Wedding photographer nightmare

I somewhat agree with Doddy. I always explained to my customers exactly what I was providing as a minimum, and at what point additional charges were incurred etc., so I do think the tog was somewhat lax based on the info we have here anyway.

By the same token I'd have thought anyone spending the sort of money that wedding photography costs would have gone to greater pains to make sure they knew what they were getting for their money.

It rather looks as though an unpleasant situation has arisen because of a basic lack of communication and understanding.
 
It certainly does sound as though the professional photographer ought to have set some clearer expectations.

I too am self employed, and for me this is a must. I always set clear, pragmatic and realistic expectations with my clients. Customer service is so vitally important for a successful business, many self employed people seem not so much to forget this, but rather don't even realise it!

I value with pride the good name of my company, my integrity and professionalism in what I do, and my relationship with my clients. I would think that most professional self employed photographers here would be the same but it seems this chap probably doesn't.
 
I will agree that it looks absolutely like a basic lack of communication.

As a first-time wedding photographer shopper, the client was very lax on asking questions to be sure of his investment. The client assumed what he would be receiving, and was quite incorrect.

As a professional, the photog should have been clear about what was included in the price. However, the photog could not have possibly known what the client expected, since the client never stated any expectations nor asked any questions.

If you agreed to buy a car sight unseen without asking any questions as to the make or model you'd be getting, you can't hold the seller entirely responsible when you end up with a '74 Plymouth for your money. ;)

- CJ
 
A '74 Plymouth isn't good then Cheryl? :D
 
LOL. The answer was better than the question. :lol:

I don't got one - 'onda man myself. ;)
 
Interesting thread this one. The Tog sounds like a weekend warrior to me.:bonk:

Sorry to sound harsh to the couple but when you pay for anything do you not check out what yu are precisely paying for?? You've brought this on yourselves I am afraid. Everybody wants something for nothing, and recent years has seen the frankly appalling negotiations on prices for wedding photography. It's absurd, you get one chance of a bite of this cherry, and couples treat it like they are pouring over the reduced shelves at Asda. It is precisely this conduct that has brought about the weekend warrior who simply do not know what they are doing and have brough the industry into disrepute, whilst genuine professionals have gone to the wall, so I have little sympathy. You get what you pay for and in this instance you didn't have the wherewithal to check what what you were receiving. For your wedding photos. Madness.
As for the so called photographer, drag him into court for breach of implied contract if he or she fails to provide to you what you paid for. If the photographer is not even able to leave proofs with you then they are a fraud. I regularly leave proofs with people for months on end. The proofs do the rounds through the family for anything up to 12 months. Some come back within a few weeks. I make it very clear that I own copyright in law and each proof carries my copyright assertion on the rear of each print. Anyone seeking to reproduce their own prints and any printing service that does so is in breach of copyright and liable consequently.
Copyright law is not punative unfortunately, it merely restores the parties to a position that would have existed had copyright been observed. ie if I find you have illegally copied ny work for profit, or at my loss, without my explicit permission, you will be liable for my losses which amount to what you would have paid anyway. So breaching copyright is a no-brainer, and severely hinders those that do as 'good faith' (ie when I leave proofs with a couple) is breached. That doesn't look good in court and scuppers virtually any case you may or may not have had. The solicitors may not tell you this of course, and you will be liable for their costs too, as well as my solicitors costs, and I always sue where breaches occurr. I don't steal from others and steal my work and I'll come after you. I think that's perfectly reasonable.
As for the fella further up the thread talking about day rates, if you create an image you own it's copyright, unless you have signed a contract relinquishing copyright. Check any contract. The general rule on day rates is that they include use of YOUR images for a 'reasonable period'. This has been tested in court and is established to be between one and two years. If a client is still using the same images in year three you are perfectly entitled to charge them again for useage rights. And for each year beyond that. If they wont pay you can assert copyright and refuse permission for them to use them. Needless to say for this to operate, your annual charge needs to be in the context of day rates and what it will cost them to produce new images. Cost is always the bottom line.
For Wedding Photography, I have NEVER issued a contract, and would not work with a couple demanding one. Maybe I am just becoming quaint and old fashioned, but a wedding is more than a financial transaction. I am a creative person, good at what I do, and I will always deliver the very best for couples. This arrangement operates on a bsis of trust, professionalism and an environment which is condusive to the production of good quality photography. If you 'barter' with a photographer, screwing down his price, he or she is unlikely to produce their best work for you. The whole business operates on good relations. If you cannot afford to get married, ie engage professionals, save up until you can. And do it properly. Your lasting images of what should be one of the most important days of your life are now embroiled in a public forum discussion on UK Copyright law. I doubt that is what you intended. If you want really cheap wedding photos, there is a fella on ebay who advertisers for £99. Once you've paid him online, I understand he advises the £99 is merely a deposit against his professional rates that start at £1500 and presents those withdrawing with a bill for £1401 threatening litigation for breach of contract. Anyone still really want 'cheap' wedding photos?:D
On a practical level, you need to discuss his compensation for relinquishing copyright. Why you need copyright isn't clear, but if you expect to get photos for free it is no wonder the Tog is mucking you around either. Offer him or her £1000 or get on and choose your prints for goodness sake.
This thread has caused me to feel angry, when I really should be going to bed. Why is it some people think getting a 'deal' is actually more important than the wedding photography they so seem to want? 'Kin idiots to themselves frankly. Great, got a great deal on the photography but the images and album are 5hit.( and in this case they couldn't even see proofs). Well done :eek:
 
I'll take exception to a few little items above.

If the photographer is not even able to leave proofs with you then they are a fraud. I regularly leave proofs with people for months on end.
Click to expand...

I do not leave proofs with my clients. I can assure you I am not a fraud. The reasons I do not leave proofs:

- I find that many people simply cannot resist the urge to scan the proofs. They may intend to print them, they may intend to share them via the web, whatever. Early on, I had one client xerox the proofs and frame the xerox copies! Needless to say, I didn't make a dime on those clients, and it is far too costly to attempt to take them to court for copyright infringement.

- I find that the proof process can be very overwhelming for people, hence people holding on to proofs for months on end without ordering. By not leaving proofs with my clients, I have the ability to help them through the tough process of deciding what they need to tell the story of their day (or their portrait session. As a matter of interest, I am now totally proofless when I shoot weddings -- the first the couple sees of their wedding photos is in a completed album. They LOVE it.)\

There are many ways of doing business; yours is not the only valid way.

For Wedding Photography, I have NEVER issued a contract, and would not work with a couple demanding one. Maybe I am just becoming quaint and old fashioned, but a wedding is more than a financial transaction. I am a creative person, good at what I do, and I will always deliver the very best for couples. This arrangement operates on a bsis of trust, professionalism and an environment which is condusive to the production of good quality photography.
Click to expand...

I would advise anyone who shoots or is considering shooting weddings to ALWAYS have a contract, period, the end. Having a contract does not reduce a wedding to a financial transaction. It simply ensures that everyone knows all the policies and agreements in place, and eliminates all sorts of possible pitfalls later. Not every photographer is ethical, and not every client is reasonable. Unfortunately, you often cannot tell the difference until it is too late. If I happen to get a holy terror of a wedding client, I do not want them to end up owning my house because they didn't want so-and-so in their photos.

Having a contract also does NOT decrease the amount of trust a client has in the photographer, and it certainly does not excuse the photographer from always doing top quality work.

- CJ
 
I never provided proofs to customers either. These days it isn't a question of IF they'll take liberties with them - more a question of how big those liberties will be. I always provided my customers with ALL the finished prints, and as it happens, the price of the negs was included in the price. I didn't keep the negs because I didn't want to be bothered quite honestly with the dribs and drabs of reprints which you usually get.

All my weddings were done on film - I've never actually done a digital wedding, but how much easier it is these days, and small wonder that there are a lot of cowboys out there and people prepared to call themselves wedding photographers who wouldn't dream of tackling a wedding without the comfort of the preview screen, and shooting literally hundreds of shots on the basis that an acceptable number will be good ones, given a little luck and enough time spent in Photoshop.

I can sympathise with J Roberts point of view entirely - it's an unfortunate side effect of the digital explosion. I'm a complete digital convert, but unfortunately there are many, many, people now who never learned the basics before they started handing out their business cards, and in most cases they never really will.
 
on a similar note isn't there than chap that lurks around pretending to be a wedding photographer but is in fact a bit of a cowboy, what was his name again, I forget...?
 
shiato storm said:
on a similar note isn't there than chap that lurks around pretending to be a wedding photographer but is in fact a bit of a cowboy, what was his name again, I forget...?
Click to expand...

I think you're referring to a 'she' who ended up getting banned - several times in different user names. ;)
 
it was a she...ah, the changing user names might have been where the confusion set in.
 
I missed all that......what kind of person pretend to be a wedding photog on the net ?
 
It was photomad who probably had more help and advice in a short period than anyone else in the history of this board. Unfortunately, she didn't accept that she needed it, and just became more and more abusive in her posts. :shrug:
 
What it was Ray, was a person who took her first digital camera out of the box, looked at the shot on the preview screen and declared herself available to the world as a wedding photographer. It sort of touches on some of what we've been discussing in this thread, although it was a pretty extreme case. This particular person's ignorance of all things photographic was total. ;)
 
Heading back towards the thread topic, I booked a wedding a couple of weeks back where the couple had been in the office less than 10mins before they were ready to sign up. I had to slow things down and go through all the details until I was sure they understood what they would and would not get with the deal. Just from my own peace of mind I could never take on a job unless everything was clearly agreed beforehand in order to avoid exactly this kind of situation.

I'm in the middle of re-writing my contracts in plain english and including notes and advice to help the client understand not only what they're paying for but also to get the most from the shoot.

As for proofs I provide contact sheets with reference numbers, a DVD for viewing and just recently online ordering from a private gallery. The contacts are too small for scanning/copying and the DVD doesn't have image files, just video.
 
I think I might bookmark this thread for a certain couple if ever they show their faces to me again ........
 
pxl8 said:
Heading back towards the thread topic, I booked a wedding a couple of weeks back where the couple had been in the office less than 10mins before they were ready to sign up. I had to slow things down and go through all the details until I was sure they understood what they would and would not get with the deal. Just from my own peace of mind I could never take on a job unless everything was clearly agreed beforehand in order to avoid exactly this kind of situation.

I'm in the middle of re-writing my contracts in plain english and including notes and advice to help the client understand not only what they're paying for but also to get the most from the shoot.

As for proofs I provide contact sheets with reference numbers, a DVD for viewing and just recently online ordering from a private gallery. The contacts are too small for scanning/copying and the DVD doesn't have image files, just video.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!

So difficult to know just what is best....

Contracts? Good idea - everybody knows where they stand and what to expect. No doubt that total professionalism is then incumbent on the Photog.

Proofs? Tricky.... too small and the quality is not readily apparent. Too large and they end up being copied. Complete album and the price rockets and, by way of question, who decides what should go in it? What process should be used to decide - discussion, contacts, DVD? Is there an arrorgance if the photog decides it's content?

Negs? Who wants them? I have some from weddings that have ended in divorce 10 years ago! (I know, I should dump them!) Should they (and dig. files) be sold? Then you have CJ's problem. We don't want them shoddily printed.... :(

I could go on all morning..... I know we don't charge enough for what we do (I think that has lot to do with where we are, geographically) we have a 'base price' with a discussion with the couple as to how the costs are added, very much like CT. By far the best solution we have found for client viewing at the moment is the same as pxl8.... on-line, contact sheet and a DVD with video.

Not every wedding is or can be a 'society do' which pays REALLY well. There are some lovely couples out there that deserve being treated well. A respected name is far better than grief for every other shoot. A reputation for being fair, reasonable and providing a good service is worth a great deal of business. But it's a very fine line to walk... :thumbsdown:

Now, how do we deal with this very enthusiastic guy who has sold us to the world and wants every shot we have but hasn't the money to pay what they're worth? :shrug:
 
Just on a side note, it was the mess of our wedding photos that got me interested in photography. I got married in 2003 and we couldn't afford a 'professional' photographer. We knew an old chap who had what he called a 'good digital camera' and had been on a photography course at the local college and wouldn't charge too much.

'Great!' we thought, and duly asked him to do our photos. He told us that he'd learnt how to remove any distracting elements from the photos on his college course and so his photos will be really good. Bearing in mind that up to this point I personally had only used a cheapo one time film camera a few times - but I had interest in all things technical and knew what he was talking about by being able to remove distracting objects on digital files.

We got the proofs to look through and pick out a load of shots, it was when we got them back that it took a turn for the worse. They were printed on crappy paper - I now know that it must be about 80gsm paper - 100gsm at best. The pictures were only 6x4 size and the picture quality was/is frankly crap. Obviously now I know and understand that he must have used a 1mp camera at best - so there are no possibilities of us getting any larger prints from his original files as there isn't the info there to interpolate much more. Also his use of the clone tool is evident, and very distracting - he obviously didn't take much notice on his evening course on how to make it look 'un-noticeable'. We knew no different back then and unfortunately accepted his work at the time.

So to sum up, my/our official wedding photos are naff with no chance of any improvement, and that was the kick I needed to buy my own camera, first off a 5mp Kodak compact, and learn the art of photography. That has now moved onto my Sony Alpha and my first wedding the other week as offical tog, and my second wedding a week on Saturday - this time for my sister, and even though I know I'm not the best (yet!!) at it, I do know that I am better than the person who was mentioned a few posts ago and her 'alter egos'. I would not have touted my services at a wedding if I was using a basic camera like my wedding guy was or indeed you know who.
 
Hi All

Thanks for such an informative debate.

Just a pity I find out all the info after the wedding! Oh well such is life.

cheers
cw
 
Just a pity I find out all the info after the wedding! Oh well such is life.
Click to expand...
I think I can agree with that one wholeheartedly.:bang:
Shame it was so long after.:lol:
 
on a similar note - what does a photographer do when they get married?!?!
I for one would be hyper-critical of anyone now knowing the sort of quality you can achieve...and the results I have personally got. just don't get married and save the hassle? hehe :D :woot:
 
Well the last tme I got married, we had two friends as witnesses - no photos, and went out for a meal and a drink. :D
 
shiato storm said:
on a similar note - what does a photographer do when they get married?!?!
I for one would be hyper-critical of anyone now knowing the sort of quality you can achieve...and the results I have personally got. just don't get married and save the hassle? hehe :D :woot:
Click to expand...

Ha ha..... ! What do TWO photographers do when they get married? Answers on a postcard..... should be able to tell you in April....... ;)

For a start - all images are to be "darkside" only..... and so it goes on.
 
chuckles said:
Hear, hear!

Now, how do we deal with this very enthusiastic guy who has sold us to the world and wants every shot we have but hasn't the money to pay what they're worth? :shrug:
Click to expand...

If I was getting married again, I'd get you guys involved. All this talk of contracts and money it's nice to hear a human voice...
 
Grendel said:
You've just gotta hope they click :D
Click to expand...


:lol:


i just have to say how much i've enjoyed reading this thread, certainly lot's of different thought's flying about, and does make you think if it's worth getting into doing wedding's, although i guess if you get good result's there must be a great deal of personal satisfaction, a mate of mine has asked me to take the photo's of his wedding in febuary,which i've agreed to do :help: it will be a small affair as he is getting married on a very tight budget, and he know's i'm very much a novice tog and not done one before, but he seen some pic's i took at an engagement party a few week's ago and was very impressed,just to add i won't be charging him anything as it will be a favor, and he did say if i did'ent do them he would'ent be able to afford to hire one anyway, so come january you will no doubt all be bombarded with request's for tip's from me on here :D
 
chuckles said:
Ha ha..... ! What do TWO photographers do when they get married? Answers on a postcard..... should be able to tell you in April....... ;)

For a start - all images are to be "darkside" only..... and so it goes on.
Click to expand...

I got married to another photog last summer. Had a little trouble finding a willing photog -- they were terrified of messing it up. LOL. In the end, we had one of my past students shoot it and she did a wonderful job. (I should add the this particular "student" is an amazing shooter who now works with a lot of Hollywood celebs. We were very lucky to get her.)

I had wanted my friend Jeff Ascough to shoot it, but we didn't give him much notice and he was already booked. I think he's still mad at me!

Incidentally, no, I don't believe it is arrogant for the photographer to put together the finished album, so long as the client understands and agrees with that process and the photographer does it well. Both Jeff and I work that way, and clients love it. Takes the pressure off them.

- CJ
 
I feel sorry for the folk who had trouble with their pictures - it is a reminder to try and see the work of your photographer before such an event. I am thankful that I did not have to make my living doing weddings although have done quite a few over the years, starting after giving some pictures as a thank-you as a guest and unfortunately mine on 12 on 120 were better quality that the poor guy who was paid for the job. This started off various friends and family asking me to do it officially - and I usually try and talk them out of it especially if I know of a pro in the area that is good.
I have yet to do one fully digital - but have taken plenty as a guest with the DSLR.
 
Great thread. Thoroughly enjoyed this one.
 
Nothing to stop you scanning prints yourself, a good scanner can be had for £30-40 these days.

I do agree with cjnicolai in the way you went about hiring the guy but I think you realise that is was badly done yourself now too.
 
Steep, I suppose if you don't mind breaking copyright laws and being dishonest, you certainly could scan the prints yourself. But really, it's not about what you CAN do, it's about what you SHOULD do.

- CJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top