Go with the guy that gives you the negatives! There is no other option. My sister didn't and had pick 14-20 really good pics to order prints of. Until she remembered that I had a scanner. The proofs have to go back the photographer next week, so I'm scanning all the 5x5 proofs at a fairly high-res so the can have copies of any of THEIR wedding pics whenever they want. There is no reason for the photographer to have the negatives. Anyway, my sister and her husband can't afford to buy the negatives so they are more than happy to have the scanned images on a CD.
iDunno, Grover. If I were a groom I would agree with you, if I were a photographer, I wouldn't. Basically, the deal should be that I get the best deal, regardless. Hello Larry David.
Anyway, most photos will sell them to you after a time, for a cost, because they make their living by taking photos AND making prints. Once you get the negative, you can go anywhere for prints, and no more money for the photographer. If he enters with too high up-front fee "just for taking the pics" without printing, he won't see much business, so to survive, most will package their services in with a pre-determined set of prints, 4" positives/proofs, and sale of negatives after a predetermined time.
You could possibly strike a better deal, and get the negatives straight away, if you agree to buy a set amount of prints/sizes straight off. Then, rather than hand you prints and proofs, you can get the whole shebang up front.
Oh I definitely understand the desire to make money. I am a big fan of money myself.
I'm not against the idea of making money, but I have a real problem with photographers who keep the negatives. That is someone's wedding. I am opposed to not turning over negatives on a moral level, not a fiscal one.
Oh I definitely understand the desire to make money. I am a big fan of money myself.
I'm not against the idea of making money, but I have a real problem with photographers who keep the negatives. That is someone's wedding. I am opposed to not turning over negatives on a moral level, not a fiscal one.
Of course, but to most photographers it is fiscal, not moral. Hence the problem with unregulated capitalism
Sorry, Groverat, but I could not resist...you opened the window just a bit too wide.
Do what feels right, if you can get a good deal while still getting the negs, and you like his work, then go with that guy. I am just weary of wedding photographers because I know that they will gladly give you the negs because they don't feel that they are worth that much because they aren't the best photographers. I know some of my friends have taken pictures at weddings before for the professional and there is no way she should have been unless it was the shittiest wedding in the world.
At my wedding I will want negs, so I will try to find someone who I can buy the negs from and I like their work. Just like any major purchase decision, you gotta pick something/someone
Congratulations . I hope the day goes really well .
I would second what billybobsky said, think about getting some disposables for the guests to use on the tables at the reception (assuming you are having one of course ). It's a great way to get some good candid shots. My wife and I did this at our wedding, and although most weren't any good, we got some great ones for the album. And it also kept my five year old nephew happy and occupied .
Just see the movie of my marriage today. It was done by some friends of my family, but i enjoyed to look it again ten years after.
I stronlgy recommand, that a skilled friend of your make a small movie, even if it's unprofessional, you will enjoy to see it later. That's my only recommandation
Groverat, my point was that even though you and your new spouse are the subject are the photos, the rights to those photos are usually owned by the photographer.
To adjust my analogy, when an musician creates an album, the rights are usually owned by the record label. Not the artist.
my wife and i had ours done not that long ago, and went through a lot of the same crap.
my advice?
give her what she wants on this. in all honestly, odds are you aren't going to look at them more than twice. if you do, you sure won't want to. you'll be sick of them.
to her they'll be something to show off for months to come though. do you really want her to not be happy about the photographer every time she goes to take the photos out? it's really not worth it.
of course, that was my opinion about the entire wedding, so your milage may vary. you have your requirements (get the negatives), now let her pick whoever she wants within those requirements.
That's not a good point, chinney, it's a horrible point and a horrible analogy.
Groverat, CosmoNut?s point, in my view, was a good one because it reminded us that there is another perspective in all of this: that of the photographer. For professional photographers these are not just pictures of your wedding ? this is their professional work. From their perspective, they might not be willing to share the negatives for both monetary reasons and for reasons of principle.
From a monetary perspective, keeping the negatives gives them the ability to charge for further prints ? you might not want them to have this control but, remember, this is their livelihood.
From a principled perspective, professional photographers want to retain control over the negatives because the prints that are made from negatives reflect on them. Many photographers ? even those who do what you might consider as straightforward photography, such as weddings ? take an artistic view of their product. They consider that they are hired because you have confidence that they will provide beautiful wedding photographs and they consider they have fulfilled their task when they provide you with the prints. However, they do this on the condition that the actual taking of the pictures and the making of the prints is their work.
I am not saying that all professional photographers have this perspective, but the ones that I know certainly do. Further, I think that CosmoNut?s analogy was a good one in the general sense of referring to underlying ownership rights in other fields. In any number of fields, the rights that you acquire when you buy the final product do not necessarily extend to the rights to have, alter and otherwise do with as you like with the underlying source of the final product. In addition to the music recording industry, think also of computer software.
Ultimately, I don?t think that there is a right and wrong in this particular area. The product that you purchase can vary depending on the policy of the person selling and depending on negotiation. If you want the negatives, then this is fine ? you can make this a stipulation of your agreeing to engage a photographer. Having this stipulation might, of course, limit your choice of photographers, because not all photographers are willing to do this.
In any case, I had not intended to get into a big argument with anyone over this issue. The comments that I offered from my very first post in this thread were just intended to be friendly advice for your wedding. I do continue to wish you and your bride the best for your wedding and for a very happy marriage.
I want to buy a digital camera reflex for my own need, and i have read a lot of reviews on this subject (and i think i will go for a digital rebel). The fuji is based upon the nikon 100 d, but the review said that the fuji was better (sligty).
A digital reflex camcorder, like this is more performant for photography than the argentic counterpart, especially in low light conditions, where this type of camera rock. Digital camera are the future. One of my friend is a professional photographer and he use a D100 and the results are impressive.
The other guy have traditionnal high qualitie argentic camera. It's very difficult to compare this 2 types of cameras.
I've found another guy. He shoots digital and uses the FujiFilm FinePix S2 Pro 6.1MP.
Does anyone know how one of those would stack up against the other cameras mentioned for the other guy?
a friend of mine had his wedding shot digital a few years ago. came out very nice, and i dare say if the photographer is worth his or her salt, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. have you seen samples of their work. if so, what do you think of it?
Comments
Anyway, most photos will sell them to you after a time, for a cost, because they make their living by taking photos AND making prints. Once you get the negative, you can go anywhere for prints, and no more money for the photographer. If he enters with too high up-front fee "just for taking the pics" without printing, he won't see much business, so to survive, most will package their services in with a pre-determined set of prints, 4" positives/proofs, and sale of negatives after a predetermined time.
You could possibly strike a better deal, and get the negatives straight away, if you agree to buy a set amount of prints/sizes straight off. Then, rather than hand you prints and proofs, you can get the whole shebang up front.
PS, condolonces to the poor lass!
I'm not against the idea of making money, but I have a real problem with photographers who keep the negatives. That is someone's wedding. I am opposed to not turning over negatives on a moral level, not a fiscal one.
Originally posted by groverat
Oh I definitely understand the desire to make money. I am a big fan of money myself.
I'm not against the idea of making money, but I have a real problem with photographers who keep the negatives. That is someone's wedding. I am opposed to not turning over negatives on a moral level, not a fiscal one.
Of course, but to most photographers it is fiscal, not moral. Hence the problem with unregulated capitalism
Sorry, Groverat, but I could not resist...you opened the window just a bit too wide.
But I do wish you and your bride very well.
At my wedding I will want negs, so I will try to find someone who I can buy the negs from and I like their work. Just like any major purchase decision, you gotta pick something/someone
Originally posted by Chinney
Of course, but to most photographers it is fiscal, not moral.
To many photogs, their work is no different than an album from a recording artist. They don't turn over the multitrack tapes when you buy the album.
I'm not saying that's *my* view, but theirs.
Congratulations
I would second what billybobsky said, think about getting some disposables for the guests to use on the tables at the reception (assuming you are having one of course
Cheers,
Dave.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
To many photogs, their work is no different than an album from a recording artist. They don't turn over the multitrack tapes when you buy the album.
Good point.
I stronlgy recommand, that a skilled friend of your make a small movie, even if it's unprofessional, you will enjoy to see it later. That's my only recommandation
Originally posted by groverat
I will be married in October and we're shopping around for photographers.
I need more tips.
Hi. Try these folks: http://www.dbvisualevents.com/contact.html
They were very helpful and nice for my wedding in Austin. HTH.
Congratulations, by the way.
PS: For what it's worth, they use Macs and seem damn proud of it.
To many photogs, their work is no different than an album from a recording artist. They don't turn over the multitrack tapes when you buy the album.
That's not a good point, chinney, it's a horrible point and a horrible analogy.
To adjust my analogy, when an musician creates an album, the rights are usually owned by the record label. Not the artist.
And I'm not saying that's right.
my advice?
give her what she wants on this. in all honestly, odds are you aren't going to look at them more than twice. if you do, you sure won't want to. you'll be sick of them.
to her they'll be something to show off for months to come though. do you really want her to not be happy about the photographer every time she goes to take the photos out? it's really not worth it.
of course, that was my opinion about the entire wedding, so your milage may vary. you have your requirements (get the negatives), now let her pick whoever she wants within those requirements.
I would happily go along with the slick one but he will be $1k more and doesn't have a better portfolio.
We've got months to go, it's not a big deal between us. Just considering different options.
Dammit boy, you're younger than I am.
Originally posted by groverat
That's not a good point, chinney, it's a horrible point and a horrible analogy.
Groverat, CosmoNut?s point, in my view, was a good one because it reminded us that there is another perspective in all of this: that of the photographer. For professional photographers these are not just pictures of your wedding ? this is their professional work. From their perspective, they might not be willing to share the negatives for both monetary reasons and for reasons of principle.
From a monetary perspective, keeping the negatives gives them the ability to charge for further prints ? you might not want them to have this control but, remember, this is their livelihood.
From a principled perspective, professional photographers want to retain control over the negatives because the prints that are made from negatives reflect on them. Many photographers ? even those who do what you might consider as straightforward photography, such as weddings ? take an artistic view of their product. They consider that they are hired because you have confidence that they will provide beautiful wedding photographs and they consider they have fulfilled their task when they provide you with the prints. However, they do this on the condition that the actual taking of the pictures and the making of the prints is their work.
I am not saying that all professional photographers have this perspective, but the ones that I know certainly do. Further, I think that CosmoNut?s analogy was a good one in the general sense of referring to underlying ownership rights in other fields. In any number of fields, the rights that you acquire when you buy the final product do not necessarily extend to the rights to have, alter and otherwise do with as you like with the underlying source of the final product. In addition to the music recording industry, think also of computer software.
Ultimately, I don?t think that there is a right and wrong in this particular area. The product that you purchase can vary depending on the policy of the person selling and depending on negotiation. If you want the negatives, then this is fine ? you can make this a stipulation of your agreeing to engage a photographer. Having this stipulation might, of course, limit your choice of photographers, because not all photographers are willing to do this.
In any case, I had not intended to get into a big argument with anyone over this issue. The comments that I offered from my very first post in this thread were just intended to be friendly advice for your wedding. I do continue to wish you and your bride the best for your wedding and for a very happy marriage.
Does anyone know how one of those would stack up against the other cameras mentioned for the other guy?
A digital reflex camcorder, like this is more performant for photography than the argentic counterpart, especially in low light conditions, where this type of camera rock. Digital camera are the future. One of my friend is a professional photographer and he use a D100 and the results are impressive.
The other guy have traditionnal high qualitie argentic camera. It's very difficult to compare this 2 types of cameras.
Originally posted by groverat
I've found another guy. He shoots digital and uses the FujiFilm FinePix S2 Pro 6.1MP.
Does anyone know how one of those would stack up against the other cameras mentioned for the other guy?
a friend of mine had his wedding shot digital a few years ago. came out very nice, and i dare say if the photographer is worth his or her salt, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. have you seen samples of their work. if so, what do you think of it?