I think I was taken advantage of by the mother of the groom

[j._v.1]

<p>The particular package the client purchased was one that included a disk of prints. I ask the client to make a list of traditional portraits they would like have taken to help the day run a little smoother. After receiving a list from the client, I received an additional list from the MOG, approved by the bride and groom. Within this list (which I didn't know until the day of) were portraits of extended members of the family... without the bride and groom. I pretty much took free family portraits for the entire grooms side of the family. It's really bothering me. I'm going to change my contract so this won't happen again but I'm still bothered by it. I obviously do not want to do anything that will reflect poorly on my business or myself. I really like the client. The bride and groom were some of the easiest people to work with. I know this wasn't their doing.<br>

I could</p>

<ul>

<li> ignore it. change it in my contract</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li> talk to the bride and groom about my frustrations and allow the extend family members to purchase the prints on my website.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Explain to the bride and groom about my frustrations, add them to the disc, but encourage them to have family members purchase from the site.</li>

</ul>

<p>What is your opinion?<br>

Hopefully this will help other photographers in making decisions similar to this. Thanks for any advice you can give me!</p>

[acbeddoe]

<p>I don't understand why you think this is a problem; these groupings are important to the families. Weddings are, after all, family events.<br>

Why not look at this a an opportunity?</p>

[maury_cohen]

<p>I don't think it's your place to share your frustrations with anyone on the client side of this business relationship. <br>

To me, being flexible is an inherent part of being a wedding photographer. If the family approached you at the reception with a request to photograph couple "A" or Family "B" would you refuse?</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I am confused about your description of a 'disk of prints'. If you mean a disk full of images, then my opinion is--you should have made that decision when the MOG's list was given to you. If you glanced at the list and realized that many of the shots were 'free' family portraits, you should have made it clear to the MOG that those would not be on the disk given to the couple. Personally, I would not care if they had me taking free family portraits--my concern would be the time involved and whether that would impact the rest of my shooting. Basically, if they want to take the time to organize themselves for the session, and I have the time to do the session, I am more than happy to photograph them. However, I do not sell by the image, so I understand your concern.</p>

<p>At this point, though, it is fruitless, IMHO, to say anything to the couple about the issue because it has the potential to spoil your good relationship with them. Do something about it the next time. Consider this a lesson, although I would not put it in my contract either, unless you tighten up your description of what images the couple gets. I would handle these on a case by case basis. If you put every single possibility in your contract, it would be extremely long.</p>

[KyleE]

<p>I agree with Nadine. Also I didn't see in your original post did they hire you for a set amount of time and you agree to give them the photos you take during that time or did they not pay you for your time at all and instead are buying the photos separate after the fact?</p>

<p>If they paid you for the time then in my opinion if their wish is to utilize part of the time they paid for to have you photograph their family members then that is their prerogative. I may be way off base with that but that is how I would view it.</p>

<p>If you were hired on a time based contract I think it would be unethical to try to sell them photos that you took during that time separate from your original agreed price, they already paid for those photos when they hired you for the time.</p>

<p>In other words I don't see how these were "free portraits".</p>

<p>But it isn't clear from your original post what your contract was for and how you worked it out with them. If your contract states clearly they are paying for a certain amount of portraits just of the bride and groom and no one else then I could see a point in being frustrated.</p>

[laronge photographie coutu]

<blockquote>

<p>I pretty much took free family portraits for the entire grooms side of the family.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No you didn't. On your website you say, "All Packages Include: Unlimited hours of shooting time the day of your wedding." Why does it matter what the subject of the photos are if you took them at the wedding?</p>

<p>Be patient, you may be surprised to see that the extended families contact you to buy prints. I find I sell as many prints from events where files were purchased as from events where files weren't purchased. Either way, you were paid for your time.</p>

 

[matt_needham]

<p>I don't really understand the post, but rather than make restrictions about photos you won't take I'd suggest just raising prices to cover them. Moms and aunts are always going to want photos of extended family. Weddings are when extended family get together.</p>

<p> </p>

[kayumangi]

<p>It's a wedding so IT IS technically a BIG FAMILY PORTRAIT session. What's there to argue? I don't understand your frustration.</p>

<p>Unless you are charging them cheaply and thus you feel you are overworked for such small compensation. Is that case?</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I don’t know what your contract says and also I don’t know what a “disc of prints” means, but it appears, if I have the correct website, you advertise for Weddings thus:</p>

<p><em>“All Packages Include: . . . Unlimited hours of shooting time the day of your wedding<br />300+ finished proofs. Editing of proofs, including b&w, color correcting, and facial retouching.”</em></p>

<p>So therefore, if I were the Groom (or Bride), irrespective of what my individual contract stated, my “client expectation” would be that - the images asked for on any list of shots specifically asked for by me, or approved by me:<br>

> would <strong><em>all</em></strong> be taken<br>

> would<strong><em> all </em></strong>be included in the “300+ finished proofs”.<br>

Also I would expect that you would stay, until they were all taken.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<p> Ah! obviously Josh and I were researching & writing at the same time.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[mark_t5]

<blockquote>

<p>I received an additional list from the MOG, approved by the bride and groom</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>that's all i needed to read...</p>

[rt_jones]

<p><em><strong>were portraits of extended members of the family... without the bride and groom.</strong></em></p>

<p>I actually agree with the OP on this. Yes, I suppose it shouldn't matter what we shoot if we're there already but to use a wedding as somebody's personal portrait studio is kind of tacky IMO. I rarely (if ever) take posed portraits of people without the bride, groom or both in them during the family formals.</p>

<p>My advice to the OP is to never ask for a shot list.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Just on a funny, or not so funny note, with the title of this post, I thought it was that the MOG got overly inebriated and tried to molest you. ;) Glad it wasn't that at least.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>I just dealt with this today ... but immediately ... not after the fact.</p>

<p>A parent request for so many group photos that, based on experience, I knew it would interfere with proper coverage of the wedding itself. </p>

<p>Some here may feel we should accommodate any request ... I do not agree. IMO, shooting a laundry list of group portraits isn't shooting a wedding, it is shooting portraits.</p>

<p>B&Gs immediate family? Sure. </p>

<p>Do the math. If you shot group portraits for a modest $500. each, and someone asks you to shoot 10 of them at a wedding ... that is $5,000. worth of portrait photography with-in the wedding coverage that you are already shooting.</p>

<p>So, IMO, it depends on what you sold in the first place, your style and approach ... not what someone suddenly springs on you.</p>

<p> </p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>I usually do not comment on wedding events.<br>

BUT it seems to me you were asked to also do a second and different job.<br>

this detracted from jon number one<br>

THE WEDDING<br>

Suppose you were asked to take photos of a pet, an old dog, so they would have something to remeber it by?<br>

suppose they were selling a car, or their house,<br>

would you take photos for an advertisement?</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<p>I recommend against raising the issue with the clients. You agreed to shoot portraits according to a list and they gave you a list. The wedding is over. Its not like you can advise that the length of the list may negatively effect the rest of the days shooting. You would only be complaining that you did what you agreed to do. If you said there is a good reason to limit the portraits, they will wonder why you didn't say so at the time. All this just risks introducing negativity directed towards you. What benefit do you get in return? Nothing.</p>

<p>Deal with these kind of things in advance.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I believe the J's concern is that the 'free' family portraits are going to end up on the couple's disk, so the client/MOG has direct access to the files, killing any print orders from the OP's sales site. Bottom line--J is not making money from the portraits, and it bothers her.</p>

<p>However, I would venture to say that whether the MOG deliberately did what she did with the intent of taking advantage of you is questionable. I would doubt it, actually. And since you are not complaining about the extra time it took or extra stress involved, that these were not issues.</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>I enjoy making extended family photographs. I see lots of happy faces!<br /> <br /> I find it wonderful to have family together for an event like a wedding, all dressed up, wanting to get together to have a picture taken. How often do you think these people get together?</p>

<p>You might find that if you're happy doing this, it might just lead you to more business. At a recent wedding I made a group portrait of the grooms family, over 50 people! It was a pretty fancy wedding, the brides father an M.D. and the reception at a private country club. Lots of potential new clients! And they all pay real well. I did the bride's sisters wedding and the grooms brothers wedding. How about them group photos!</p>

<p>I find it fun & I like the smiles! And I usually run out of business cards.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>I agree with Nadine ... I doubt the MOB was intentionally trying to rip off the OP. Many times, parents have different expectations ... often based on how their wedding was photographed back in the day. Being the MOB, she could well expect those shots since in all probability the Bride's parents paid for the wedding.</p>

<p>Bill, there is no doubt that all these people want to get portraits done ... and are happy when you do them ... especially for free. The question is what is the style of wedding photography that the paying client bought ... and can you do both? I think Neil said something about how it drains time and energy away if you are a candid shooter. In addition it can take away the focus on the B&G ... even if you are posing them.</p>

<p>Frankly, I don't want referrals coming because of doing a ton of formal group shots ... it'd just be more of what I don't want to do ... and steal time away from the B&G.</p>

<p>Different strokes for different folks. </p>

<p> </p>

[c.p.t_.___cap__dundas]

<p>I read your website too. Clearly you agreed to take as much time as necessary on the wedding day. You also promised "300" images or more. I don't see what the problem is. </p>

<p>I always expect to take tons of family pictures when I do a wedding. As someone else said, it is a family event. I would ignore this. If you want to change your pricing scheme I would start with the web site.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em>"I believe concern is that the 'free' family portraits are going to end up on the couple's disk, so the client/MOG has direct access to the files, killing any print orders from the OP's sales site. Bottom line--J is not making money from the portraits, and it bothers her."</em></p>

<p>That is my understanding of the OP's concern also.</p>

<p>My answer above reflects that my opinion is the advertising on the webpage invites such a request from the Client or key players in the Wedding Party, particular if they are following Protocol of the Groom (or family) paying for the Photographs and considering the OP also states <em>"I ask the client to make a list of traditional portraits they would like have taken to help the day run a little smoother”</em></p>

<p>Also it is more than reasonable to assume that the Mother had no malicious intent: it is very likely she just was asked if she wanted any “traditional formals” and she added to that list.</p>

<p>Another bottom line is: that if the OP shoots "unlimited" - then there will be a point where she makes no profit, also.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[adamczyk]

<p>Just booked a wedding with the stipulation that extended family photos are part of the formals. No problem on my end. What is another photo or fifty to make your clients happy and get referrals. Oh yeah, I did get a referral from that couple few days after they signed their contract, and so did the referred couple few days later. I am sure it will work out to your advantage. <br>

Tom</p>

[emma_sams]

<p>I took a couple of family portraits (sisters of the bride and their families) at the last wedding. I then tagged them in these images on Facebook and saw it as a great opportunity for advertising. I just took 1-2 very nice pictures, but didn't take pics as if it was a regular family session. I saw it as a teaser and now they want to schedule a regular session! </p>

[fotografz]

<p>J has probably got the various messages. The issue isn't black or white ... it's dependent on circumstances.</p>

<p>I'm not against group photos, but I don't guarantee them beyond immediate family. More than that, and I see them as filler if the opportunity allows. </p>

<p>I agree with Emma, do a good job on the immediate family groups, shoot the Bride and Groom's wedding well, and wedding referrals will come. I also think it depends on whether separate Portrait work is part of your over-all business plan. </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Welcome to P-net. Most traditional studios actually encourage family portraiture and it can raise the profitability of the wedding coverage considerably. I believe that the model has been so common that many of the MOG, MOB, and other older relatives come to expect that type of coverage (along with table shots) and take the coverage for granted. Course if you're providing a disk with the wedding images then you're not likely to generate much in the way of reprint sales.....your loss. This is another example of inexperience on the part of the studio, the OP is not a "victim" but rather a "volunteer".</p>

<p> </p>