Should I give up wedding negatives?

I�d buy the film and get the proofs done myself. Chuck out all the shots of people blinking and the weird expressions. When you shoot that much film there're a lot of rotten photos. You�ll never hear the end of what a terrible photographer you are if you hand over the film without editing down the proofs a bit first. Tell them you've edited the shots, and why. If they want to get the missing shots printed that's their problem.

Different rules, different places. Here (England) it is the norm for photographers to keep the negs, and to extort huge amounts of money for prints. Although they own the copyright, there is a specific provision in the copyright act to prevent them publishing pictures. <p>

Erb. I would do this one of two ways. You can say "Buy me [X number] of rolls of film, I'll turn up with my camera, give you the exposed film and you can do what you want with it" or You can say "We'll do this on a the same basis as a pro would do it, but I'll just charge you a lower fee". <p>

A few years ago a friend who had seen some pics I did at another wedding, asked me to do some informal pictures of everyone at his wedding (seperate from the pro who as doing the "set pieces"). We did that on the first basis, but since I had to buy a flash gun which I haven't used since I was still out of pocket on the deal.

To be blunt about it: my experience has been that using my expertise (outside photography) to save people going to a professional is this:<br>(a) It uses more time than I can be compensated for - my job lets me buy extra vacation time, so I have mental price tag for my free time.<br>

(b) It doesn't produces sufficient thanks to make it worthwhile.<br>

© It isn't fun of itself, because you're trying to please other people.<br>

It's no help to you, but I would stay out of these shoots. If you can get out of it without creating a feud which will last for years, I would do so.

Thanks for the many, albeit differing, answers.

 

The situation now is that they've approached some pros and got shocked

1) at the price

2) that the pro also keeps the negs

 

I think they initially wanted me because;

1) I've done weddings, with extremely delighted clients

2) They were impressed with the work I did for one of my clients

3) I can get film and make prints much cheaper than they can

4) They can exploit blood relatives

 

The compromise now is that I get a supply of cheap film ($1.25 Fuji Superia 100 in bulk - oh, they're delighted with the price). They pay for all costs (as long as I keep to all cheap materials, as promised) and I keep the negatives for two years (down from five) as one pro quoted to them. Any excess film I sell to students/friends/others at slightly below market price.

 

Knowing them... offering digital would have been totally bad as they will completely rationalize that there is absolutely no cost at all. Their payment would probably have been, "Okay, you can use my electricity and charge your battery at my place." And yes... you can probably tell... I'm not particularly fond of them.

So, you've got cheapskate friends who still don't appreciate the work involved in your

shooting their wedding, they may yet be disappointed in the results, you will probably

be too busy to enjoy the wedding, and you won't be well compensated for it.

 

Sounds like a plan!

I was asked by my brother to photograph HIS wedding. I kindly declined the offer for several reasons, and along with my aunt and sister, hired a wedding photographer as my wedding present to him.

a) nothing causes family arguments faster than photographing an unrepeatable event, and having it not be what they wanted. The money spent on a photographer is more than worth it, as THEY get the brunt of the anger if something goes wrong.

b) you'll enjoy it way more if you're not behind the camera. Wait, did I just say ENJOY a WEDDING? Ok, time for bed.

Some of you folks talk like you don't have a family. This is a relative not a friend.

While friends may come and go, it'll be those same relatives standing around your

coffin when they shovel dirt over you. God, if I tried to ding a relative for shooting an

event or wedding, my mother would be on the phone to me in a nano second.

 

Buy the damned film and get another relative to foot the bill for the proofs if you can't

afford it. Give him the negs... IMO once you agreed to do it, insisting on keeping

them was in poor taste as far as "family" is concerned.

 

Those who immediately assume the relative is a cheapskate didn't even bother to

inquire if they were financially able or not. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. But

there are a hell of a lot of people hurting right now... yet life goes on and people get

married and still start families of their own. What a priceless gift to give a relative... be

thankful you have the talent and skill to help your family.

 

If you shoot it, shoot the crap out of it and make sure you cover all the important

people in their lives... knowing who to shoot is an advantage you'll have over any

hired gun. If you do your best, then you did your family duty.

Buy the happy couple a six-pack of Kodak/Fuji disposable cameras as a gift and enjoy yourself--assuming that's possible--at the reception.Let the kid and guests shoot the wedding.

I wish I could share Marc's roseate view of family life. A cheap, domineering bastard is a cheap domineering bastard, whether you're related or not. Opportunities to satisfy this type are all but unimagineable. They'll bitch to any available audience about the crappy job Erb did(assuming he does it) or, alternatively, about what an unreasonable egotist he was about the negatives.The concept of "gift" only has meaning if both parties understand it, Marc.

Erb, I'm glad you have a plan coming together and hope all works out well for you. I hope also that the bride and groom don't see your last post. Perhaps their pro inquiries will give some appreciation for your efforts.

 

Out of curiousity, I am wondering why (in this particular shoot) you feel a need to keep the negatives. What possible benefit are they to you if this is being done for cost? The only thing I can think of is to keep the duds out of sight for awhile.

Gary, there is nothing in the original question that indicates cheap or domineering on

the part of the relative. Others layered that on this thread. They just might not have

the money to pay for a $1,500-$2,000 hired gun. I know most of my family doesn't

these days. Maybe they want to have the negs so they can do it properly later on when

they can afford it.

 

Assuming that everyone will hate all the photos and the family will blame Erb for the

rest of his life assumes that Erb is without talent, is doomed to failure and that his

family is universally a pack of ingrates. Those are assumptions only Erb can confirm.

 

My experiences have been exactly the opposite. Most family members will be

astounded by reasonably decent, well edited proofs and be proud that a family

member did it. The only downside is that even a semi-pro level job will bring on a

flood of other family related requests. The upside is that when I've done a cheap

family wedding or event, it led to a fair amount of other work when the friends of the

B&G saw the results.

 

I still am of the opinion that you don't suddenly go pro on them AFTER you agree to

shoot the wedding.

 

I also think the only gracious person in this scenario is the young cousin who

volunteered their services for free... maybe out of ignorance, but gracious none the

less.

 

Hmmm, I wonder what Mrs. Manners would have to say about this.

as per the original post........they asked him........so they felt he was good enough.....how? only way i know is by previous results......correct? maybe not necessarily a pro wedding photography, but at least someone that knows how to take a decent picture, and more than likely knows the (general) rules of business surrounding such engagements.............(later, it is found out that he indeed IS a pro)..........so, anyhow, when the original dispute over the negatives arose, the groom and relatives were the ones who should have backed down to Erb's experience in the situation (at whatever level that might have been, it was more than theirs)............but, no, what do they do? They then say if he keeps the negatives, he pays all the costs of film and development........and again Erb explains that this is not the way it is normally done (or at a minimun, the way he does things)........again the family fights him on it. Now, granted, Erb probably should have explained all these little details that the general public would not be aware of right up front........but he was dealing with family...there is that tendancy, with family, not to pull out the legal contracts.....at least not immediately.......because you figure that family will acknowledge your expertise in the area, and at least believe you when you say something is normally a certain way.........they may not like it, but they should at least believe what you say is true.

 

(Still, remember that the original deal was ok except the keeping of the negatives............no actual extra payment has been introduced by Erb.........unlike the relatives, who have)

 

why? I wonder? They obviously recognize his talent, they asked him to do the shoot. What is it about him keeping the negatives that erks them so much to cause a family dispute over it......and THEY did start the dispute........they disagreed with a person in the field that they recognized as competent, yet they could not believe him when he explained the business end of it all to them. Did they think he was going to charge them a arm and a leg the next time they wanted prints?..........again, respect for his photographic talent, but not his business ethics. Again, they were the first to "cast the stone" (so to say) and are in the wrong.

 

so...........they are one of two things..........either cheapskates trying to get whatever they can out of the talents of a professional for as little as they can, and using "family" to fuel that position. Or, what I was alluding to......

 

........this annoying, aggrevating, deplorable philosophy that is infecting the world of late...............in that those that CAN'T have the right to dictate to those that CAN, when and how their talents and favors will be dispensed.

 

...and unfortunately, sometimes it is "family" that is the biggest perpretraters of this act.

 

IMHO

What possible value of ANY wedding negatives/pictures could have to anyone but the participants? Why would you bwant to keep them, for a gallery? Give me a F'in break. Even to dispute the chump change involved with family and post the question is petty. Give them the negatives. Sheesh!

Stephen: I think there's an issue of reputation here. Those relatives asked Erb to shoot their wedding because they saw what he had done for other people and were impressed. Good publicity for Erb.

 

If Erb gives the negatives to the relatives, there's a lot to bet that they'll have the cheapest possible prints done, and that those won't be as good as the ones that Erb will be able to get (and not necessarily much cheaper). Now, if the relatives show those not-so-good prints to their friends and say "those were done by my <insert relation here> who is a pro wedding photographer". Bad publicity for Erb.

As if the average person was a photography critic and would know a great print from

a mediocre one. Folks are interested in the content, (who it is, where it is, and stuff

like that). If Erb does a decent job, it'll blow away any P&S junk Uncle Bob cranks out

at 30mm from 50 feet away.

 

Erb, is this really worth all the ill will with-in your family?

 

Okay, I'll be quiet now. Gotta go visit with my family today.

Erb, you still haven't said *why* you'd want to keep the negs? I'd really be interested to know.

The issue is not copyright, but rather "title". In order to avoid these situations, you

must simply give a flat price for your services, even if that is $40. In the groom's

mind, he is paying for the "cost of the negatives" or paying the "price of the

negatives" so he can own them. The photographer here has not taken Business Law

101.

 

Because the photographer did not communicate clearly, I suggest backing out.

However, another way to handle it is to simply print a few prints for the portfolio,

then hand over the negatives. I think it is in the photographer's best interest to keep

friends here and to not get possessive over some negatives that have little personal

value other than to prove experience to a next client.

 

To go on and on regarding "copyright" is to miss the point of clear thinking when

making a contract. Unless the photographer has "title" to the image, he can't get a

copyright.

 

This photographer has already learned that "copyright" arguments are futile with

relatives.

 

The very best thing you can do is to re-make the agreement: Photograph the

wedding; make a few prints for your records; then hand over the negatives. In this

way, they don't feel rejected; and they don't feel victimized by a cold hearted relative

that only thinks about money, copyright, and possession of their memories.

 

The idea that you are the creator, while they own title of the negatives and the right

to have them delivered to them, does not put you in a good place in regards to

copyright. Furthermore, the people you photograph could require you to get a model

release to use their images if they wanted to make it sticky you.

 

If you are an employee of Macys, and you take pictures of people using Macy's film,

do you own the copyright because you snapped the shutter?

 

I guarantee that the negatives will be nearly worthless to you if the relatives end up

hating or disliking you. Anyone who sees the pictures will try to refer themselves to

your relatives. Your relatives will relate your confusing business practices and

unprofessional agreement. The referral will go somewhere else to another

photographer who understands customer service and contracts. There is nothing to

gain by your cold intentions to keep their memories. It will all backfire on you one

way or another. I guarantee it. I think that other cousin is more right to simply do it

as a wedding present.

 

Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

I don�t know how to thank you all for your many, many wonderful suggestions about dealing with unpleasant relatives. I feel so much better now.

 

At this holiday season I sometimes feel as though I�m missing something by having no relatives. Both my (late) parents were orphans, I was an only child and my wife and I have always been �DINK�s�.

 

So Erb, I just can�t even imagine what I�d do so solve your wedding dilemma. Never experienced anything like it. Whew!

I wouldn't shoot the wedding of a relative: I want to enjoy the wedding as anyone else, not work. I use to bring my camera to friends' weddings ONLY if they ask me directly since I'll try to do the best I can and I prefer to focus on eating and getting drunk :)

 

If I agreed to shoot the wedding I'd try to make the best pictures I could. If I were you, I'd buy the best film myself. How much are you going to pay? 50-100$? If you really care for your pictures, I bet you won't accept film under certain quality standards. I'd fix the pictures and then give them the "fixed" negatives (I know I'm talking from a digital point of view... but marriages are going digital nowadays :) They'll print all they want AFTER I took care of it. I'd give them the "bad" negatives separate from the "good" one for them to see but stating "these are the pics that came out bad".

 

Simone

Good advise.

Shoot it in film, get the film scanned, keep the image files for yourself if you really want them, give your relatives the negatives. Simple solution that won't cost you much.

by all means...let the young cousin shoot the wedding and let us know what

happened,please!!

I shot a wedding as backup photographer for the groom's side awhile ago. His family paid for the film and processing to 4x6's at a professional lab- about $80. My time and effort was a gift to them.

 

I used a flash on my camera for all shots in a forest environment. The "pro" did not. The family liked my pictures much better than those of the "pro."

 

I scanned some of the pictures for my web site, and gave everything else to them.

 

Do not let them take the film somewhere. My nephew got married, hired some person as photographer, took the film to Walmart, and got nothing. Their bad decision has cost them the memories on film they would have had otherwise.

 

How much are these people spending on the wedding? If they are spending thousands, why are they squeezing you for $100?

If shooting at cost, never charge for film and processing. Charge a "basic fee" which just happens to be the same as the cost of film and processing. That makes it a lot easier to hang on to the negatives!

I took wedding pictures for a neighbor the day after the original question in this thread was posted and reading about your arguments with the groom makes me chuckle.

 

I can only confirm that being the official photographer at a wedding can be a real minefield unless you are a pro and the cost of your work is clear to the wedding couple or unless the wedding couple is interested in photography. You can easily get into hefty arguments with the couple although you are doing them a favor.

 

The people I gave the favor make a good living and spent quite a lot on their wedding. But they are very indifferent when it comes to the wedding photos. It makes me wonder whether they can tell a good photo from a bad one. (The groom mistook the grain in a print of a 800 iso negative I took at another ocsasion for "skin pores".) They must have a feeling for the cost of semi-professional cameras, flashes, lenses, films etc. and they must have seen news coverage of photographers taking pics of politicians. Yet they were totally chocked that I wanted to expose more than two rolls of film and that I needed different kinds with different speeds. Faced with this ignorance, I refused to buy the film myself and gave them a shopping list, so they could see the price of professional portrait film themselves.

 

The day before the wedding, I was given the film in a very harsh manner and I was specifically asked not to take more than two rolls of film (they bought four). On the wedding day, the bride told me that I could take some more. I ended up using all four rolls of film, for pictures of the couple before, during, and after the ceremony and for a group photo.

 

I brought the film to a cheap lab and haven't seen the pics yet - ok I've not been at home for a week but still. All I've heard is that the pics are good but that I should have taken pictures of the family as well ...