Bride wants ALL photos taken...

<p>She's professional if she was paid.</p>

<p>I agree in some of the advice given but to attack, which is the way some of these answers read is wrong, that is constructive in no way. This is a learning expierence and we all continue to learn throughout out careers and lives. When we feel we know it all it is time to move on. I am not in anyway trying to be judgmental towards anyone just trying to motivate all to remember the stupid mistakes that we have all made and learned from. I have made many many mistakes and learned from them all and I will make many many more and will learn and grow from them as well. We all need to ecourage one another as individual artists. I do personal interviews as well as ask prospective clients to fill out a survey so that I can get a feel for them and what they would like to see with the finished product. I have turned people away because I felt that their needs would be best met with another photographer. If I offended anybody I am truely sorry.<br>

I also agree she is a proffesional as she accepted money for services and delivered on those services.<br>

Again I am sorry if anybody was offended.</p>

<p>How did she know that there were 2500 images? Giving the client out-of-focus, poorly composed, or poorly exposed images is probably not a good idea. I would withhold at least those.</p>

<p>You should be able to find at least 400 more images out of the 2500 you shot. I am sure she just feels like there are so many more photos that she hasn't seen but knows were taken. I take anywhere from 600-1400 images at a wedding depending on length and how much action is going on and give them around 80 to 90% of those images.</p>

<p>Make sure you have a good contract next time.</p>

<p>comments to the op and others-<br>

answer to a question- did the 350 pics become all that came out to pro standards from the 2500? if yes, the is unacceptably low by any working pro. and the frankly jones should not have shot the wedding. she does not have the ability. have good gear does not make the user a pro. if no, and there were many more that came out, then absolutely the bride should have a look and decide what if any she wants. as stated there was no written contract. but were the terms of the engagement stated exactly and in front of witnesses? and what were those expectations and terms? was 350 mentioned or 2500, or any other number of pics and under what circumstances were those shots to be taken and when? and how many of the total delivered? do not make this kind of mistake-if the terms of the engagement were stated in front of witnesses, that is an oral contract and is just as binding as a written one.<br>

also, jones accepted money to do the engagement of shooting the photos at the wedding. the moment she did that JONES WAS A PRO, PERIOD. DO NOT MISTAKE THIS, ONCE MONEY WAS ACCEPTED FOR THE SHOOT JONES WAS A PRO. this means that she crossed over from the amatuer world of photography to the pro world, with all the duties responsibilities and expectations of image quality that entails. an amatuer can say to himself or another person the shot did not come out. this could be due to lack of photo skill or knowledge or experience. unfamiliarity of the gear, nerves, gear breaking or any number of other things. but the working photo pro is expected to produce the images no matter what.<br>

to me also, the 350 shots given to the bride for 3 days works seems low. my output to a bride was 300-400 printed shots on the wedding day. this was the film days. and the bride got just about all that i took, since good images % of the total was well over 90%. if you figure on 350 shots at the wedding then 200 each for the other 2 days, then the total at a minimum would be near the 750-800 shot amount. to me also, the $1000 for a first wedding seems a bit enthusiastic. this may account for part of the bride's reaction and desire to see the other images, which jones should show the bride. this is also on of the potential problems in accpting a photo engagemnet from a close friend or relative. after the shoot that person may not be your friend or close relative any more.<br>

for jones-next time get a written exact contract. that contract not only binds you but also the b&g to the terms of the engagement.</p>

<p>Speaking as an amateur, my guess is that the bride cannot see a decent photo of one of her friends/relatives and wants to make sure there is not one hidden somewhere. And if that is the case, quality is not the key motivator so what <em>the photorgrapher</em> finds acceptable as a photograph becomes irrelevant.</p>

<p>But I still cannot get over this idea (seen in many posts on this forum) that the couple should receive a thousand pictures of their wedding. Can you really imagine giving a photo disc to Aunty Mae saying "here you are, there's only a thousand, I hope you don't get bored". Grief!</p>

<p><em>But I still cannot get over this idea (seen in many posts on this forum) that the couple should receive a thousand pictures of their wedding.</em></p>

<p>I agree; I think 100 images should be an approximate limit on any set of images that is to be digested as a whole; fewer is (much) better. To look at an over-thick album of a wedding can only result in boredom. I've seen many of these and the repetition is astonishing - why did they feel the need to include so many similar images?</p>

<p>You walked into a mine field. You must decide if your photography is a business or if you like doing favours for friends. If its the latter, then hand over the CD. If its the former, these are the rules (after 30 years in the business):<br>

1. Always have a simple contract in place<br>

2. In the contract it should specify 50% on signing and 50% BEFORE the shoot. (NEVER have final payment subject to approval by the client).<br>

3. 100 images max....50 preferably. (You and not the client choose the keepers.)<br>

4. Be prepared to say no.<br>

5. Never mix friendships with business. If you do, you will lose both. (probably should be rule #1)<br>

6. Only contract with the B&G....not other relatives...even if they are paying. (beware the mother of the bride!)<br>

7. Don't undercharge. Our daily fee as in this situation, would be $1500 per day. (We usually allow 1.5 hours for the church, 1 hour for the intimate formals at some gardens etc, and 4 hours for the reception. Our rate is $200 an hour)</p>

<p>Wedding photography can be lucrative if you are good and obey the above rules. But so many start their careers with weddings rather than portraits etc. In the pro world, apart from sports, wedding photography is the hardest in pleasing the client. This forum is littered with the wreckage of new, keen as mustard, photographers who have had a bad wedding experience. Almost all undercharged, had a weak contract, did the shoot for friends or relatives and in lots of cases the mother in law waded in...approving the shots and withholding final payment.<br>

The only way to succeed is to be firm about your Ts&Cs. You might lose some low end business, but people who value their wedding and the memories your shooting will preserve for them, will pay and will respect your commercial attitude.<br>

$1500 or so for a one afternoon wedding/reception is peanuts compared to the cost of the whole event. Remember that.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you don't have 1500 images that are suitable to give a bride after taking 2500, then you shouldn't be getting paid yet, period. Sorry to be harsh, I'm sure you're a lovely gal. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If we're talking about things that are irritating, let's put this at the top of the pile: judging other people's photos by numbers and without having seen them. Second, let's put saying "<em>sorry to be harsh...</em>" as a licence for rudeness.</p>

<p>Alec, honestly, I think that is quite a fair statement to make. I don't have to see the images to judge anything, 350 is an insane (way too many) amount if she actually retouched them, but if you are exposing your images correctly in camera, you shouldn't need to do much more than a light color or white balance correction. We don't retouch images for clients, unless they are being printed as a large print in their package or in their album. I am not saying that my opinion is the only one, but it's mine and I can't speak for anyone else. That's why they call this a forum, we are all given our own platforms to put forth the information that we think might be pertinent or helpful.<br>

Everyone has an opinion, and this is mine. Personally, as a bride, I would never agree to 100 images of the most important day of my life so far. That, to me, is just not enough. If you have clients who will accept that, that's great. If our clients were told that they would not book with us.<br>

I stand behind my assessment, if you shoot 2500 images and don't have at least 75% that are suitable to deliver to the client, then you shouldn't be accepting money as a professional. That is not geared at Shae, but at anyone who wants to shoot weddings. If you had a second who delivered less than that, I highly doubt you would hire them again. I know I wouldn't. And that's a second, I can't believe that anyone else professional would find that acceptable from someone putting themselves out there as a pro. Maybe Shae has 2000 images that are great, and could be delivered to the client. I hope that's the case, and if it is, then do quick batch edits and make her a disc. These are her memories, and I hope that Shae can give her more to work with. If more images were good, then give em' over.<br>

Even in my first main wedding, with what I consider less than pro equipment, I delivered 800 great images and the couple was thrilled, and I did it (and many more after that) for free until I was sure that I was worth the money. We were all newbies as some point, but I see more and more unprepared photographers jumping into the markets as main photographers with little regard for the disappointment that couples feel when their wedding images are less than what they want. I did not, and am not saying Shae is one of these, but I hope that this discussion makes her, and other photographers, new and old :) make sure that their complete wedding coverage is on par with the portfolio they showcase to potential clients. <br>

In Shae's case, I assumed that she gave the client a better rate than fair market value in her area because 1) she was a newer photographer and/or 2) the bride was the sister of her best friend.<br>

We should be holding ourselves and each other to a much higher standard, otherwise anyone with any kind of camera can call themselves a pro, and charge money. And in a lot of cases, that is exactly what is happening. Caveat emptor, but we need to have more personal responsibility, especially when it comes to a day as special, and often times expensive as a wedding day.</p>

<p>I guess I have to agree with Ilkka here. What <em>do</em> people do with 350 images of one event? And maybe wedding photography is different, but a 14% keeper rate is pretty good in my book. I'm just sayin'...</p>

<p>Just give them to the Bride and chalk it up to experience. Move on. Learn from it.<br>

WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, as a bride, I would never agree to 100 images of the most important day of my life so far.... If you had a second who delivered less than that, I highly doubt you would hire them again. I know I wouldn't. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kenzi - the OP delivered 350 images, not 100. And unless I'm much mistaken, she nowhere asked you for a job or to describe your employment practices. Do you have anything helpful to say to answer the question she did ask?</p>

<p>wow, Shae, I'm going against the grain here. Give her all the pictures, even the ones slightly out of focus, but remove the ones that are just horrible (not viewable). Create a folder of your favorite pictures and put the ones you like of the 2k pictures in there. You may want to edit some of them. But put into it the effort you want for your best friends sister. She's just looking to find some cool/odd/of the wall pictures that no one else may like but her. If you take 500 pictures of me and show me 50.. How come you get to decide what I want or like?? <br>

The client is not going to expect that every picture is perfect, every picture is in focus, every picture is has everyone looking at the camera, or posed exactly right. They just want to see what they are not seeing. :)</p>

<p>I'm not going to give an opinion on Shae's original post 1, because I think it's been said already (although unnecessarily harshly in some cases) and 2, most of you wouldn't consider me a professional. And, BTW I have seen plenty of "professional" work that stanks on ice. <br>

My issue(s) with many of you are: Photographers are not professionals, they are artists (unless you define professional as anyone who is paid money for their work, which would make almost everyone a professional something). Doctors, lawyers and Accountants are "professionals". Furthermore, you will be hard pressed to find many if any colleges in this country that offer a degree in "photography". That being said, I respect all of you that are able to make a living at this.<br>

Also, are you aware that it is next to impossible to land a gig as a "second"? At least in my area. I've offered to shoot for free for several photographers and asked only to be able to use photographs I take as samples. No one wants to do this because they do not want more photographers in the market. While understandable, very cowardly and short sited in my opinion. I mean think about it, how many people that try wedding photography are actually going to make it (as a viable long-term business) and are they really going to be competition? Or could they be an allie, someone to help cover large events, somebody who could actually benefit your business?<br>

Good luck Shae, you can gleen lots of valuable advice here. But always expect that someone is going to at least appear to be on the attack as a previous poster mentioned. Why, I don't know. Nadine, and some others in my experience give impeccable advice - I'm sure due to their extensive experience. We're lucky to have them on this site. </p>

<p>Talk about numbers delivered vs. shot is beside the point, I think. That number can vary greatly depending upon the photographer and his or her philosophy about the definition of complete wedding coverage. How Shae's numbers compare is even more beside the point. Shae's client wants all the images shot, doesn't matter what the 'industry standard' is, if there is such a thing, and I doubt it exists.</p>

<p>So, to help Shae and her problem, now, the question is whether she should give the client all the images, some (more) of the images, or none, given the absence of a contract. And even though my advice was to give the client all the images, there is such a thing as using one's judgement and intuition about the client to arrive at a suitable resolution.</p>

<p>Perhaps the client is somewhat reasonable, and can accept the fact that some of the total number needs to be forgotten on the cutting room floor. Duplicate, eyes closed images, bad exposure, experimental but didn't work out, blurred, part of a sequence from which the best image was picked, the camera fired while being carried on it's strap, etc. Perhaps the client will agree if Shae tells her she will turn over anything that could possibly be of interest to the client, but not all the duds. I know when I talk to clients, they understand this totally.</p>

<p>I always try to resolve problems with clients by having a face to face chat and discussing, in simple and practical terms, what their options are, and what I am willing to do, explaining the whys, if necessary. More often than not, honesty is still the best policy, in my experience. In any case, I would try this approach before any escalation of actions surrounding the situation.</p>

<p>Lee......let me just say a few things about <strong>"professionalism"</strong> .....in any field.</p>

<p><strong>1. professionals have an expert degree of knowledge in their area of work.</strong><br>

<strong>2. professionals have a demonstrated track record of exellence, or at least competence.</strong><br>

<strong>3. professionals generally, do not have a part time job outside of their discipline</strong><br>

<strong>4. professionals generally know what they are doing!<br /> </strong></p>

<p>That's an articulate expansion and great advice, Nadine. I agree with it. Others who have similar issues or problems, should take heed of it.<br>

</p>

<p >Especially we should note the: <strong ><em >face to face meeting</em></strong>; <strong ><em >honesty being the best policy</em></strong> and also, importantly; <strong ><em >taking the time to explain there are "duds"</em></strong>. </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >“Duds” might be attributable to the Photographer's style or a particular choice the Photographer made for one series of images . . . just as much as the “duds” might be attributable to inexperience. </em></strong><br>

<br>

*** <br>

<br>

Rarely do I suggest a simple Black and White opinion, but I did in this instance - I simply suggested give her the lot and move on. <br>

<br>

There are four elements in this scenario which need to be taken into account:<br>

> Canada<br>

> First Wedding<br>

> Best Friend's Sister <br>

> No written contract<br>

<br>

The Image Ownership Laws in Canada need to be considered. <br>

The fact that it is a first Wedding, means even if Shae is building a business, little if any flack will fall from this experience. <br>

It is best to keep friendships and business separate, but as this has happened it is an opportunity to (especially as there was no contract), move on with the view that the monies paid were just to cover costs.<br>

<br>

I think that a face to face with the Bride is the way to give her all the images - and upon handing them over an explanation that she is getting everything from the cutting room floor also. Those two actions constitute a definitive closing function. All responsibility then moves to the Bride - forever.<br>

<br>

My advice comes from an experience I had, with Family. We were three years into our first studio and I was approached . . . the long and the short of it is: I considered I did the Wedding for cost of materials / fuel etc and my time at 1/2 my advertized rate. . . their view, after the event and an agreed price, was I had ripped them off. <br>

<br>

They wanted a meeting with me - it lasted about 90 seconds. I gave them all the negatives, all the preview prints and asked for no final payment (which was 50% of the previously agreed price).<br>

<br>

In the scheme of things that "loss" was actually my profit. They came to argue, bicker and fight about this and that and wanted to vent their spleen and hostilities- by me removing the issue in one fell swoop I rendered them legless and with the burden of full responsibility for all their Wedding Photos. Yes we could argue that my relations could have had the negs of the "duds" printed at a 5c printing place show them to all their friends and complian about the quality of my work - but I seriously doubt they would go to that trouble. <br>

<br>

I think this is a bottom line and very simple solution.<br>

<br>

Shae has a few viable options from which to choose.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

<p>Thanks to MOST of you for your help!<br>

I realize I made a mistake in not having a contract, I was a little naive in thinking I didn't need one for a friend (now realizing it was needed more so because of that). As for the images that were not given to the B&G they wern't "garbage" they were eyes closed, best of a series etc...yes, there were some that were OOF or trying something that didn't work...I went back to the file of the photos and there were 423 to be exact. Now that I have shot a few more weddings I realize that the amount is quite low (that is the amount I include for a single day). I should have explained aswell that during the bbq and golf, since I was a friend, the B&G kept telling me to "put my camera down and stop working". She wanted me to get a few shots of those events but more importantly wanted me to be a part of them.<br>

KENZIE, 75% of the images were useable...I do know what I am doing, and I am a great photographer, I just made a mistake.<br>

In any case, I have spoken to the bride and am getting her the rest of the images and chalking it up to a learning experience and moving on!<br>

Thanks again</p>

<p>Good for you, Shae. Good luck in the future, and remember--you always need a contract...</p>

<p><em>"My issue(s) with many of you are: Photographers are not professionals, they are artists (unless you define professional as anyone who is paid money for their work, which would make almost everyone a professional something). Doctors, lawyers and Accountants are "professionals". <strong>Furthermore, you will be hard pressed to find many if any colleges in this country that offer a degree in "photography"."</strong> </em><br>

<br>

Lee, I am not arguing the definition of "Profession" or "Professional" . . . . but there are many institutions around the world which offer Degree courses. . . frankly I don’t care what you call me, so long as it is not late for dinner :) <br>

Whilst the degree conferred might often be a "Bachelor of Fine Arts" (BFA) - or similar, such as Bachelor of Film and Television (Melbourne University), as opposed to "Bachelor of Photography" the major of these degrees can be Photography – and in common parlance is referred to as a “Photography Degree” <br>

Many institutions offer “Diploma of Photography” and other Certificate Awards and in Australia Photography can be taken as an examinable High School Subject which is credit towards University entrance.<br>

There are Universities here, which offer post graduate course work and reserach in the Discipline of Photography within the School of Arts leading to Masters and Doctorate degrees - and the were France in the 1990's so I assume that still to be the case, now.<br>

I assume you live in the USA – I would be very surprised if there are no Universities (Colleges?) in the USA offering a BFA (or similar) with a major in Photography . . . ?<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

<p><em>in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright."</em></p>

<p><em>IOW the paying client owns the copyright in Canada, not the photographer, unless subject to contractual provisions.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

I am not familiar with Canada's copyright laws but I do know that legislation like this usually has definitions for various terms and/or case law that defines certain terms. Here, we are told that the language of the act carves out an exception where there is an "agreement" and then we are told afterward that the exception is based on "contractual" situations. Since many agreements are not contractual at all, is there information showing that an "agreement" must be in the form of a contract? Usually these sort of acts would use more defined language to avoid these kind of ambiguous situations. If an act contemplates the exception to arise from a contract, under statutory construction norms, it would usually use the word contract.</p>

<p>This may not go to an issue of whether the OP should turn over all the images but it does have an effect on whether they must.</p>

<p>" I should have explained aswell that during the bbq and golf, since I was a friend, the B&G kept telling me to "put my camera down and stop working". She wanted me to get a few shots of those events but more importantly wanted me to be a part of them."<br>

s jones-i will say this again. once you accept money for a gig you have crossed over to the pro world. you are no longer at the wedding as a friend or relative and anything else. you are there as the working wedding photog, not the friend or relative. i shot 2 weddings under similar conditions-one for my wife's life long friend(knew her(the bride) very well), and another for my brother. at neither wedding was i anything but the photog. sometimes it got awkward or odd or uncomfortable but at the end of of the day's shoot i had the wedding pics. because that is what i was there for. if you want to enjoy and have fun at a wedding then do not be the photog. so let me say i-if you are a paid photog for a wedding, no matter the relationship with the b&g, you are a pro NOT a guest. you have a job to do and you have got to do it. and after the wedding even if the b&g said "do not take so many pics and have a good time", they still expect the pics they contracted with you for. no ifs buts or maybes. if you are the working pro at a wdding, no mmatter who, you must produce the pics; no excuses.<br>

also, i feel considerably better in your telling us that about 75% of the images came out. well done.</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p>"Lee......let me just say a few things about <strong>"professionalism"</strong> .....in any field.<br>

<strong>1. professionals have an expert degree of knowledge in their area of work.</strong><br /><strong>2. professionals have a demonstrated track record of exellence, or at least competence.</strong><br /><strong>3. professionals generally, do not have a part time job outside of their discipline</strong><br /><strong>4. professionals generally know what they are doing!"<br /></strong><br>

Bob, I agree. How many professional wedding photographers or otherwise do you know with a degree in photography? I'll go out on a limb and say not many if any. You may know some with a fine arts degree, but that is not a "Photography" degree. They may have the availability of some photography classes, but not an actual degree. One graduate as a music education or performance major with a BA degree. It doesn't make them a proffesional. "Profesionalism" is an entirely different animal and applies generally to ones actions.<br>

In any case, we could argue the definition of what a professional is all day long. That is currently under debate and you will find both very narrow and broad definitions if you do a search so I'll just say that in my opinion, it's a matter of opinion :-)<br>

As far as your "no part time job" requirement, everybody started somewhere. You might have a burning desire and passion to become an excellent photographer, have your own studio and make a living at creating art through photography, but it doesn't happen overnight and people have to eat and pay for housing, cameras, beer, etc. But hey, if you started out making great money right away, good for you! Oh, #4 - I know plenty of hobbiests that know what they are doing and quite a few of them are excellent photographers mostly because they have a passion for it, not because somebody handed them a degree.<br>

Honestly, why do people tout themselves professional photographers anyway? It's pointless - photography is an art (yes there's science involved, but still). I would much rather be considered an artist than a "professional". <br>

William W. - Yes you are correct I am in the USA and I stand by my original statement. I did not say you couldn't find classes in photography in colleges. As far as a BFA, I'm sure that is available in the states, but I don't believe it is a degree in photography and whether it is or not, a degree alone does not make one a "professional". There may be photography degrees out there, but I haven't found them. I also met a fellow a couple of years ago who was attending a local college and said he was studying photography. I asked, "they offer a degree in photography?" His response was that the actual degree was in industrial arts. Again, that could mean a few things. Anyway, I'm done with it, if you want to be a professional then go ahead. I'd rather be an artist, I've met too many "professional photographers" who don't make very good money unless it's "wedding season".<br>

<strong></strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><em><strong>"William W. - Yes you are correct I am in the USA . . . Anyway, I'm done with it, if you want to be a professional then go ahead. I'd rather be an artist, I've met too many "professional photographers" who don't make very good money unless it's "wedding season"."</strong></em><br>

<br>

. . . as I first wrote . . . I wasn't discussing what I need or want to "called" at all, Lee. . . . <br>

<br>

Most of the time I respond quite well to just - "Bill".<br>

<br>

Labels don't do that much for me, at all - the proof is in the pudding - not the label. <br>

<br>

As a response to your tag-line: - There are many "artists" who are driving taxis - if they can get a shift, that is.<br>

<br>

:)<br>

<br>

WW</p>