Wedding photographers

groveratgroverat
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I will be married in October and we're shopping around for photographers.



I'm liking a guy who gives you 4x6 prints of all photos and hands over the negatives immediately.

The fiancee is liking a guy who does the usual thing, prints expensive 8x10s (package deal) and such and then gives you the negatives in 6 months if you order $200+ in extra prints.



I need some advice from the experienced, what kind of thing should I be looking for?



What I have taken into account so far.

- I am not considering anyone who is not giving me the negatives at some point.

- I am not considering anyone who has not shot at the wedding venue.



I need more tips.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    I will be married in October and we're shopping around for photographers.

    [...]







    It depends on what you want. Another method - for those without a lot of cash - is to ask someone you know who takes very good pictures, but is not a full professional, if he/she will take pictures at your wedding. (Ideally this is a 'friend of a friend' - someone who would not be at the wedding - because it is hard to be a guest and a photographer.) I did this, and so did most of my friends, back when we were young and poor and getting married. (Actually, I met the woman who is now my wife while being the designated amateur photographer at one wedding....). And it is not just a question of cost. The photos you get back will be good wedding candids, instead of the usual professional wedding set-ups, and I personally prefer the candids.



    Of course, if you want the full meal deal, hire a real professional. The most important thing is to see plenty of examples of the photographer's work and to be happy with his/her approach and results. Also, ask the photographer about his/her feelings about intruding into the ceremony. There is nothing worse than an intrusive wedding photographer - the wedding has to come first, not the photos! (The worst example of this I have ever seen was a recent wedding with a professional video cameraman. After the bride and groom walked down the (very long) aisle toward the back of the the church at the end of the ceremony the cameraman screamed out that all the guests had to stay where they were and the bride and groom had to go back and walk down the aisle again! Apparently cameraman wanted to film their exit again from a better angle! Unbelievable.)
  • Reply 2 of 42
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    groverat,



    I can't really advise a thing regarding the photographer and choices relating to one but I do want to simply say:



    Congrats! man!



    I hope for only the best for you and your special someone!



    Cheers!



    Fellows
  • Reply 3 of 42
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    My sister had several disposable cameras at each of the tables during the wedding reception. This was in addition to the professional but it added the perspective of the guests, and I think they are more significant to her and her husband (but granted, who really looks at the pictures after a few months, and when/if children find them.)
  • Reply 4 of 42
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    groverat,



    I can't really advise a thing regarding the photographer and choices relating to one but I do want to simply say:



    Congrats! man!



    I hope for only the best for you and your special someone!



    Cheers!



    Fellows



    Hey...Fellows takes nice pictures...maybe he could...





    And maybe he could meet a nice girl there besides...that's what happened to me!
  • Reply 5 of 42
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    How's he going to make prints if he hands over the negs immediately
  • Reply 6 of 42
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Good call on the intruding part. If he misses something I don't really care, she might, but I don't.



    As far as candid shots go, both of our finalists do pretty good stuff. Lots of fun and arty stuff, not the usual "everyone stand next to each other and smile" shots. Those are boring, I might even skip them as the groom.
  • Reply 7 of 42
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    ...not the usual "everyone stand next to each other and smile" shots. Those are boring, I might even skip them as the groom.



    I don't think that will be allowed....
  • Reply 8 of 42
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    The photography studio where I work got out of wedding photos because it wasn't worth the money but they normally did a lot of nice candids and then a few real photographs of everyone. Unless you pay an arm and a leg they wouldn't give you negs though, I was shocked to find you only had to spend $200 extra to get negs.



    I think it's really cool to do that though, and I always thought it would be kinda cool like it was said to give guests cameras to have them take a picture of whatever they want so you can have those as well.





    I am used to digital, but if I were you, I'd ask between the two if they are digital or not, I think I'd rather have a CD/DVD then negatives. But perhaps personal preference.



    One of my teachers has a picture of his wedding and it's him and his bride, and his bride is holding a bouquet. Well the neat thing is that it's spot color so that just the bouquet is color. That is the kind of thing that makes me like digital, it would be easy to do that type of thing yourself later.







    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wrong Robot

    How's he going to make prints if he hands over the negs immediately



    Burn a CD/DVD from his laptop on the spot
  • Reply 9 of 42
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    It will be 35mm negatives. My mother has great film equipment at her job so she can/will scan them all with a film scanner. I can do all the weird stuff (spot color) myself with Photoshop.
  • Reply 10 of 42
    fred_ljfred_lj Posts: 607member
    I don't know if I would go with an exclusively digital photographer. There are so many beautiful things that can be done with film that it is never going to disappear (and I mean things IN CAMERA -- where the photographer is so good that his pictures come out without needing "photoshopping" at all). The way you describe your two finalists is encouraging -- fun and artsy ----- original is very good.



    I remember watching one while I was playing in a quartet at a wedding. He took pictures of all the parties before the ceremony, before any guests had arrived. I think there are even some folks out there (correct me if I'm wrong) who have ditched the "can't see the bride in her dress before the wedding" superstition and have their portraits made long before the ceremony so that they don't hold up their guests before the reception.



    The resolution you can get out of a film scanner is still much better than what comes out of a digital SLR, so just ask for a CD (I'm sure it's an option). It would really be awesome to find a flexible photographer that would be willing to work in both mediums. Perhaps shoot some ceremony and formal shots in medium format film -- some black and white, too!! -- and do candids, other ceremonial stuff with the DSLR.
  • Reply 11 of 42
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fred_lj

    I don't know if I would go with an exclusively digital photographer. There are so many beautiful things that can be done with film that it is never going to disappear (and I mean things IN CAMERA -- where the photographer is so good that his pictures come out without needing "photoshopping" at all). The way you describe your two finalists is encouraging -- fun and artsy ----- original is very good.





    Yeah, they do both, exclusively digital is better then film though I still think. My job it to make people less ugly so there isn't a picture of people that I would think doesn't need photoshopping



    But I completely understand what you are saying, I don't really get all the shortcomings of digital, but like you said, I'm always told that digital just isnt' as good for some things.





    If you have access to fancy film scanners and stuff I'd lean toward film and just make a CD/DVD right away for keep sake.
  • Reply 12 of 42
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    We never even considered a professional photographer. Just cheap, I guess.
  • Reply 13 of 42
    trick falltrick fall Posts: 1,271member
    First off congratulations. I took the photojournalist get the negatives and 4 x 6 prints route and was very happy. The only negative thing I can say about it is that there are still photos I'd like to get made up that my wife and I have been too lazy, busy, etc. to do. Out of curiousity what's the music sitch?
  • Reply 14 of 42
    fred_ljfred_lj Posts: 607member
    This could be a topic on its own completely (), but not to sway too long...I think the main drawback in digital is not really a lack in resolution but more of an overt abundance of 'tack sharp' pictures that lack the personality of film. Digital sensors can't emulate the grain you get with the film -- I mean, they're grainy, but you know what I mean (it's too 'orderly' and distracting). As for "photoshopping" -- the magic of soft focus filters comes into play. And, man, you've got a hard job! I guess people still feel photogs can morph them into something else...





    Oh, and Groverat, are you getting married near/in Austin? A beautiful picture taken near some trees in the Marble Falls foothills at sunset would cap off that album!
  • Reply 15 of 42
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    My advice would be to have the photographer get to know you some before the actual day. That way, he/she will know your personalities and be able to spot those "YES!" moments that are really going to matter to you 30 years from now when you look back at the pics.



    The posed shots are nice, but if the photog can catch "that look she always does" at just the right moment...priceless.
  • Reply 16 of 42
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    He says his equipment is a Nikon F5 and a Nikon F100. I don't know about the other guy, I'll ask.



    ---



    trick fall:



    The music situation is a pianist. They don't allow DJs or bands, but they have a nice piano and they will allow up to two accompanying strings. It's a 19th century mansion.
  • Reply 17 of 42
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    I don't know many professionals in France who will sell you the negatives (althought i can always scan the positive ..), they call this the right of image. They consider that the negative is their property, and that they sell only duplicates.



    Anyway, i don't see the interest of keeping weddings photos, but this is an another story.



    For my wedding the photographer tooks two differents type of pictures. The first ones, where in the garden, on a 4/6 photos. This are great photos, and the expertise of a professional is needed here.



    The others where the report of the wedding in the castle : it was good qualitie 24/36 pictures, but frankly a good amator photograph could have done the job (and he will give you easily the negatives).



    So my advice is that you need a professional only for elaborate pictures, report like photos can be made by good amators.
  • Reply 18 of 42
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I am 100% against the idea that the bride/groom (groom/groom or bride/bride) do not get the negatives. The photographer can have a copy of the negatives, but the bride/groom (groom/groom or bride/bride) should have the original negatives. This is their wedding.



    In my opinion, if they keep the negatives then there is absolutely no reason to pay them for anything other than the prints.



    I've had a lot of heated conversations with photographers, so we've narrowed it down to those we (I) find most reasonable.
  • Reply 19 of 42
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Maybe you should ask Steve...



    See SF Chronicle Article:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGS649LVB1.DTL
  • Reply 20 of 42
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    I am 100% against the idea that the bride/groom (groom/groom or bride/bride) do not get the negatives. The photographer can have a copy of the negatives, but the bride/groom (groom/groom or bride/bride) should have the original negatives. This is their wedding.



    In my opinion, if they keep the negatives then there is absolutely no reason to pay them for anything other than the prints.



    I've had a lot of heated conversations with photographers, so we've narrowed it down to those we (I) find most reasonable.



    I 100 % agree with you, there is no interest to keep the photos, unless they think that you and/or your wife will become someday a VIP .

    But as you discovered yourself, most of the photographers do that.



    In my case, my parents of law did pay for the photograph, so i did not took part in the discussion.
Sign In or Register to comment.