R35LEE Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Go round to her shop, kick her square in the beaver and go find someone who will do what you want at the price you want. Simples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James B Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 That is one of those things that grind my gears. You are paying a photographer for their time and expertise to take photos, so how are the resultant photos THEIR property. Nissan built the 350z so when you buy the car do you need their permission to modify or use it? Do microsoft need permission from each individual programmer before they can sell each individual copy of office? If i pay someone to design a website for me, i would expect once its complete to use that template as often as i would like and if they said no i would use someone else. Yeah I agree. I develop as part of my job, and the IP for all my code belongs to the end company/client I work for, I dont get to keep it and then say "oh if you want to keep the code, then that will be £5k per piece". F's me right off, as you say you pay for the time, and you should own the copyright when they are done. Saying that, you will as part of the contract take ownership, which is effectively what you are doing when you get the DVD in the package, they should be signing ownership of all the material to you. What then makes me more sick is that some refuse to then give you the RAW images. If you have ownership of the material, then the RAW is the original Cheers for all the posts guys. I'm feeling a lot better about it today and totally vindicated! The more I think about it, even from a legal ownership point of view the less her position seems to make sense. Given that we live in a digital world it feels like the transaction is me paying money for specific intellectual property. The missus actually wasn't too bad when I got home. I was properly geared up for a major barney but she didn't push me thankfully. Shes on the case already and has found a few more photographers she likes (thanks for all the recommendations btw), although (like most women) she does seem to go straight for the most expensive one's. I'm staying well out of the whole process this time though I've reserved the right to Vitto based on daft costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paza3 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Not sure if this is any help to you but the guys we used were excellent and they travel anywhere. Last time I spoke to them (at a wedding) they had come back from Italy and were on there way to New York. They are ranked top 10 in the UK now, and did an excellent job for us on the big day. A few years ago when they had just started out the business I paid 850 but you do get two guys and that was from 10:00 Am - 8:00 Pm. They do charge a lot more now closer 1500-2000K but should at least check them out?? http://www.christianmichael.co.uk/ Say, Patrick Van Eady referred you two them I went to school with Chris and Michael is ex Army good lad, they are always up for a bit of haggle on price 2 Good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveparkin Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I'd say you were perfectly within your rights to try to negotiate - we did exactly that and our photographer threw-in a DVD of the full resolution originals (no editing) and a copyright release letter with a package including an album. If I recall correctly, it cost us about £1200 in 2007, and the photographer did a great job. I'm sure I'm out of touch with current prices, but I'd try to find another photographer if you can. Good luck with appeasing the bride-to-be...................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varley16 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 im gettin married this year in april, day before that will fellow decides to get married, anyway, our photographer didnt cost that much, maybe about £400, i would drop that photographer and go else where. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chippy Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I think I'm going to on this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andlid Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 ...2k sounds pricey for 1 photographer and only an album, I know mates that paid 3k€ or around that but that was for 4 people working with video cameras, cameras, making a blueray dvd and sleeping over at the hotel. Crazy price but crazy package, they made a movie of the wedding that you could see after the dinner... Plenty of people out there wanting to make some monies mate. Loved the beaver comment She sounds like a muppet and if she can afford to behave like that, good riddens. Try and get a cheaper one though and spend some monies on the Z instead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpkayeuk Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 The thing is... at £2k this photographer is approaching the top end of the market. I dare say she can pick and choose customers and that's exactly what she's done. If she can use her day on another customer who is going to spend more... can you really blame her? No doubt if you had stuck with what you had agreed she would've honoured the arrangement... but as soon as you start changing things then I think it's reasonable for her to refuse those changes and/or look somewhere else. While it is absolutely fine to negotiate, there are two sides to all negotiations and you should always be prepared for the answer to be no. On not needing Photoshop if you capture the image right... That's actually not true. Even professional SLRs don't have the dynamic range of film. They are close, but film still has a special quality that can only really be reproduced in digital in post production. Also, most pro photographers (but not all) will shoot in camera RAW format (not JPEG), which will always require post production simply because of the nature of the format. On copyright... you do need to negotiate and/or pay for it. Few top end photographers will sell you those rights, or else the fee will be outrageous. You are paying for the style and skill of the outfit. Part of the photographer's reputation lies in the presentation of the end product. Once they have sold rights, they have then given up all control of the presentation of their product. It's correct to say there are hundreds of photographers out there, but honestly... the really good ones are few and far between. Those that are, and know they are, all behave like this woman. Check out this guy: http://www.brettharknessphotography.com/ He is a top, top notch wedding and lifestyle photographer who, unusually, shoots in JPEG. He _never_ sells his copyright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andlid Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 not hard to batch RAW to JPEG to be honest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpkayeuk Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 not hard to batch RAW to JPEG to be honest... Absolutely, and if you do... it will look shocking. RAW images need at the very least sharpening, but even then the image will not be at its full potential. If you are happy with a photographer who just snaps a well exposed and well composed shot and gives them to you, then fine. But a wedding is a (hopefully) once in a lifetime occasion and IMO, if you are going to do it, you should do it right. Every decent pro photographer will spend time in post production. That's part of what you are paying for. They spend a day capturing images and probably 3 or 4 days in post. I'm sure thousands don't... but then their product ain't so good Where does capturing the image right in the first place stop and post processing start? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpkayeuk Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Here a few of my shots that I have spent time in post production improving... When you're not in a studio you simply don't have the same control of light and you can't always make the most of a photo opportunity without doing stuff in post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andlid Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Hmm I'm no pro but my untrained eye can't see the difference on a 1280*1024 laptop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpkayeuk Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 What difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andlid Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 What difference? between a batch converted RAW image and JPEG I do get your point though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpkayeuk Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 What difference? between a batch converted RAW image and JPEG I do get your point though? Ahh, okay, that's because most batch processing will (or should) apply an element of sharpening for you. But anyway, this is post production When you shoot JPEG, the camera applies the sharpening for you (on most SLRs you even have some control of this). Here's the last one I posted unedited for comparison. Taken with a studio ringflash but on location, nightmare to control because moving slightly closer or slightly further from the subject screws up the exposure. You don't always have the time to meter properly so RAW gives the flexibility in post to make something of it. This original is about 2/3rds of a stop over exposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I agree that PP a RAW image can give amazing results, and I shoot raw most places so it gives me that chance if I need, but having seen a few wedding albums and the amount of images in them, there is no way they can PP them all individually - it would take literally months correct exposure, white balance, sharpness etc. I'll be interested to talk to a wedding photographer when my time comes to see what PP they do and how much time they spend per image. I agree that if they put a lot of effort into PP then £2k could be a good deal. Also, not sure how you can gain back dynamic range in PP. A sensor has a finite range of values it can sense. Once you go over or under them, there is no way to get them back (lets forget about HDR for now as that doesnt apply here). No amount of post processing can get you any more darks or highlights once they have been lost. I guess what you are really meaning is that you can shoot underexposed so not to blow the higglights and then up the exposure in PP to bring it back to where it should be but without the blown highlights? As said, I'm difficult as a customer, as I'd prefer they didnt do an PP and just gave me the RAWs but they would never do that, as I am cutting out some of their work/time which they would want to bill for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 The thing is... at £2k this photographer is approaching the top end of the market. I dare say she can pick and choose customers and that's exactly what she's done. If she can use her day on another customer who is going to spend more... can you really blame her? No doubt if you had stuck with what you had agreed she would've honoured the arrangement... but as soon as you start changing things then I think it's reasonable for her to refuse those changes and/or look somewhere else. While it is absolutely fine to negotiate, there are two sides to all negotiations and you should always be prepared for the answer to be no. On not needing Photoshop if you capture the image right... That's actually not true. Even professional SLRs don't have the dynamic range of film. They are close, but film still has a special quality that can only really be reproduced in digital in post production. Also, most pro photographers (but not all) will shoot in camera RAW format (not JPEG), which will always require post production simply because of the nature of the format. On copyright... you do need to negotiate and/or pay for it. Few top end photographers will sell you those rights, or else the fee will be outrageous. You are paying for the style and skill of the outfit. Part of the photographer's reputation lies in the presentation of the end product. Once they have sold rights, they have then given up all control of the presentation of their product. It's correct to say there are hundreds of photographers out there, but honestly... the really good ones are few and far between. Those that are, and know they are, all behave like this woman. Check out this guy: http://www.brettharknessphotography.com/ He is a top, top notch wedding and lifestyle photographer who, unusually, shoots in JPEG. He _never_ sells his copyright. Sounds like top end photographers are pompous pricks then tbh. If they won't sell copyright so you can't at some point in the future decide to have a canvas print made of your own wedding photos without running into issues, then they can shove their cannon up their ring piece in my opinion. If they have reached a level whereby they can pick and choose customers in business, I would expect them to do it with some tact and not simply refuse a customers business for being "cheeky" and enquiring about prices. That's the sort of attitude that will not just see that one customer going elsewhere. As a comparison, do they pay the full retail price for each item when renewing a load of camera kit/lenses? I doubt it. Sounds very much to me that these people have learnt to use a camera well but missed out on inter personal skills. So it's to be hoped their attitude doesn't drive business down, because if it does I wouldn't give them a job flipping burgers with a customer attitude like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andlid Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 ... might not be a bad idea regarding the flipping burgers... maybe then finally the burgers will look like they do on the menu photo when you get it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jollyranchers Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 i cant believe the cheek of this woman , imagine if you had paid the extra money , everytime she said to you say 'cheese' you would want to run over and smash her camera into little bits ! Its not like you were paying her peanuts anyway 2 grand is a lot of money. there are others out there , you did the right thing asking discount. I wouldnt want her doing it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnH Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 If they won't sell copyright so you can't at some point in the future decide to have a canvas print made of your own wedding photos without running into issues, then they can shove their cannon up their ring piece in my opinion. I think you mean Canon... although that sounds interesting as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.