kevin_mora

<p>Thanks for the feedback. Just to clarify, the B&G have only seen about 10 teaser images and won't see the rest until I provide them all of the photos on a usb drive. I go through all the photos taken at the wedding and I select which ones to provide to the B&G. Hope that helps clarify...</p>

<p>Hi Folks,<br>

I have some family members of a bride contacting me asking if I could provide them with 20 photos from the wedding before I provide all the images to the bride and groom. They want to make a book/album for the bride and groom and want to include (among other images) some of their wedding pics and they want to provide the book/album before I provide the wedding images to the bride and groom. Per my contract, I provide the bride and groom with edited copies of the best images from the wedding. So, my contract is with them, nobody else. I do provide wedding photo books/albums as an add option when negotiating the contract with the bride and groom, but such a service is available as part of my contract with only the bride and groom, not third parties and it is agreed upon before the wedding. <br>

Has anyone run into this situation before? How did people handle it? If so, did you charge the family members for the photos? <br>

Thanks for your feedback regarding how you have, or would handle this situation. If you want to provide feedback about how to prevent such a situation in the future, feel free to do so, but please please please also provide input about the question at hand, which is, how should I respond to the family who is currently requesting images.<br>

thanks in advance!</p>

<p>When I first got into photography I spent a year traveling around the world (20 countries, mainly third world) with my canon 40D, 17-40 f/4, 24-105 f/4, and 70-200 f/4 IS. At the time, the f/4 lenses were all that I could afford. Now that I have a couple of 6Ds and can afford some 2.8 L glass, I was curious what people thought about changing up my old travel kit with two Canon 6Ds and a 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Lots of people say that the 2.8 glass is simply too heavy and that the f/4 glass is ideal. What do people think, is the extra couple of pounds too much to carry? I am a 35 year old man and in decent enough shape. My upcoming 2 week trip to Indonesia will likely be via public buses and an occasional plane. Likely will be doing quite a bit of hiking (no beach lounging) and possibly a homestay or two...<br>

I know there is a line of people that prefer to carry a few prime lenses instead of zoom lenses, while I can appreciate that line of thought and discussion, I am hoping to keep the thread to a discussion of f/4 vs f/2.8 glass for travel purposes based on the tradeoff of IQ and weight (assume cost is not a consideration). Thanks in advance for your input on this specific question. </p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback folks. I always edit photos in LR and provide my clients with two different sized images (one for the web and one for printing). I haven't run into the problem with clients yet, but am not sure if it is because my clients simply never print them out or if they take them to a nicer print lab. I know that some have used Costco for printing. While I know that Costco isn't a pro lab, do folks have any thoughts on the quality of Costco prints?</p>

<p>Hi Folks,<br>

For those wedding photogs that provide their clients with digital files, do you give them images that are optimized for viewing on computer monitors or that are optimized for viewing as printed images, or both? I have friends who were not happy with the digital files that they received from their wedding photogs because the images were too dark when printed. I have not run into this problem (yet) and would like to avoid it. </p>

<p>So any thoughts you might have on this issue would be greatly appreciated. Also, if folks don't mind, can we limit the discussion to the question at hand and not the merits of providing clients with digital files vs. prints. Much appreciated.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have been very happy with sticky albums. Flat rate for the year or lifetime and unlimited galleries. And you can embed links and to your website and your logo so when it is shared with family and friends of the clients, they can get to your website. No complaints thus far and they are very responsive when you have questions. (I should get paid for this review! HAHA)</p>

<p>Steven,<br /> Here is more info about my thought process. I give my clients about 800-1300 photos for weddings. If each RAW image is 20-40MB, it adds up. I edit the images and give them jpgs at 3000 pixels, so they can print them up. I then save copies of their jpgs forever. I also save their RAWs for one year. However after a year, I want to delete their RAWs. I see no purpose to holding onto client RAW images for any longer. If they ever have a problem (lose their images). I will always have the jpg copies ready to re-send to them. I give them a year grace period in which time I can edit their RAW images more, if they want it. But after that, they don't get any more edits, they will just get another copy of the jogs I sent them.</p>

<p>So that is my thought process.</p>

<p>I understand people have their own opinions on this, but once I asked for people to simply give me their thoughts on image resolution, I really wish they would have done so. Instead, many folks felt it necessary to give me their opinion on keeping RAWs. For instance, had I said I was unhappy with Nikon and was going to switch to Canon and wanted to know what Canon camera I should get, i would hope I wouldn't get tons of responses about why I should stick with Nikon. I would hope I got responses related to my request, namely, what Canon camera to get. If people really felt the need to tell me why I should stick with Nikon, the decent thing for them to do would be to also answer my question and let me know, which Canon I should get, if in fact I decide to make the switch. Make sense?</p>

<p>Thanks to those who are providing responsive feedback. With respect to those who feel the need to discuss my decision to delete raws, please know that I have have been thorough in my deliberations. Hopefully this will end the side-conversation (please note, if you are going to throw in your two cents about what I should do with my RAWs, I would appreciate you providing a response re: image resolution, otherwise you aren't contributing in a meaningful way to photo.net's forums)<br>

Respectively<br>

Kevin</p>

 

<p>Ian, thanks so much for the response. Glad to know that others provide 3000 pixels on the long side too. <br>

Bob, thanks for the input, however, I am hoping to get more info on image resolution.<br>

Can anyone else provide a comment about what resolution size they provide to clients? Thanks so much.</p>

<p>Thanks for the input. However, I don't want this thread to get off-topic, so if folks have any input re: the size of the images they give their clients, I would appreciate it. </p>

<p>For photographers that give their clients digital copies (as compared to having them purchase prints), I was curious what resolution folks give to their clients. What are the pixel dimensions (i.e. longest and shortest edge) and pixels per inch. I am running out of hard drive space and want to delete the RAWs after I have provided the clients with jpg copies. And I want to retain the jpg copies forever, just in case something goes wrong with the clients' copies. I currently give my clients images that are 3000x2000 pixels with a 500ppi. Others?? thanks much!</p>

<p>I agree that an attorney should be consulted. But, if he made it clear from the beginning that he would take the photos for free, as a gift, then, regardless of copyright, no payment should be necessary. There are several issues going on here, whether he needs payment, whether you own the images, whether you can use the images, etc. Depending on how nuclear you want to go, you can either pay the dude a couple hundred bucks to give you all the images, or you can use that money to talk to a lawyer and have him write a letter to the fiance. The result may be the same either way, but the relationship between you and your mom may be very different, depending on how you decide to proceed.</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback, it is good to know another photographer's approach. Can others please provide their thoughts too? Curious to know what type of relationship they have with their second shooters (I know there are plenty of people out there who work with others).<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Here is my two cents as a US (California) based attorney. Look at the contract law concepts of "consideration" and "meeting of the minds" Wikipedia has a good summary. Without providing you with legal advice and based on the facts that you have provided, it does not appear that you two entered into a contract because there were no agreed upon terms and conditions. As such, an argument can be made that his conduct was a gratuity (a gift) for which no compensation is needed. However, it could be argued that there was a quasi-contract, which would require that he be compensated to some degree. <br>

The facts sound strange though, seems like this could all go away if you sit down with mom and fiance at some point...</p>

<p>I had a couple of questions about how folks work with second shooters/assistants at weddings.</p>

<p>First, how do you let (if you even do) assistants/second shooters use photos they took at weddings? Do you let them post them on their site, use in their portfolio? Do you require that they state that they were second shooting if you do let them post? Do you let them put up photos that you post on your blog or only images you don't use? Etc. Also, do you make them sign an agreement that sets all of this out, or is it more of a handshake agreement?</p>

<p>Second, what if a second shooter/assistant backs out or cannot attend a wedding. Do you require they have a replacement, do you have language stating that they owe you money, etc? Again, is this a signed agreement or more of a handshake agreement?</p>

<p>Thanks for your input and any additional information that you think may be relevant to working with second shooters/assistants.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For future weddings, you might want to consider adding something like this in your contract, and make sure you go over it with the couple <br>

"Exclusive Photographer<br>

Couple agrees that Photographer shall be the exclusive photographer at the Wedding. No other paid photographer or photography team are permitted to photograph the Wedding. While family and friends are welcome to take photographs, Photographer shall have the sole authority to direct formal group photographs and posed photographs. Please ask family members and friends to refrain from blocking shooting lanes or ceremony aisles."</p>

<p>Well, I am a lawyer and a photographer. While each jurisdiction is different and has its own laws (hence, I am not providing you with legal advice, so don't sue me for malpractice), I would say that you can get rid of them. People have a certain amount of time to file a claim for some wrongdoing, statute of limitations. Most are only 5-10 years and if you have photos going back to the 80s, then you are well beyond that actionable period. Another way to look at it is as a record retentions issues. Most governmental and private bodies have record retention policies of 5-1o years, again, you are beyond that period. To be safe, you could try to contact them, but that would be quite cumbersome. I say, they are yours, you are clear of any lawsuits, and your contracts required that you provide prints, which you did. Do what you want with them! And for future contracts, do what I do, and include a provision stating that you will keep the digital negatives for one year, that way there is no future concern about how long you have to hold them.</p>

<p>Very true WW, lenses aren't designed for a specific purpose, it is how photographers shoot and use them, and to what end, thanks for bringing it back to the basics, it is easy to get caught up in the whole gear envy thing. </p>

<p>I agree with you, I need something faster than my current kit. </p>

<p>Thanks for the advice and input, glad to see that this is a good forum (first time user)</p>

<p>-Kevin</p>

<p>Thanks for the info William W. I had forgotten about the 580's master/slave function, which would be nice in case my cheapie 90ex ever dies on me. <br /> I too am not too concerned on using a dual format kit, since that is all that I know. And upgrading to a 7D at some point would be fine with me, or even the rumored upgrade 7Dmk2. That said, they are selling 6Ds for $1800 or so now, I would be willing to pay a few hundred more to get the quality and ISO of the 6D (unless of course the rumored 7Dmk2 has the same features and ISO as the 6D).<br /> A little background re: my kit. The kit, and the 24-105, were purchased for a year photographing around the world (I needed lightweight, but solid build quality, and since most of my photography was done outside, I didn't need anything larger than a f/4) see <a href="http://www.kpatrickphotography.com">www.kpatrickphotography.com</a> for my travel prints. But since people want wedding photos more than travel prints, I am seeing more of my revenue coming from weddings and I figured I should invest some more money into wedding lens gear. Up to this point, I have been using my travel kit as a wedding kit. Hence, my inquiry into a new lens for weddings. <br /> Based on your guys' comments and some friends', I am leaning towards the 24 or 35mm over the 100 or 135mm for my first legit prime lens (after I purchase another flash). And hopefully, after the purchase of the flash and prime, enough time will have passed that I will have saved up enough money for a new body, I will have some good options (rumored 7dmk2 or cheaper 6D/future 6Dmk2). Thanks for the valuable insight. I am still interested in what others think too, the more info and perspectives, the better!</p>

<p> </p>

Thanks all for the quick feedback (more feedback from others is still welcome). In response to your comments and to answer your

questions...

 

William P - true my 40d isn't a true spare. And no I don't have a back up flash (although my second shooter also has a 430ex).

William W - I appreciate your perspective. I wasn't looking at it from your viewpoint.

Rick M - I guess you have helped eliminate any doubt I might have had about the Williams' comments.

 

A follow up question. Sounds like I should get another flash. I am happy with the 430, do you see any real benefits to canon's stronger (

and more expensive) units?

In terms of priority, what do you think about me getting a flash and then a lens like a 24 or 35mm and then finally a new body perhaps

another 6D?

 

Thanks all for the thoughtful and easy to follow advice thus far

<p>I have a Canon 6D and a backup 40D. I have started getting booked for weddings and would like to get a new lens, ideally a prime. I seem to be photographing outdoor weddings (with receptions inside). <br>

I have the following lenses (all CANON): <br>

f/4 IS 70-200,<br>

f/4 IS 24-105 IS,<br>

f/4 17-40,<br>

f/1.8 50mm,<br>

1.4x extender,<br>

430ex flash,<br>

90ex flash (to control the 430ex)<br>

Not sure if I should get the Canon:<br>

100mm L, 135mm L for closer portraits (since I can get some with my 24-105 and 70-200)<br>

OR<br>

24mm L, 35mm L for full body portraits/group shots/dancing (since I can get some with my 24-105 and 17-40)<br>

Also, I have a second shooter with a Canon 7D, he has some non L glass, a macro, and a few others, but I don't want to have to rely on him to complete my wedding lens kit.<br>

any feedback would be greatly appreciated!</p>