Help? I shot my first wedding and I'm being threatened?

<p>Surely anything which happens on the hotel's property should be covered by the hotel's insurance.</p>

<p>Again, thank you everyone for your suggestions and, unexpectedly, for your support too! I have two weeks to wait for my CD folio be printed and shipped. During this time, I am going to go through all of my photos, good, bad, and indifferent, and apply general post-processing to them in LR4. I will get rid of the out-of-focus images and then just rename the files so they appear continuous. Unfortunately, I am a bit compromised because I met this couple at my place of employment so I can't play hard ball with this couple. I will hand over to them what they want in front of witnesses. I will assure them all their images are in the CD. After I put all of the images on their CD, I will erase them from my computer and I will tell the B&G this. I will back up their CD and keep it just in case this goes to court. I will also cease all contact from the B&G and erase their phone number from my phone. I will ask them, politely, to never call me again. We will see how this works. </p>

<p>David,<br>

I can't comment on what you should do concerning the photos as I just take pictures for my own enjoyment. But I can tell what you should do when threatened. You should have called the police and made a report when the groom threatened you. Depending on how and what he said it could be Menacing or just simple Harassment. But you need to document the encounter so if any thing happens in the future you can show a history of threats. <br>

Richard</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The paper and ink has cost a fortune.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's silly to print it yourself. Send it out to a mail order lab that will print 8x10's for $1.50 which is probably far cheaper than the cost of paper and ink.<br>

<br>

It's also not clear whether your verbal contract specified prints or files. He wanted photos. Give him photos.<br>

<br>

However, the harassment and physical threats are really the first thing you have to address. It doesn't make sense to do anything else until that it under control.<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Peter Zack wrote</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Oh BTW, the Nikon manual clearly shows which lenses are suited to the D800. The 50mm f1.4G isn't one of them. I'd go back to the rental company and ask for a refund on the lens rental. They should know better (this is common knowledge to Nikon shooters who have gear at this level) and have rented you a different lens. Namely the 24-70mm f2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's nothing wrong with using the D800 with the 50/1.4G. New camera. New lens. It would be silly if they didn't work with each other. And it says right in the manual (p. 425) compatible with AF Nikkor lenses include type G.<br>

<br>

And though the 24-70/2.8 would have been a better choice for a wedding gig, it's not the rental company's job to make sure a novice picks the right gear. They have to assume the renter knows what they need. Someone walks in and wants to rent a D800, a 50/1.4G, and the 70-200, what do you expect them to say? You're a first time wedding shooter, so a D300, and the 17-55/2.8 would be a more affordable alternative and fully capable of handing the job.<br>

<br>

However, the situation sounds like such a mess, any discussion about what equipment should have been rented is superfluous.</p>

<p>Before David shoots another wedding, he should join an organization like PPA which will provide indemnity insurance for this sort of thing and maybe even access to lawyers who specialize.</p>

<p> </p>

David, you have alot of info. Take a serious lookat all of your answers abd pick out how you want to handle this. Everyone that posted did great to help you.Perhaps take the advice of many and come up with a plan that perhaps will end on satisfied terms by both.

<blockquote>

<p>If you can only offer your clients 20 images from each hour of shooting, then seriously you should never have agreed to do this in the first place. $1,200 for what - approximately 100 - 160 images (working on 5 - 8 hours).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Josh McCosh, I seriously have to wonder what we are doing as photographers. If you shoot a five to eight hour event with quality equipment and after careful editing you offer a client 100-160 choice shots I think that should be enough. In the days of film that would be considered fantastic. I mean this business of dumping 4,000 shots on a client is just absurd. It's a free country and people can choose to conduct their business any way they please but I would prefer a nice well edited portfolio.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Only 160 images for $1200? I'd take you to court if that happened to me. I'm not trying to be harsh here, but if I were the photographer that only took 160 quality shots, I'd be getting my dress suit pressed for the law .</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Bob Bernardo, back in the day (1990s) you couldn't pay a photographer to shoot all day and then demand 160 frames from <strong>negatives</strong> at the end of the day for $1200. And certainly not 160 keepers from a carefully edited shoot.</p>

<p>One caveat is I am an amateur. I don't know how the business is conducted these days. I shoot digital and analog. There is no way I would get 4,000 images of anything with analog. Digital is just a tool. It hasn't changed the art. You can spray and pray with digital but I don't think you are going to get significantly more keepers than thoughtful shooting and editing with film. If someone produced 160 great images from my wedding and handed over the edit files to me to print as much as I wanted I would think that was a pretty good deal. <strong>I have NEVER sat down and looked at a wedding album with over 160 images... Let alone 160 quality edited images.</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let alone 160 quality edited images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no hard and fast rules when it comes to image numbers. I often underpromise and overdeliver to the clients. One couple literally didn't want to do any couple's shots after the wedding and I gave them 200 images for a whole day wedding and they were happy.</p>

<p>Most of my full day weddings, I gave them between 300-400 images and the couples are happy. A few I gave them around 220-250 and I never had anyone complained that my image count is too low. </p>

<p>I promised one East Indian couple 400 and they were pretty impressed and said that's a lot. So go figure. Only one time I had one bride told me "but other people are giving 800 pictures" during consultation. I gave her about 400 pics and she was happy too.</p>

<p>I'm a firm believer in that what seperates a pro from an ameture is that the pro only presents the best of the best.</p>

I do weddings as a side business and try to shoot 3 or 4 a year, I have been doing this for over 8 years. I do have a

signed contract before I book their date on my calendar. You can go online and find many samples off of other

photographers web sites and take what you like, change it around a little and pay a small fee to have an attorney to tweak

it and give you his blessings,

All of the experienced photographers in here did have their first paid wedding once, we all made mistakes, and it's OK to

make mistakes, but learn from them, and try hard not to repeat it again.

No one should bash you in here, we all have learned things the hard way, we're just not brave enough to tell everyone.

I charge based on the length of time I will be shooting at the wedding, I usually tell them I will give them between 150 to

250 photos as the end product. I may shoot 2000 photos I then delete unacceptable photos based on out of focus, or bad

lighting, or whatever reason I would be embarrasses if anyone saw them. If you let the B&G see any of the poor quality

shots you most always here someone say " that's a shot I really wanted" and they will not be happy with all the other

great shots.

Report any threats you get as soon as it happens, then if something does happen ( god forbid), there will be records on

file that will back you up later when pressing charges on him. Record anyone who is witness to the threats.

Give them what you agreed on with him from the beginning and if he has a problem with it the don't be afraid to go to

small claims court. He has no contract to counter what you claim and 9 out of 10 times will be dismissed. You don't need

a lawyer for small claims court, and bring a witness with you to testify to the threat you received. As stated earlier, I have

never seen a wedding album with over 150 quality edited photos in them. Most of mine have 40 to 100. They may have a

proof book with 200 to 250 which was given to them so that they could pick out what photographs the wanted in the finial

album.

I have never printed my photographs, there are too many great companies that you upload your finial pictures and they

creat your album for you. You do have the freedom to design and layout the book but let them print it for you.

Good luck on what ever you decide, and learn from it and take the next step to be a wedding photographer. It can be

great fun and rewarding, but it isn't as easy as people think.

If I was asked to park their car I would say excuse me you must be mistaken me for the valet, then take a candid shoot of

the fool and then smile and tell him you are his photographer.

<p>As soon as there is a threat of violence, wouldn't a contract be somewhat of a side issue?</p>

<p>Again, thank you for all of your advice. I will let you know what happens two weeks from now when I get the CD folio in the mail and give it to the B&G. As far as my lens choice. Yes, I rented the 70-200mm 2.8g and 50mm 1.4g. Yes, I know that the 24-70mm must be in every photographers camera bag and I thought seriously about getting but I decided against it. The reason why is that I was renting the D800 and I wanted to shoot with one prime lens and one zoom lens for the wedding. Like I said, this was a very hefty expense and the cost of renting a third lens, the 24-70, would've cost me another $200. The reason why I chose the 50mm was that I really wanted to see what resulted when using a prime lens on the D800. Yes, I rented the D800 for the wedding but I also rented the D800 because I wanted to see if it is a DSLR that I would like to purchase. What better way to put it through its paces than to shoot it with a zoom and a prime? As it turned out the 70-200mm was not only more useful, and I'm glad I got it, but it was sharper too. The 50mm was soft at the center focus point but just outside of this point it was sharp. I wish I could post some images to show you here but it was strange indeed. What compounds the problem is I don't know why this happened. I had a pro photographer help me with this camera and lenses and he too was confounded as to the issue of soft focusing with the 50mm. Because it was a camera rental (and being in NYC, these cameras and lenses are really stressed), who knows what the cause of this was. Despite my awful wedding experience I did walk away deeply impressed with the D800. Someday I would like to purchase the D800E and, being the minimalist that I am, I only want to get one lens. Guess which one? That's right; the 24-70mm f2.8.</p>

John McCosh- the bald pis are fantastic and what a special event that must have been.Nice work.

Russell - "Bob Bernardo, back in the day (1990s) you couldn't pay a photographer to shoot all day and then demand 160 frames from negatives at the end of the day for $1200. And certainly not 160 keepers from a carefully edited shoot."

 

Well I agree with this Russell. I started in the late '80's actually. The major difference is in the film days every time you take a shot the cost back then was a $1 per shot. So if you took 160 pics your cost was about $160. Back then I shot around 200, so my cost was $200.

 

With CF cards or SD cards you can shoot for weeks at no cost on the same CF card.

 

Now, when booking a wedding almost always the B&G want to know how many shots I will be taking. Maybe this is why photographers over shoot, because it is free! Back in the film days if we took 2000 we would have been in trouble. Back then reorders were very high, Everyone ordered reorders and often very large enlargements, 24x30. Now you have to work very hard at selling a simple 11x14. It's a different world now. I feel it's good and bad, because in the '90s I think photographers were more careful and didn't make very many mistakes. I'm not saying that photographers these days are not careful. There's tons of really great photographers and the more shots they take the more fantastic images are keepers.

 

In the film days I don't thnk photographers were as creative as they are in the digital world.

 

Anyway Russell I totally aree with you about the film days and we were very careful to not over shoot. It's amazing how digital has changed the wedding business. It's pretty crazy.

<p>Russell, </p>

<p>I agree with you that 4,000 images are too many and in my last post I did complain about shoot and spray photographers.</p>

<p>I take anywhere from 600 - 800 images at a wedding this covers their whole day from the bride and bridesmaids getting ready, Ceremony, Family and Guest shots, Formal's, Reception shot's including table shots of every couple, speeches, Cake cutting, First Dance and Dance with farther etc. Usually 12 hours duration.</p>

<p>My Wedding albums have around 300 - 400 photos displayed in 120+ pages and tell the story of the couples wedding day. This is where I get my business. Agreed others might only give the client the very best of their shots and there is nothing wrong with that model either. <br>

I'm not saying for one moment that every photo in my album is perfect in every way, far from it, But my albums do tell a story and that is how I get referrals. This model works for me.</p>

<p>Sample album can be viewed here for those who are interested. www.blurb.com/user/McCosh<br>

John</p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>Don't let this one bad experience deter you from following your photography dreams. You have the skills to be a great photographer and I wish you all the best and good luck with the outcome.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Bob Bernardo, perhaps people overshoot because they THINK it is free. I mean as you said, it looks like it's free. But if you factor in the costs that are proportional to the number of shots it's not so free anymore.</p>

<p>The biggest cost is probably time spent in post production. Let's say you shoot 2000 images and it takes you 20 hours total in post production. If you would have shot 500 images you could have cut down the time to perhaps 5 or 6 hours. That means that the additional 1500 images cost you 14 hours of additional work. Average hourly wage for an employee in the US is $23. That's $0.21 per shot. If you value your time higher or lower or spend more or less time in post then you need to adjust but however you look at it, it costs money every time you press the shutter. It's not free at all.</p>

<p>Lets say you shoot for instance 4000 images. If you value your time at $23 per hour, every second you spend looking at every image will cost you $25.56. And just looking at every image for 5 seconds will take you 5.5 hours. It's not until you do the math that you realize how long certain things take when you have large volumes of images. If you then factor in every wedding that you shoot per year there is a lot of time and money to be saved by shooting more effectively.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I also have another question for you all. When you export your photos to a CD, which file format do you use? I was thinking about exporting the photos in three different formats; tiff (in order for the B&G to edit as they see fit), jpg (for printing), and small jpg's (for email). I don't want them coming back to me ever again and complain to me that I missed something.</p>

<p>Pete, I agree in principal with you and 4,000 images are way to many for a wedding. However I also believe 120 images are to few images to tell the story for the couple. Time is money but you also have to offer value for money and this will be different for each photographer depending on their market. Also as you build a reputation and are in demand then you can offer less, but while your trying to build your business I prefer to spend spare time by offering my client more than doing nothing. I shoot around 20 weddings a year and around a 100 portraits along with a couple of schools in the wedding off season.</p>

<p>David, I supply my customers with Data DVD's (3 Copies, 1 for them and 1 for each set of parents). The images are supplied in JPEG's only but in two folders high and low resolution. In each of these main folders is 8 sub folders. Preview, Bridal preparation, Ceremony, Family & Groups, Formal, Reception, Black & White & Effects.<br /><br />Everyone has a different model and what will work for one won't work for another. I looked at my local market and looked at what others supplied and tried to offer more for the same price.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>Don't bother with TIFFs</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most of my full day weddings, I gave them between 300-400 images and the couples are happy. A few I gave them around 220-250 and I never had anyone complained that my image count is too low.<br>

I promised one East Indian couple 400 and they were pretty impressed and said that's a lot. So go figure. Only one time I had one bride told me "but other people are giving 800 pictures" during consultation. I gave her about 400 pics and she was happy too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well I agree with this Russell. I started in the late '80's actually. The major difference is in the film days every time you take a shot the cost back then was a $1 per shot. So if you took 160 pics your cost was about $160. Back then I shot around 200, so my cost was $200.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My Wedding albums have around 300 - 400 photos displayed in 120+ pages and tell the story of the couples wedding day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for all the advice guys. I thought that 4,000 figure was a bit high. I see digital has changed things but is still reasonable... most of the time. I guess number of pictures shot on wedding day is the new megapixel race for consumers!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I looked at my local market and looked at what others supplied and tried to offer more for the same price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess that's the real driver.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I was thinking about exporting the photos in three different formats; tiff (in order for the B&G to edit as they see fit), jpg (for printing), and small jpg's (for email).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, your question assumes anyone other than a photographer that works with digital knows the difference between a JPEG and a TIFF. I wouldn't bother doing that for my best customer let alone my worst. As someone stated back in the day people didn't get negatives. You ordered prints. The fact they are getting high quality JPEGS is pretty incredible. I would be thrilled.</p>

<p>Thank you, Russell. Your point about TIFF's and negatives is well said. I will supply JPEG's only</p>

<p><strong>Russel</strong>, you are right. 160 photos is too few nowadays.<br>

<strong>David Ross</strong>, so why did not the couple order a professional, after looking at his or her portfolio, but they, instead, ordered you? The price is not low - in Moscow this price is taken by the serious PJ and wedding photograper of a high league, in Kyiv the price tag is $600 and it is taken by top-notch pros.<br>

For 600-700 USD you have this: </p>

<p><a href="http://www.wedlife.ru/photographers/?country_id=9908&city_id=10184">http://www.wedlife.ru/photographers/?country_id=9908&city_id=10184</a><br>

I admit, that in N.Y. the prices are <em>much higher</em>, but I can not consider your price to be low, still. <br>

It would be interesting to see at least 20-40 photos out of this your wedding. <br>

Why rent a camera? Buy a camera and build-up your porfolio. Sign a contract containing your time, quantity of photos, your lunch break. <br>

On the ship where I worked on June, 9, there were 4 photographers from Moscow, the cameraman and the couple looked into different lenses for the particular shot. I warned them to pose for me... The light was terrible, 2p.m., strong sun, blue semi-tramsparent roof (and the blue faces under the roof), black shadows under their eyes, very strong wind, heat, boat vibration, smoke, wrinkled faces due to the sun, wind, etc.... </p>

<p>Thanks to everyone here, I now have 540 images. For 3 1/2 hours, that is not bad. I do wish that I would have stuck to my guns and only gave them the 20 images an hour that I found terrific but this is a headache I just need to get done with. Considering that I was threatened at my place of employment, I also don't want to risk my job. I have been reading everyone's comments and debates as to how many photos are considered acceptable. I have photographed one wedding and so I can't say what is appropriate or not but I would like to to shoot fewer, better quality photos than to have a whole bunch of photos. I guess what is enough is what is needed to tell the story on the wedding day without leaving anything important out. <br>

Now to answer Ruslan. The $1200 also includes a custom CD folio with a miniature photobook inside. $600 might be alot of money where you come from but a studio apartment in NYC averages $1800 a month in my neighborhood, and I still have to travel an hour to work on the subway. The reason why I haven't bought a DSLR yet is because I wanted to try out the D800 and I just don't have $7,000 to spend on camera equipment yet. Like I said, I really would like to acquire a D800E. Upon consultation, the B&G wanted me to do this for free. I told them I could not shoot their wedding for free but if I were too expensive I would help them find another photographer. Finding a pro in NYC for $1200 I'm sure would be a diffult thing. Find a pro to do this wedding for free was impossible. Also at the consultation, I showed the B&G a photobook I had done for another client and they liked it. I also think they chose me for the obvious reason that I was convenient. I had seen some photos in the B&G's apartment that they considered professional. I certainly did not. I looked at your photos Ruslan and they are terrific. You are most definitely a pro. Thanks for sharing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you are right. 160 photos is too few nowadays.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It's about 100 more than I would want if I got married again.</p>

<p>David, thank you so much for your answer. America is definitely another world for us, attractive, but so unknown. In Moscow 3-room flat (which in the property - not rented) is $150-400 a month for all the facilities. In my small town it is 100 in winter and $50 in summer. Many of our photographers can save for the equipment - which is 30-40% more expensive than in USA but our price tags are lower as the other prices are. </p>