my-wedding-fee/
I mostly just remember the conversation with my sister about booking and the costs.

Shooting included the usual wedding prep of bride, arrivals at church, cero,only, a load of odor so groups and couple shots with family and closets frinds, and then a 2 hour shoot where he drove them IO into the mountain for better scenery, and then back for an hour or so of the reception, cake cutting and first dance. He then left.

There was also an anaggement shoot done the year before included.

All photos were full resolution jpegs that were exposure and WB corrected. He edited some thing like a dozen of his favorite shots that were handed out the next day.

Do you know any that charge £2700 for half a day, no editing shoot and burn?

See above, it's not a half day, he just didn't stay until midnight. Probably 7-8 hours which is probably longer than the base 6 hours most togs seem to charge at.

so day light robbery then?
Ridiculous price - If Chase did weddings I doubt even he would charge that much for so little content.

No, good photographers are expensive. I've been researching wedding togs in my local area because I have been approached by an events organizer if I want to shoot some weddings, I doubt I will but I want to find a price.

Good but not ex personal photographers are chargung $3500-5000. I've seen some at $7-8K. And this is a relatively cheap part of the US, you can double that for New York.

Both my sister and brother in law are passionate about photography. He actually quit his daytime job to run a photography related bussiness. They know what is good and couldn't settle for less.

It was similar for my wedding, I couldn't find good togs for less that £2-3k gbp, combined with the logistics of getting them over to Germany it just didn't make sense to me so my sister and brother in law stepped in and did a fine job.


If you just want some photos of the event there are plenty of sub 800pound weddings out there that can take generic lifeless photos.

 

[peige]

so day light robbery then?
Ridiculous price - If Chase did weddings I doubt even he would charge that much for so little content.

Your paying for a skilled person to do there job well and their work doesn't end when you go home.
Like anything, you decide how much you want to pay and look for somebody in your budget, or you decide if your willing to pay for the photographer that you want.

I've been to two weddings that used the same guy and he was nice enough but his photos had nothing about them, i'd even say that some of the photos I took in the evening were better (I never took one while it was doing his job) but he was a budget guy and both of the wedding subjects liked the photo albums he created, maybe I just don't like his style!

Somebody skilled sees things and opportunities your average photographer doesn't and can lift them into a picture that stuns. If that's what you want then you have to pay. Its not just about the equipment, its a skillset of seeing a picture and being able to capture it ether right at that moment or using software to bring out the best in that picture.

 

[An Exception]

he also didn't photograph the reception, that duty fell to me.

he drove them IO into the mountain for better scenery, and then back for an hour or so of the reception, cake cutting and first dance. He then left.

 

[D.P.]

dp

 

[D.P.]

I don't see a contradiction. He shot something like 30-45minutes of the reception and then sat and had dinner as a guest, 1-2 hours later he photographed the cake cutting and first dance, say 15 minutes, and promptly left. So about an hour of reception time.

For 2 hours of the reception he wasn't even there, haven taken the couple to the countryside for a private photo shoot in a more attractive location. He returned, had dinner, shot the 1st dance and left early in the evening, like 7 or 8pm, long before the ceilidh band even turned up. So as I said, I shot the reception from first champagne, through all the dances to the final Orcadian strip the willow,with all the speeches in between.

 

[An Exception]

To say a photographer didn't shoot the reception, normally means he didn't actually shoot at the reception and almost certainly wouldn't have shot the speeches, the cutting of the cake and first dance. If you had said he shot a staged or mock cake cutting and first dance then maybe you would have a leg to stand on.

Confronted with your contradictions you are moving the goalposts and are now saying the photographer didn't shoot 'long enough' at the reception, even though it would seem he shot at the reception and covered what is considered standard by most people.

 

[D.P.]

To say a photographer didn't shoot the reception, normally means he didn't actually shoot at the reception and almost certainly wouldn't have shot the speeches, the cutting of the cake and first dance. If you had said he shot a staged or mock cake cutting and first dance then maybe you would have a leg to stand on.

Confronted with your contradictions you are moving the goalposts and are now saying the photographer didn't shoot 'long enough' at the reception, even though it would seem he shot at the reception and covered what is considered standard by most people.

I think you are arguing semantics.
When i say he didn't photograph the reception I mean he didn't do any of the following:

1. Arrival, champagne opening
2. Guests interacting
3. Speeches
4. Any dancing with the band
5. The reception hall, set tables, decor, flowers, details of the knife, food/banquet spread and all the standard fair etc.

That may be standard for you and your clique to charge extra for but plenty of wedding photographers will include that in their wedding. I've seen plenty of photos from the likes of Raymond of people dancing etc.


Anyway, this is all entirely off topic. The point is plenty of good wedding photographers will give RAW or corrected Jpegs to clients. I know of 2 wedding togs that gave unprocessed photos, DBT85 and Genoma both also got RAW files. When I was researching wedding togs for my wedding I asked about RAWs. Most didn't say either way and declined because I requested them to travel to Germany (under my expense) but I know at least one said yes.

You seem to make it out as if it is never done. I'm merely pointing out that it is likely more common than you think. I understand why some togs like yourself don't and I don't have an issue with that. I have also supported the case for getting processed photos from a tog you like the look of and to avoid getting only RAW photos unless you know what you are letting yourself in for.

I certainly have no issue giving away the RAW files to my paying clients. The way I see it they have paid for the photos and have every right to the originals. The fact that many togs don't I see a hangover form the film days where the tog kept the negatives and charged for prints, that was the business model. Nowadays good wedding photographers don't make profit by selling prints to the wedding guests and give the ability of the wedding couple and guests to print as many photos as they like from the processed jpegs. Thus the idea of withholding RAW files has no business value IMO. it certainly doesn't prevent clients processing your images into some grotesque selective-colour or OTT HDR disaster.