Martyn

You get what you pay for?!!

Recommended Posts

Shame because if he'd done a good edit he might have salvaged something reasonable. Nobody needs 1,600 wedding photographs- in the days of film I usually took 36 or 48. My last had an extra 72 in b/w.

Always good for the papers- they get lots of free, amusing, trailer-trash  pictures for nothing.

Interestingly the photographer would have a good case for breach of copyright against the Mail, the news agency and probably the couple as well. The couple can't give permission for publication to anyone but the photographer.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't make Mercury Press and Media look great either - I assumed at first glance that they had taken the pics since they have their name on them.

 

 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

They don't make Mercury Press and Media look great either - I assumed at first glance that they had taken the pics since they have their name on them.

 

 

That aggravates the infringement- claiming an image is yours when it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

That aggravates the infringement- claiming an image is yours when it's not.

 

They might have bought the copyright - he says he has given up and the business has folded.

 

Anyway, best leave weddings to people who know what they are doing. Not for me!!

 

 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks as if they got the images from the couple, not the photographer. I suppose the Mail always does that anyway, credits the source not the photographer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Shame because if he'd done a good edit he might have salvaged something reasonable. Nobody needs 1,600 wedding photographs- in the days of film I usually took 36 or 48. My last had an extra 72 in b/w.

 

Back in the early 80's, we offered either:

One roll of 12 shots 6 x 6 cm or one roll of 24 shots, 35mm, same price.

Arrived to do a shot of the groom and best man, left after main group shots (not many groups if on 6 x 6, it has to be said ...)

All prints neatly stuck in an album.

 

Returned to do some weddings between about 2008 and 2013, by then people were expecting to see around 250 - 300 shots.

Arrived mid morning to do bride getting ready, left around 11.00pm after the fireworks....

About 65 - 100 shots chosen, montaged into digital photobooks with wood/crystal/leather/photo/lots-and-lots-of-choices cover. (Took hours to design)
Oh, and a fancy box with a usb stick inside, c/w hi res jpegs.

 

Bah!

:angry:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2018 at 18:10, TeeCee said:

Back in the early 80's, we offered either:

One roll of 12 shots 6 x 6 cm or one roll of 24 shots, 35mm, same price.

Arrived to do a shot of the groom and best man, left after main group shots (not many groups if on 6 x 6, it has to be said ...)

All prints neatly stuck in an album.

 

Returned to do some weddings between about 2008 and 2013, by then people were expecting to see around 250 - 300 shots.

Arrived mid morning to do bride getting ready, left around 11.00pm after the fireworks....

About 65 - 100 shots chosen, montaged into digital photobooks with wood/crystal/leather/photo/lots-and-lots-of-choices cover. (Took hours to design)
Oh, and a fancy box with a usb stick inside, c/w hi res jpegs.

 

Bah!

:angry:

 

 

 

Thanks for reminding me why I don't do weddings!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Matt Limb said:

 

 

Thanks for reminding me why I don't do weddings!!

 

 

Too much work for too little return these days, I stopped when someone told me at a wedding fair there was a guy on a stand yards away who'd do the whole thing for £300.00.

I went over, said hello and took a peek - his pictures were utterly dreadful - all manner of things in the background apparently sticking out of peoples heads, massive shadows from direct flash - those were the good shots ...

However, the awful realisation was that the couple I'd just spoken too weren't bothered by any of that, they just wanted a lot of pictures on a memory stick for very little money.

I guess there's probably a market for really high end weddings, but certainly no worthwhile return in the middle ground these days.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TeeCee said:

Too much work for too little return these days, I stopped when someone told me at a wedding fair there was a guy on a stand yards away who'd do the whole thing for £300.00.

I went over, said hello and took a peek - his pictures were utterly dreadful - all manner of things in the background apparently sticking out of peoples heads, massive shadows from direct flash - those were the good shots ...

However, the awful realisation was that the couple I'd just spoken too weren't bothered by any of that, they just wanted a lot of pictures on a memory stick for very little money.

I guess there's probably a market for really high end weddings, but certainly no worthwhile return in the middle ground these days.
 

 

 

I would say that he was low end from your description.

 

But yes wedding work is not for me either. Only did a few for family and friends and they where very happy and said I should go pro. That was back in the film era.

 

Allan

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Matt Limb said:

 

 

Thanks for reminding me why I don't do weddings!!

 

 

 

Same here. In fact, with all of these stories all over the internet, it surprises me that anyone still does weddings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, TeeCee said:

Too much work for too little return these days, I stopped when someone told me at a wedding fair there was a guy on a stand yards away who'd do the whole thing for £300.00.

I went over, said hello and took a peek - his pictures were utterly dreadful - all manner of things in the background apparently sticking out of peoples heads, massive shadows from direct flash - those were the good shots ...

However, the awful realisation was that the couple I'd just spoken too weren't bothered by any of that, they just wanted a lot of pictures on a memory stick for very little money.

I guess there's probably a market for really high end weddings, but certainly no worthwhile return in the middle ground these days.
 

 

 

In many ways the middle ground is the worst place for any business to be. It gets squeezed from both sides and the bottom of the middle (ooh er Mother!) is constantly being undercut by others in the same position with poorer sales skills buying work. Think Marks&Spencer, Debenhams, BHS, ...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

 

I would say that he was low end from your description.

 

But yes wedding work is not for me either. Only did a few for family and friends and they where very happy and said I should go pro. That was back in the film era.

 

Allan

 

 

His was so ludicrously low  it could fly under radar... :)

I worked out that a wedding for me was about 30 hours work - this included a portion of the wedding fair time, pre wedding visit, the time on the day itself, the post processing and the album creation.

 

13 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said:

 

In many ways the middle ground is the worst place for any business to be. It gets squeezed from both sides and the bottom of the middle (ooh er Mother!) is constantly being undercut by others in the same position with poorer sales skills buying work. Think Marks&Spencer, Debenhams, BHS, ...

Think you're absolutely right Martin, which is why I solved it by stopping them altogether. Went back to (and stayed back in) commercial stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I photographed a wedding for a friend one time and although they were happy enough with the images (there were some nice ones) I have to say that if they were of my own wedding I would not have been that impressed. There is certainly an art to it and you can see why people specialise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2018 at 17:35, TeeCee said:

Too much work for too little return these days, I stopped when someone told me at a wedding fair there was a guy on a stand yards away who'd do the whole thing for £300.00.

I went over, said hello and took a peek - his pictures were utterly dreadful - all manner of things in the background apparently sticking out of peoples heads, massive shadows from direct flash - those were the good shots ...

However, the awful realisation was that the couple I'd just spoken too weren't bothered by any of that, they just wanted a lot of pictures on a memory stick for very little money.

I guess there's probably a market for really high end weddings, but certainly no worthwhile return in the middle ground these days.
 

 

My wife's niece got married recently and they were OK with paying £1300 for their photography. She said that was one of the cheaper prices she came across. She and her new husband are young professionals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shot weddings way back in the 1980's, and used to supply around 70 pics, but never really enjoyed it.
I've done a couple recently, digital, (still don't have my heart in it) and supplied around 100 images for them to choose prints from after explaining that they don't need over a 1000 pictures!
The last wedding I shot was 128 images, with 124 worth editing down to prints.
My normal job means I can observe weddings close up a few times a year and the trend now seems to be photographers who spend more time shooting decorations than people and constantly chimp every shot, even as they rat-a-tat-tat through the whole thing.
Speaking to them, they supply well into the thousands of images on a 'custom' USB stick at full quality.
Good luck to them, not my cuppa tea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect - but do not envy - anyone who shoots weddings for a living. It's got to be right, on the day, no opportunity for a re-shoot. Waaaaay too stressful for me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took 170 pix at the last wedding I went to, but I was only  a guest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks.

 

I spent some 20 odd years as a wedding photographer, after navigating a City & Guilds in general professional photography back in the 'wet process' days. As others have said, not a genre that allows screw ups. I stuck rigidly to the mantra of 'repeatability', carrying out pre-job checks and equipment packing exactly the same way, each time, every time. Exposure measurements and camera operation (Mamiya RB67) were also uniform, exposure to exposure, job to job. That way, anything going awry was easy to spot immediately. It was 'manual operation only' all the way. 

 

With the ability to absorb any and all the stresses inevitable in that line of work, I guess I was well suited to it but as time went on (and as others have reported), client demands just went up and up and up, until (for me) it became absurd and I stopped with the advent of digital photography. There were still pleasant, reasonable customers at the end but the majority were quite different and failed to grasp that I could only get out what they were prepared to put in (ie I needed their full attention and co-operation to give them the fullest coverage).

 

I don't regret the experience, I just won't ever be repeating it again!

 

When it comes to choosing a photographer, my advice to family has always been - don't employ family / ask to see the last three complete weddings from your nominated photographer / ignore 'the studio book' containing the cherry picked 'best bits' / check every web review available (filtering those that are misplaced and/or unreasonable) / anything less than 100%, walk away.

 

I guess the advent of multi-function digital cameras has seduced some into believing it makes them 'photographers' and that all that's required is to auto-everything, dial the drive to max, point and shoot; whereas a bullet proof sense of calm, total mastery of the equipment and a clear agenda for the shoot (transparently shared with the protagonists) is key.  

 

TTFN

 

Steve     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2018 at 22:43, Dances With Wolvezs said:

Exposure measurements and camera operation (Mamiya RB67) were also uniform, exposure to exposure, job to job. That way, anything going awry was easy to spot immediately. It was 'manual operation only' all the way. 

 

 

 

That's a nice bit of equipment you got there. For a long time, Ive lusted after a Mamiya RB67 but never owned one. I do have a Koni Omega Rapid which Ive heard was a popular medium format camera for weddings during the 1970s and thereabouts. Though I used mine for landscapes. Out of curiosity, did you shoot on slide or negative film for weddings? I'd imagine that a lot of wedding photographers would choose negative for the extra latitude. I'm thinking of getting into wedding videos myself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weddings were always shot on neg- prints were required and getting them from reversal was expensive and unsatisfactory.

It's not a matter of latitude if your exposures are accurate. Never heard of that camera- it looks very clumsy to use compared with a Hasselblad or 67.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points regarding the use of negative film for weddings. Yea the Koni is rather clumsy and clunky. The camera was designed in North America and built in Japan. It was aimed at aerial and newspaper / press photography markets but became popular with wedding photographers. I think this may have been due to the fast winding action. The way you wind film with this camera is a little strange - there's this long mechanism that you pull out and then push back in. I did have a very annoying problem with using cable releases with this camera. Often, a new cable release would work fine with the Koni for about a week and then after that, it would work only sometimes (very randomly.) Once I hiked uphill before sunrise to photograph a landscape at first light (carrying a tripod etc) and the cable release refused to work ( I tried again and again but no luck.)

 

Back to weddings, my brother got married last year. The wedding photographer produced some beautiful images but it would have been nice if she was a bit more thorough with her editing. She also included some photos that were a bit average and had distractions in the background. And I recall at least one image which had tilting vertical lines (which she could have easily corrected in Photoshop in less than 5 seconds.) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I feel so bad for the unfortunate couple! I hope they went and found a good portrait photographer to get some much better pictures (although more formal)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now