PDA

View Full Version : Photographer Cost



Uncle Junior
4th-August-2009, 08:08
Just a question to throw out there - any idea what you expect to pay for1.) Awedding photogrpaher and 2.) A family portrait photograph.


????

Patman
4th-August-2009, 08:18
IN the current climate, no matter what they are charging, you should be able to haggle but certainly shop around.


I remember a friend of mine when to a certain photographer in Ennis about ten years ago and innocently asked how much he would charge for doing her wedding. He asked her how much she had to spend and when she said 700 (punts) he told her that wouldn't cover the cost of the film. The girl walked out of there in tears.


SHOP AROUND and haggle. If someone is playing hardball just say, yerra, I'll get my brother to do it, he did photography in college or he works for a paper. See what they say then!

Balla Boy
4th-August-2009, 08:22
Most wedding photographers I spoke to were anywhere from 1,500 to 2,500.


Got a very good recommendation on here for a guy who did a tremendous job and is still a bit cheaper as he's building his portfolio.


He's up to 999 for the day for new assignments now though.


Happy to PM the details if you need them.

RobbieG
4th-August-2009, 08:27
TBH, if you want to save on money, cut out the photographer, you'll never look at the pics, all you really need is no more than 4 posed shots, any relative with a decent camera can do that for you. There's always a few who'll offer.

That said it's herself who'll make the call, so..smileys/confused.gif

John123
4th-August-2009, 08:29
Got charged 1400 for our wedding day but he was cheap.

I agree totally with what Patman says though, shop around and haggle as variation in price is huge. I would say though, make sure you're happy with who you choose and don't just go for price. We went for price and were not happy with the results.

Peacock
4th-August-2009, 08:32
dont bother with a professional photographer give your nephew or whatever a few euros give them a digital camera and your off.Trust me you will never see them after the initial viewing havent seen mine since a week after i got married 11 years ago.

John123
4th-August-2009, 08:34
By the way, I would DEFINITELY recommend getting a video. I was against the idea but the missus insisted and I'm really happy she did. We've watched it a good few times. Used a guy called Gavin Gallagher, he's excellent, easy going, hardly knew he was even there.

www.dreamcatcherproductions.ie

glorob
4th-August-2009, 08:38
Michael Martin in Limerick did mine. It cost 200 but that was 23 years ago.

Uncle Junior
4th-August-2009, 08:38
It ain't me who's getting married!!!


It was just a discussion I was having with a friend who is getting married - and I honestly couldn't believe the prices he was being quoted, which are in line with what you are all saying. I would have thought it would be around 700/800 Euros. Shows what I know....


Our discussion then went on to a standard family portrait which I am thinking of getting done - neither of us had the first clue how much that would cost - any ideas??

RobbieG
4th-August-2009, 08:40
Did the video for a few friends & relatives weddings, all i needed was a normal video camera & stand, Get the shots of the arrivals, the ceremony, get out before the couple and get the shots of the handshakes in the porch, At the hotel, the arrival & the speeches, first dance then any remaining table shots and few dances of pissed guests. Knew someone who put it all on 5 DVD's for 50. They'll watch it once maybe twice. Job done.

John123
4th-August-2009, 08:52
It ain't me who's getting married!!!


It was just a discussion I was having with a friend who is getting married - and I honestly couldn't believe the prices he was being quoted, which are in line with what you are all saying. I would have thought it would be around 700/800 Euros. Shows what I know....


Our discussion then went on to a standard family portrait which I am thinking of getting done - neither of us had the first clue how much that would cost - any ideas??




Esp with a portrait there would be huge differences in prices. We used two different photographers in Ennis for our kids in the past and the price difference was shocking. We actually preferred the cheaper guy too!

Patman
4th-August-2009, 08:55
Michael Martin in Limerick did mine. It cost 200 but that was 23 years ago.


smileys/lol.gif

Patman
4th-August-2009, 08:57
By the way, I would DEFINITELY recommend getting a video.



In hindsight, I should have had a video. At the time, we just didn;t want one but when we say the video my sister shot (got shakier the more she drank) it was great crack. I have it on VCR waiting to have it copied to DVD.

Munstersinc
4th-August-2009, 09:36
I got married there last year and dispensed with the whole photographer idea........ everybody had digital cameras and we asked for the pics that our family mambers and some of the closer friends took ......... most of the truly nicer and memorable shots were not staged or posed in any way shape or form and (not being an expert here btw) I'd find it hard to differentiate between most of the nicer pics taken by non-experts than would have been taken by a proper photographer.


The prices these guys charge are ridiculous to say the least........ tell your mate to save himself a nice few quid and blow it on the honeymoon instead !!!

Kingfisher234
4th-August-2009, 09:51
I got married there last year and dispensed with the whole photographer idea........ everybody had digital cameras and we asked for the pics that our family mambers and some of the closer friends took ......... most of the truly nicer and memorable shots were not staged or posed in any way shape or form and (not being an expert here btw) I'd find it hard to differentiate between most of the nicer pics taken by non-experts than would have been taken by a proper photographer.


The prices these guys charge are ridiculous to say the least........ tell your mate to save himself a nice few quid and blow it on the honeymoon instead !!!





Agree entirely. Didnt bother with a photgrapher (and in hindsight would have saved the 600 quid for the car too) ..... everyone had a camera and we ended up with about 400 pics out of which we selected 75 for the album and the rest havent seen the light of day since. Of the 75 about 10 could have been taken by a pro and those went into frames .... had a video done by a couple of friends and whilst not professionally finished its all we need.


Btw a friend of mine has just started a company that rents a video kiosk for the day ... I know we're not supposed to advertise but he is a mate. I think he charges about 700 and he installs a stand alone machine (bit like an atm) which people can use (touch screen instructions) and then record their message for the couple ... it videos them and records the message .... about 20 secs each i think .... he edits the recordings and gives you an edited version and an unedited copy .... very popular in UK and far better than one of those books for peoples thoughts ... esp later in the night as people get drunk ... i think its bestwishes.com or something but pm me and i can get it for you

nuke
4th-August-2009, 10:15
Guys there is a world of difference in cost and quality available out there and you have to know what you are looking for.

Lets just look at who might do this job for you:

1) a professional wedding photographer
2) a professional photographer who shoots weddings
3) a photgrapher looking to break into the market and will give you a good deal
4) a semi professional who will do it for you
5) talented amatuers
6) chancers
7) guests

I have ranged these in the order of people who will probably do the best work. By and large costs would run the same way, but you may be able to swap 3/4 depending on the deal offered.

All pro's/semi pro's should offer a range of packages to suit your wedding needs, location and family.

Anyone that gives you a price without a detailed consultation is to be avoided.

The bad news is that you will get what you pay for. Wedding photography is highly specialised and specific, there are no second chances.

I have done wedding photography professionally but don't any longer. The money is good but the stress is greater. Looking at an average package......

1) consultation - say half a day + (photographer should have a detailed checklist ready to edit)
2) location scout - half a day(not always necessary)
3) Liaise with the priest(always get this done)
3) photographer at the brides house early for the preparations(dress, shoes, hair, bridesmaid, getting into the cr with the father etc).
4) hare down to the church for the guest arrivals, shots of the groom, groomsmen, paigeboys, rings, alter environs
5) shoot the ceremony
6) leaving the church
7) signing the registry
smileys/cool.gif formal shots in the ground of B&G, parents, groomsmen, bridesmaid, etc
9) candid shots of abobe
10) guest shots
11) hare to reception location
12) formal and candid reception shots(speeches, first dance, special events, etc)
13) home
14) post processing of shoots- 1 day(between 1,000 to 2,000 on a small wedding)
15) psot wedding consult and album choices (1/2 day)
16) individual prints and album printing

Now there is 3 days work listed there(one of the days from 7AM through to 12AM)
Add the printing and album costs
Add the insurance costs
Add the stress of no second chances if u f**k up any part of the process(bar printing perhaps)

Now i wouldn't consider that package for less then 1000(including 1 basic album and 3 wedding prints).

You may consider that expensive but believe me you will get what you pay for, usually. And if you are paying peanuts.............

jmccoy
4th-August-2009, 10:40
Guys there is a world of difference in cost and quality available out there and you have to know what you are looking for.

Lets just look at who might do this job for you:

1) a professional wedding photographer
2) a professional photographer who shoots weddings
3) a photgrapher looking to break into the market and will give you a good deal
4) a semi professional who will do it for you
5) talented amatuers
6) chancers
7) guests

I have ranged these in the order of people who will probably do the best work. By and large costs would run the same way, but you may be able to swap 3/4 depending on the deal offered.

All pro's/semi pro's should offer a range of packages to suit your wedding needs, location and family.

Anyone that gives you a price without a detailed consultation is to be avoided.

The bad news is that you will get what you pay for. Wedding photography is highly specialised and specific, there are no second chances.

I have done wedding photography professionally but don't any longer. The money is good but the stress is greater. Looking at an average package......

1) consultation - say half a day + (photographer should have a detailed checklist ready to edit)
2) location scout - half a day(not always necessary)
3) Liaise with the priest(always get this done)
3) photographer at the brides house early for the preparations(dress, shoes, hair, bridesmaid, getting into the cr with the father etc).
4) hare down to the church for the guest arrivals, shots of the groom, groomsmen, paigeboys, rings, alter environs
5) shoot the ceremony
6) leaving the church
7) signing the registry
smileys/cool.gif formal shots in the ground of B&G, parents, groomsmen, bridesmaid, etc
9) candid shots of abobe
10) guest shots
11) hare to reception location
12) formal and candid reception shots(speeches, first dance, special events, etc)
13) home
14) post processing of shoots- 1 day(between 1,000 to 2,000 on a small wedding)
15) psot wedding consult and album choices (1/2 day)
16) individual prints and album printing

Now there is 3 days work listed there(one of the days from 7AM through to 12AM)
Add the printing and album costs
Add the insurance costs
Add the stress of no second chances if u f**k up any part of the process(bar printing perhaps)

Now i wouldn't consider that package for less then 1000(including 1 basic album and 3 wedding prints).

You may consider that expensive but believe me you will get what you pay for, usually. And if you are paying peanuts.............



Well said Nuke. And may I add, photography is an art, not just a matter of pointing the camera and pressing the shutter button.

Upfront_1979
4th-August-2009, 10:44
got married in rome in 2006. photographer plus video 300, extra 60 i think for a fancy leather suitcase to hold the book in. prices here are crazy

Uncle Junior
4th-August-2009, 11:13
Nuke - In fairness that's a fair amount of work when you think about it & makes 1,000 Euro seem a bit more reasonable than I had first thought. Can I ask why you don't do it anymore?

Ballyman
4th-August-2009, 15:41
Nuke has hit the nail on the head here.

I have done a few weddings as well myself and the stress that it puts on me is not worth all the money in the world. Seriously, a wedding photographer deserves every penny they get because if you fcuk up some brides day then you better find yourself a new town to live in!! smileys/smile.gif

And anyone who thinks they will get professional results by giving a nephew or guests a camera is on cloud cuckoo land. Most people couldn't even turn on a Pro's camera never mind be able to use it properly. The difference between what a professional and a guest will produce is like night and day.

Would you give your nephew a paintbursh and expect professional results? Or a tile cutter and expect your new bathroom to look the same as one done by a professional?

Everything is simple to do until you have a go at it yourself smileys/wink.gif

nuke
4th-August-2009, 15:50
Nuke - In fairness that's a fair amount of work when you think about it & makes 1,000 Euro seem a bit more reasonable than I had first thought. Can I ask why you don't do it anymore?

alot of stress, don't need the money that much and i prefer to focus my photography on what i enjoy

my health and my photogrpahy are better for it, if not my bank balance

joconnell
4th-August-2009, 16:35
Plus a lot of shooters will have an assistant to, makes the margins very tight. You could get lucky using friends and amateurs but then again you could miss out on something you might only do once (manipulative smileys/biggrin.gif)

Arthur Guinness
4th-August-2009, 16:54
Had a wedding a fortnight ago in Limerick. Photographer cost 1000.Thought he was very good. If you want details PM me.

huron
4th-August-2009, 17:37
Guys there is a world of difference in cost and quality available out there and you have to know what you are looking for.

Lets just look at who might do this job for you:

1) a professional wedding photographer
2) a professional photographer who shoots weddings
3) a photgrapher looking to break into the market and will give you a good deal
4) a semi professional who will do it for you
5) talented amatuers
6) chancers
7) guests

I have ranged these in the order of people who will probably do the best work. By and large costs would run the same way, but you may be able to swap 3/4 depending on the deal offered.

All pro's/semi pro's should offer a range of packages to suit your wedding needs, location and family.

Anyone that gives you a price without a detailed consultation is to be avoided.

The bad news is that you will get what you pay for. Wedding photography is highly specialised and specific, there are no second chances.

I have done wedding photography professionally but don't any longer. The money is good but the stress is greater. Looking at an average package......

1) consultation - say half a day + (photographer should have a detailed checklist ready to edit)
2) location scout - half a day(not always necessary)
3) Liaise with the priest(always get this done)
3) photographer at the brides house early for the preparations(dress, shoes, hair, bridesmaid, getting into the cr with the father etc).
4) hare down to the church for the guest arrivals, shots of the groom, groomsmen, paigeboys, rings, alter environs
5) shoot the ceremony
6) leaving the church
7) signing the registry
smileys/cool.gif formal shots in the ground of B&G, parents, groomsmen, bridesmaid, etc
9) candid shots of abobe
10) guest shots
11) hare to reception location
12) formal and candid reception shots(speeches, first dance, special events, etc)
13) home
14) post processing of shoots- 1 day(between 1,000 to 2,000 on a small wedding)
15) psot wedding consult and album choices (1/2 day)
16) individual prints and album printing

Now there is 3 days work listed there(one of the days from 7AM through to 12AM)
Add the printing and album costs
Add the insurance costs
Add the stress of no second chances if u f**k up any part of the process(bar printing perhaps)

Now i wouldn't consider that package for less then 1000(including 1 basic album and 3 wedding prints).

You may consider that expensive but believe me you will get what you pay for, usually. And if you are paying peanuts.............



Well said Nuke. And may I add, photography is an art, not just a matter of pointing the camera and pressing the shutter button.

Absolutely, composition is an art unto itself.
I do have a question about prints and negatives.

I've run across more than one photographer who will not only not allow negatives of the happy day to be released, but also will not copies of the negatives to be made. Nor will they allow Photo-CDs to be made of the photos. Infact I've heard one photographer tell me that he "owns the whole shebang, they want it they can pay for it".

Please someone tell me this isn't the norm?

Anyone want to comment on what I consider to be not only selfish and inconsiderate but also incredibly precious?

Magma
4th-August-2009, 18:07
Our discussion then went on to a standard family portrait which I am thinking of getting done - neither of us had the first clue how much that would cost - any ideas??




The prices for family portraits seem very cheap, as most photographers quote the price for a sitting and usually 1 print as well. But when you see all the pics of your gorgeous kids, you find yourself ordering more than you had intended and spending a fortune!

My wife and I "won" a prize with a photographer for a "free" photo session which included one print. We were delighted, but ended up spending 80 to get the free print framed and another 100 or so for a second photo, and they were only 5x7 prints! We love the pics though and we are delighted we did it, but at the time money was tight and we were'nt expecting to pay that for a "prize"!!!

Ballyman
4th-August-2009, 18:56
I've run across more than one photographer who will not only not allow negatives of the happy day to be released, but also will not copies of the negatives to be made. Nor will they allow Photo-CDs to be made of the photos. Infact I've heard one photographer tell me that he "owns the whole shebang, they want it they can pay for it".

He's actually 100% correct in that the photographer owns the copyright to every photo he takes and thus he can do pretty much what he wants with them.





Please someone tell me this isn't the norm?

Not the norm anymore. In the film days this was very normal though but now that people have digital albums, can print any size they want cheaply the photographer no longer does this. Normally they charge a little more and give all the photos to the bride on a CD at a high res fit for printing.

Technically though the photographer will have the digital negative (RAW file) and will give the client a compressed, processed jpeg of the file. This is of high enough res to be able to print large though. It's very very rare for anyone to get the RAW file from the photographer though.

huron
4th-August-2009, 19:13
Why should a person not get the originals?
They and their guests are the subjects of the piece, they have employed the photographer to capture that event. They are paying the bills.
A painter when they sell a painting is selling the original, same with a sculptor, or other media artists, why not a photographer?
Other than greed?

nuke
4th-August-2009, 19:13
Absolutely, composition is an art unto itself.
I do have a question about prints and negatives.

I've run across more than one photographer who will not only not allow negatives of the happy day to be released, but also will not copies of the negatives to be made. Nor will they allow Photo-CDs to be made of the photos. Infact I've heard one photographer tell me that he "owns the whole shebang, they want it they can pay for it".

Please someone tell me this isn't the norm?

Anyone want to comment on what I consider to be not only selfish and inconsiderate but also incredibly precious?


the photographer is well within his rights to do this although you'd hope he'd be a bit more polite about it.

I would never release negatives or raw files to anyone, irregardless of what they pay. Most serious photographers will turn down a job first.

As for photo cd's...giving them out would just be cutting his own throat financially. Repeat business is where the money is and regular joe soaps don't give a s**t about the photographers copyright or business.

Different if you are licensing the photo's out to an agency or web use, then u get paid differently depending on the usage.

Photography is cut throat with tight margins and don't lt anyone tell you different

nuke
4th-August-2009, 19:17
Why should a person not get the originals?
They and their guests are the subjects of the piece, they have employed the photographer to capture that event. They are paying the bills.
A painter when they sell a painting is selling the original, same with a sculptor, or other media artists, why not a photographer?
Other than greed?



they are paying for a service, not for the raw files/negs. It's why you have a contract, so you can show it to them after when they come looking for more.

You contract a painter to to give you a painting, and you contract a photographer to give you a photo - nothing more

fredom1
4th-August-2009, 19:22
Anyways the photographer willhave them in case something happens to ones you recivied

huron
4th-August-2009, 19:46
Why should a person not get the originals?
They and their guests are the subjects of the piece, they have employed the photographer to capture that event. They are paying the bills.
A painter when they sell a painting is selling the original, same with a sculptor, or other media artists, why not a photographer?
Other than greed?



they are paying for a service, not for the raw files/negs. It's why you have a contract, so you can show it to them after when they come looking for more.

You contract a painter to to give you a painting, and you contract a photographer to give you a photo - nothing more

I am paying for a service, I want a photographer to take photographs.
Not to gouge me for prints.
I would prefer to choose to whom I give the photos or jpegs, dvd, etc.etc.
There are plenty of very good print shops that will print photos at any res I desire on any print medium I choose.
A painter hands over the original, why should I not expect the same service from a photographer, other than greed?

nuke
4th-August-2009, 20:01
Why should a person not get the originals?
They and their guests are the subjects of the piece, they have employed the photographer to capture that event. They are paying the bills.
A painter when they sell a painting is selling the original, same with a sculptor, or other media artists, why not a photographer?
Other than greed?



they are paying for a service, not for the raw files/negs. It's why you have a contract, so you can show it to them after when they come looking for more.

You contract a painter to to give you a painting, and you contract a photographer to give you a photo - nothing more

I am paying for a service, I want a photographer to take photographs.
Not to gouge me for prints.
I would prefer to choose to whom I give the photos or jpegs, dvd, etc.etc.
There are plenty of very good print shops that will print photos at any res I desire on any print medium I choose.
A painter hands over the original, why should I not expect the same service from a photographer, other than greed?


be prepared to have no photographer do business for u bar an amateur or someone needing experience.

Not attacking you personally but you pay for the photo and nothing more unless it's agreed in advance.

Ruck Savage
4th-August-2009, 20:02
You get what you pay for. Cheap very often means cheap. I know of
many people who are unhappy with the quality of their photos.

When I got married I received small prints to choose photos for
album. Never paid the guy a cent and only got round to choosing
photos for album 4 years later. I wandered into his office with two
post wedding kids in tow to discuss and pay. He honoured price from
4 years previously.

fitzy73
4th-August-2009, 20:17
How many years training does it take to become "qualified" photographer?

There seems to be a huge disparity between what a top of the range photographer charges in Ireland and what they charge overseas.

My (Limerick based) wedding photographer was 3k. Found out afterwards that I could have flown a more highly "qualified" photographer in from London for a lot less. </span>

RED 49
4th-August-2009, 20:20
my ten year old daughter found our wedding album few months ago in back of a press,she had a good laugh at us ,but it was good fun pointing out people to her etc,didnt get video but now nearly 20 years later wouldnt mind lookin at one if we had it done.saw this idea at a wedding once,disposable cameras on all tables at meal and people asked to take pics during evening and leave cameras for happy couple at end of evening

joconnell
4th-August-2009, 20:41
It's a goodun alright - I've shot a few mates weddings but only as a favour and an extra present to them - They hire a proper photographer to do all the formal portraits and cover the things you'd want on the big day. If you're paying someone you're buying a guarantee that they can deliver on the day regardless of weather and so on. Have a chat to a few and look through their books - you'll probably meet one that you gel with and like the style of their work.

nuke
4th-August-2009, 21:51
It's a goodun alright - I've shot a few mates weddings but only as a favour and an extra present to them - They hire a proper photographer to do all the formal portraits and cover the things you'd want on the big day. If you're paying someone you're buying a guarantee that they can deliver on the day regardless of weather and so on. Have a chat to a few and look through their books - you'll probably meet one that you gel with and like the style of their work.


very good advice

Tobyglen
4th-August-2009, 23:52
How many years training does it take to become "qualified" photographer?

There seems to be a huge disparity between what a top of the range photographer charges in Ireland and what they charge overseas.

My (Limerick based) wedding photographer was 3k. Found out afterwards that I could have flown a more highly "qualified" photographer in from London for a lot less.



3Ksmileys/shock.gif, thats madness. My sister got married last week andour uncle went and took around 500 photos and put them on a CD for us and there excellent. I'm not sure how much the professional photographer cost but I think its a total waste of money when you consider how good the quality of camera's are these days. 3K is a nice 2 week holiday to any country in Europe FFS!

Ballyman
5th-August-2009, 05:16
I think its a total waste of money when you consider how good the quality of camera's are these days.

Yep, it's as simple as having a "good" camera. Shur all you have to do is press the button smileys/biggrin.gif. Top of the range Canon cameras do not have an Auto mode on them by the way so unless it's set up right you will either get a photo of white or black when you press the button.

Problem is, if you don't have a professional photographer at your wedding you will think what the uncle produced is outstanding as you have nothing to compare it to. If you have something produced by a professional then you would laugh at what the uncle produced when compared. Seriously. Night and Day.

It's madness buying a painting these days as well, what with the quality of paintbrushes and paint thats out there. smileys/wink.gif

Hugged Rugger
5th-August-2009, 06:09
mate of mine paid 2.5k for the photographer day and the same again for the book (one of the new printed book things with 2 mini albums for the parents)

that is by far and away the most ive heard any normal person pay.

on the subject of negatives/raw files aside from the fact that the photographer does own them and all the other arguments above, most photographers wont give away a negative/raw file because they dont want the person printing low quality copies (on their home ink jet printer for example) and thinking they are great and showing them to people and ruining their reputation

also bear in mind that taking photos of a bride
wearing white and a groom weaing black isnt the easiest situation to
get good exposure in especially in badly lit churches with backdrops
very far away from the subjects and then a wide variety of weather
conditions to deal with. Most amateurs wont have the experience to get
outdoor shots with the sky in the backround right or be able to edit
them after



was at a wedding before when the brides uncle took the photots and when
he went to change the film he realised the cover wasnt closed properly
and that was their album gone. wont happen with digital but theres
plenty a photographer does these days after the fact to get the images
the way you see them

huron
5th-August-2009, 07:21
Why should a person not get the originals?
They and their guests are the subjects of the piece, they have employed the photographer to capture that event. They are paying the bills.
A painter when they sell a painting is selling the original, same with a sculptor, or other media artists, why not a photographer?
Other than greed?



they are paying for a service, not for the raw files/negs. It's why you have a contract, so you can show it to them after when they come looking for more.

You contract a painter to to give you a painting, and you contract a photographer to give you a photo - nothing more

I am paying for a service, I want a photographer to take photographs.
Not to gouge me for prints.
I would prefer to choose to whom I give the photos or jpegs, dvd, etc.etc.
There are plenty of very good print shops that will print photos at any res I desire on any print medium I choose.
A painter hands over the original, why should I not expect the same service from a photographer, other than greed?


be prepared to have no photographer do business for u bar an amateur or someone needing experience.

Not attacking you personally but you pay for the photo and nothing more unless it's agreed in advance.

So can anyone give me a valid reason, other than 'I want to gouge you and your family for prints, books etc.', for why a wedding photographer would not give copies of negatives or copies of RAW files over to a customer if requested?

I don't think the reputation argument stands up btw. I would imagine that most photographers wouldn't bother darkrooming their own prints anymore doubly so if they're shooting digital, they'd just use the same print facilities as any consumer.

joconnell
5th-August-2009, 07:26
If you've got a good camera then you're definitely bettering your chances of getting a decent shot but the camera isn't really aware of what it's actually looking at - if you've got quite a difficult scene where people are standing with a very bright light source behind them the camera might make the people too dark to keep detail in the background - it's not smart enough to realise that it's the person you're specifically interested in - a proper photographer will know how to get decent results in nearly any difficult lighting situation and also wait until people look relatively flattering- if you've someone with fourteen chins then they're going to take that into account when shooting them so they look their best in the end. Most people generally don't have the patience to wait around and compose a shot properly in this fashion.

Hugged is totally right on giving away originals too - it's all about quality control. A designer won't give away all of his files when he does a brochure for someone as he doesn't want some eejit making changes and ruining it, and having that coming back on the reputation of the designer. Likewise the photographer wants the colours / brightness and so on printing correctly - no insult intended to anyone and it might sound very arsey but a lot of folks wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a good photo and a bad photo. We're not a great country for design in terms of people building up an appreciation, it's not that important for most folks.

Any time I shoot a wedding or party for a mate (it's always cos I actually like shooting - I'm not asked to do it as such) I find that it takes you out of the event if it's done properly - you're waiting here and there for a certain expression from someone or for them not to look stupid before you take the shot and move on. If you've got guests at the wedding they're there to enjoy themselves, not bother themselves with taking photos they might spend a little bit of time on it but it'll be forgotten once they get a few drinks into them. Out of all the folks that are there, 90% of them don't really know what they're doing aside from point and shoot, and the rest won't necessarily care about getting a decent shot (I do purely to massage my huge ego). It's a fair bit of cash to hand over alright so maybe see can you do a deal to get the bits you want and skip the rest? Set a budget and see can the photographer you like do anything for it?

joconnell
5th-August-2009, 07:29
So can anyone give me a valid reason, other than 'I want to gouge you and your family for prints, books etc.', for why a wedding photographer would not give copies of negatives or copies of RAW files over to a customer if requested?

I don't think the reputation argument stands up btw. I would imagine that most photographers wouldn't bother darkrooming their own prints anymore doubly so if they're shooting digital, they'd just use the same print facilities as any consumer.


It's to make a markup on the prints for starters and very few photogs will do their own prints from digital, but they will go to a proper lab that they trust, and those labs are normally more expensive than going to spectra and doing a 99p per print job. A decent colour print is five or six quid up, getting decent paper and making sure the developer takes care to make sure the colour is decent.

nuke
5th-August-2009, 08:12
So can anyone give me a valid reason, other than 'I want to gouge you and your family for prints, books etc.', for why a wedding photographer would not give copies of negatives or copies of RAW files over to a customer if requested?

I don't think the reputation argument stands up btw. I would imagine that most photographers wouldn't bother darkrooming their own prints anymore doubly so if they're shooting digital, they'd just use the same print facilities as any consumer.


Hmmm

because they are not yours to have for a start, because a photographers livelihood depends on repeat business and because you will photoshop and print crap and stupid images from pictures with a photographers name on them. If we do give pictures away they are generally watermarked so as to make printing them impractical.

No one is trying to gouge you, you will find some photographers are cheaper and flexible on this then others.

These are usually on the lower scale/entry level in the industry.

I love the darkroom and still do process images for my own projects but don't do it for any of the commercial stuff anymore. Digital workflow has certain advantages but don't let anyone tell you it's cheaper - it's not.

Photographers do not use the same high street processors as consumers generally. They will either print themselves or use a pro lab.

If they print themselves it's usually very high end inkjet or dye sublimation(especially for event photography)

just so you know what the costs are(this is some of the equipment i have, not all. Alot of pro's would carry alot more on top of having offices and studios. I have not including printers or printing costs):

I use nikon camera's, for a pro job i would bring two
D3 - 5000
d700 - 2700
Lenses - 24-70 F2.8 1400, 70-200 F2.8 2000, 300 F2.8 3500(for a start, I have over a dozen lenses each with good points and bad points and suitable for different jobs)
Tripod 300
on camera flash 400
seperate flash units &amp; background 1000
Mac 2000
Software 2000

Now that i look at all this again it is obvious to me who is trying to gouge who

huron
5th-August-2009, 09:02
So can anyone give me a valid reason, other than 'I want to gouge you and your family for prints, books etc.', for why a wedding photographer would not give copies of negatives or copies of RAW files over to a customer if requested?

I don't think the reputation argument stands up btw. I would imagine that most photographers wouldn't bother darkrooming their own prints anymore doubly so if they're shooting digital, they'd just use the same print facilities as any consumer.


Hmmm

because they are not yours to have for a start, because a photographers livelihood depends on repeat business and because you will photoshop and print crap and stupid images from pictures with a photographers name on them. If we do give pictures away they are generally watermarked so as to make printing them impractical.

The images of course should be mine, I've paid you to take them. They would be images of me and mine. Not you. For you to claim ownership over them is entirely dependant on what you've managed to coerce the client to sign over when getting them to sign a contract. Either you're being precious or are protecting your ability to charge them for the prints and other product.


No one is trying to gouge you, you will find some photographers are cheaper and flexible on this then others.

Gouge is probably too strong a word. Tying the client into only being able to buy from you is probably a better way of looking at it. Which is immoral IMHO.


These are usually on the lower scale/entry level in the industry.

I love the darkroom and still do process images for my own projects but don't do it for any of the commercial stuff anymore. Digital workflow has certain advantages but don't let anyone tell you it's cheaper - it's not.

Photographers do not use the same high street processors as consumers generally. They will either print themselves or use a pro lab.

If they print themselves it's usually very high end inkjet or dye sublimation(especially for event photography)

Digital workflow is cheaper as it's quicker. Try telling Adobe / Apple et.al that it isn't. The efficiencies are where the cost outlays are won back.

I wouldn't accept inkjet for any photo. Pre-press, professional print shops, proper inks, correct colour matching and great results are within the reach of many users. Not just professionals.


just so you know what the costs are(this is some of the equipment i have, not all. Alot of pro's would carry alot more on top of having offices and studios. I have not including printers or printing costs):

I use nikon camera's, for a pro job i would bring two
D3 - 5000
d700 - 2700
Lenses - 24-70 F2.8 1400, 70-200 F2.8 2000, 300 F2.8 3500(for a start, I have over a dozen lenses each with good points and bad points and suitable for different jobs)
Tripod 300
on camera flash 400
seperate flash units &amp; background 1000
Mac 2000
Software 2000

Congratulations on having spent a shed load of money on your equipment. As a customer I wouldn't care how much you've spent on that. As a customer I would be interested in getting the best shots for my buck and then being able to distribute them to my friends and enemies. As I choose.
So again, it comes down to you trying to protect your markup.

Why should I pay your markup?


Now that i look at all this again it is obvious to me who is trying to gouge who

Simple question, if you passed along the tiresome task of printing to the customers who wanted to do that, how many more jobs would you be able to accept?

joconnell
5th-August-2009, 09:14
As you know it takes time to post process the raw photos which adds up when you've a few hundred shots. Then if you let the customer get their own prints which are done badly it's also going to come back on the photographer. And of course you've got to protect your markup - it's a business ffs! For example I work in commercial visual effects and when a company goes out to shoot a tv program it turns out that they don't make any profit on the actual shoot itself, they only make money on the mark up they put on the post production of that program. Should photographers work for free? Should you apply the same logic to everything? Would you try and buy a car and say that you don't want to pay the dealers markup on it? Has he gotten the showrooms for free?

huron
5th-August-2009, 09:24
As you know it takes time to post process the raw photos which adds up when you've a few hundred shots. Then if you let the customer get their own prints which are done badly it's also going to come back on the photographer. And of course you've got to protect your markup - it's a business ffs! For example I work in commercial visual effects and when a company goes out to shoot a tv program it turns out that they don't make any profit on the actual shoot itself, they only make money on the mark up they put on the post production of that program. Should photographers work for free? Should you apply the same logic to everything? Would you try and buy a car and say that you don't want to pay the dealers markup on it? Has he gotten the showrooms for free?

But I've already paid the photographer to take my photographs.

By your argument I shouldn't pay the photographer to take the photos and only pay him for the prints. If I buy a car I'm paying for the right to drive around in my car. Not for the photographer to drive me around in it. If I wanted that I'd pay for taxis.

When you hand over a DVD of a showreel that a client has paid for, do you purposely degrade the image to prevent the client from copying it and distributing it to their clients and potential clients?

joconnell
5th-August-2009, 09:39
Not at all, they get a finished piece of work on a broadcast quality tape but they don't get all of the source files that went into making that.

I'm not sure how much markup each photographer has on the prints as compared to the cost of producing them - would you agree that it takes a certain amount of time to organise getting prints done and checking them? it might only be an hour or two but at the same time the markup on a print might only be a euro or two (again not sure how folks actually charge this)

nuke
5th-August-2009, 09:50
As you know it takes time to post process the raw photos which adds up when you've a few hundred shots. Then if you let the customer get their own prints which are done badly it's also going to come back on the photographer. And of course you've got to protect your markup - it's a business ffs! For example I work in commercial visual effects and when a company goes out to shoot a tv program it turns out that they don't make any profit on the actual shoot itself, they only make money on the mark up they put on the post production of that program. Should photographers work for free? Should you apply the same logic to everything? Would you try and buy a car and say that you don't want to pay the dealers markup on it? Has he gotten the showrooms for free?

But I've already paid the photographer to take my photographs.

By your argument I shouldn't pay the photographer to take the photos and only pay him for the prints. If I buy a car I'm paying for the right to drive around in my car. Not for the photographer to drive me around in it. If I wanted that I'd pay for taxis.

When you hand over a DVD of a showreel that a client has paid for, do you purposely degrade the image to prevent the client from copying it and distributing it to their clients and potential clients?


this is not a difficult concept but you seem to be having difficulty accepting it.

If a photographer takes photographs of you or for you then by default the images belong to the photographer. That is part of copyright law.

The photographer can then supply you with a print, a digital image and /or a license to re-use that image for certain purposes.

The photographer owns the image, not you and they would be within their rights to bill you for any additional prints you made yourself or take you to court for the monies.

No photographer should even consider signing over copyright and raw files but if you claimed copyright then you would need a written contract signed by the photographer saying he was signing away his rights.

so just let's iterate this again for the hard of hearing YOU DO NOT OWN THE IMAGES, only the copy provided to you bythe photographer.

Most photographers are reasonable but if you do not care about their costs and business then why should they give a sh*t about what you want but are not prepared to pay for.

nuke
5th-August-2009, 09:53
But I've already paid the photographer to take my photographs.

By your argument I shouldn't pay the photographer to take the photos and only pay him for the prints alot of photographers work on this basis</span></span>. If I buy a car I'm paying for the right to drive around in my car. Not for the photographer to drive me around in it. If I wanted that I'd pay for taxis.

When you hand over a DVD(also protected by copyright, you have no rights to copy or distribute unless stated in a contract and you never provide the original raw footage)</span> of a showreel that a client has paid for, do you purposely degrade the image to prevent the client from copying it and distributing it to their clients and potential clients?


I've gotten slightly off topic and apologise but people who refuse to recognise copyright law(and plenty of them here on this forum) bug the daylights out of me

huron
5th-August-2009, 10:13
I do repect copyright law Nuke, I just don't think you have it on your side.
http://193.178.1.79/1963/en/act/pub/0010/print.html
"(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, where
a person commissions the taking of a photograph, or the painting or
drawing of a portrait, or the making of an engraving, and pays or
agrees to pay for it in money or money's worth, and the work is made in
pursuance of that commission, the person who commissioned the work
shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting therein by virtue of this
Part of this Act."
AFAIK there are no further amendments to this section covered in the 2000 or 2001 amendments. I am open to contradiction though.
I think a wedding photographers "rights" other than what's contractually agreed are urban legend and hokey.

joconnell
5th-August-2009, 10:49
Check out ownership rights at the bottom of this - http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

Munstersinc
5th-August-2009, 10:59
I think its a total waste of money when you consider how good the quality of camera's are these days.




Yep, it's as simple as having a "good" camera. Shur all you have to do is press the button smileys/biggrin.gif. Top of the range Canon cameras do not have an Auto mode on them by the way so unless it's set up right you will either get a photo of white or black when you press the button.

Problem is, if you don't have a professional photographer at your wedding you will think what the uncle produced is outstanding as you have nothing to compare it to. If you have something produced by a professional then you would laugh at what the uncle produced when compared. Seriously. Night and Day.

It's madness buying a painting these days as well, what with the quality of paintbrushes and paint thats out there. smileys/wink.gif


if you don't have a professional photographer at your wedding you will think what the uncle produced is outstanding as you have nothing to compare it to................ have to laugh at this really as my attitude to what you say is where's the problem ........... if you don't have anything to compare it to and think that the pics are outstanding as you put it then where's the problem ???? We didn't bother with a photographer ouselves and trawled through the many hundreds of pics taken by family members and friends and came up with some truly outstanding shots..... ones that we are delighted with...... and yet we are not comtemplating what the pics could have looked like had they been taken by a pro.


You don't even need a top of the range camera ..... as somebody pointed out here - they need to have the settings adjusted manually..... they are plenty of very good cameras out there that aren't "top of the range" but that provide excellent pics.


I'm not being a cheapskate here at all but I really think that it's not a necessity to pay out a large enough sum of money for pics of a day that you will look at every now and again ......... we have a few of our favourites framed and look through the album every now and again ourselves.


Apart from everything ...... we decided that we didn't want the typical staged pics that are so often synonomous with weddings..... our most liked pics were taken off the cuff..... captured by somebody with a camera when people weren't necesssarily posing for the pic.

Bandit
5th-August-2009, 11:07
[QUOTE=huron]




just so you know what the costs are(this is some of the equipment i have, not all. Alot of pro's would carry alot more on top of having offices and studios. I have not including printers or printing costs):

I use nikon camera's, for a pro job i would bring two
D3 - 5000
d700 - 2700
Lenses - 24-70 F2.8 1400, 70-200 F2.8 2000, 300 F2.8 3500(for a start, I have over a dozen lenses each with good points and bad points and suitable for different jobs)
Tripod 300
on camera flash 400
seperate flash units &amp; background 1000
Mac 2000
Software 2000

Congratulations on having spent a shed load of money on your equipment. As a customer I wouldn't care how much you've spent on that. As a customer I would be interested in getting the best shots for my buck and then being able to distribute them to my friends and enemies. As I choose.
So again, it comes down to you trying to protect your markup.

Why should I pay your markup?


Now that i look at all this again it is obvious to me who is trying to gouge who

Simple question, if you passed along the tiresome task of printing to the customers who wanted to do that, how many more jobs would you be able to accept?



Sure why should you pay him at all, isn't he a charity and doesn't deserve your hard earned euros anyway.smileys/c&#111;nfused.gif


Pay whatever the fcuk you want to pay, shop around. Some people think that it is a crime to work for profit. I don't know a wealthy photographer but many who struggle to make a living.

joconnell
5th-August-2009, 11:08
Same here - I shoot documentary style stuff since I haven't done enough flash stuff to do the other more formal bits - you could probably hire someone for a few hours and get that lot covered - it'd cut back a lot of extra days work on reciis and so on.

Either way have a chat to the photog, get a breakdown of the costs and you should be able to work something out!

Bandit
5th-August-2009, 11:09
[QUOTE=Tobyglen]




I'm not being a cheapskate here at all but I really think that it's not a necessity to pay out a large enough sum of money for pics of a day that you will look at every now and again ......... we have a few of our favourites framed and look through the album every now and again ourselves.


Apart from everything ...... we decided that we didn't want the typical staged pics that are so often synonomous with weddings..... our most liked pics were taken off the cuff..... captured by somebody with a camera when people weren't necesssarily posing for the pic.





You were a cheapskate but don't be ashamed of it.

Hugged Rugger
5th-August-2009, 11:12
Check out ownership rights at the bottom of this - http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/




<s&#111;ng>Ownership of Photographs?</s&#111;ng>


If A takes a photograph of B, who owns the copyright in that
photograph? As a general rule, the photographer owns the copyright.
This is true even if B has commissioned and paid for the photograph -
as in the case of wedding photographs. If B wishes to enjoy the
copyright, he must agree with A that the copyright will be transferred
to him. B should make sure that the agreement and any transfer are in
writing - or they may be ineffective under Irish law to transfer the
copyright.

Hugged Rugger
5th-August-2009, 11:19
I do repect copyright law Nuke, I just don't think you have it on your side.
http://193.178.1.79/1963/en/act/pub/0010/print.html
"(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, where
a person commissions the taking of a photograph, or the painting or
drawing of a portrait, or the making of an engraving, and pays or
agrees to pay for it in money or money's worth, and the work is made in
pursuance of that commission, the person who commissioned the work
shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting therein by virtue of this
Part of this Act."
AFAIK there are no further amendments to this section covered in the 2000 or 2001 amendments. I am open to contradiction though.
I think a wedding photographers "rights" other than what's contractually agreed are urban legend and hokey.



Is your quoted part from section 10? "Ownership of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works."

Tobyglen
5th-August-2009, 11:28
I think its a total waste of money when you consider how good the quality of camera's are these days.




Yep, it's as simple as having a "good" camera. Shur all you have to do is press the button smileys/biggrin.gif. Top of the range Canon cameras do not have an Auto mode on them by the way so unless it's set up right you will either get a photo of white or black when you press the button.

Problem is, if you don't have a professional photographer at your wedding you will think what the uncle produced is outstanding as you have nothing to compare it to. If you have something produced by a professional then you would laugh at what the uncle produced when compared. Seriously. Night and Day.

It's madness buying a painting these days as well, what with the quality of paintbrushes and paint thats out there. smileys/wink.gif


if you don't have a professional photographer at your wedding you will think what the uncle produced is outstanding as you have nothing to compare it to................ have to laugh at this really as my attitude to what you say is where's the problem ........... if you don't have anything to compare it to and think that the pics are outstanding as you put it then where's the problem ???? We didn't bother with a photographer ouselves and trawled through the many hundreds of pics taken by family members and friends and came up with some truly outstanding shots..... ones that we are delighted with...... and yet we are not comtemplating what the pics could have looked like had they been taken by a pro.


You don't even need a top of the range camera ..... as somebody pointed out here - they need to have the settings adjusted manually..... they are plenty of very good cameras out there that aren't "top of the range" but that provide excellent pics.


I'm not being a cheapskate here at all but I really think that it's not a necessity to pay out a large enough sum of money for pics of a day that you will look at every now and again ......... we have a few of our favourites framed and look through the album every now and again ourselves.


Apart from everything ...... we decided that we didn't want the typical staged pics that are so often synonomous with weddings..... our most liked pics were taken off the cuff..... captured by somebody with a camera when people weren't necesssarily posing for the pic.





The best photos taken are the ones from the afters where people aren't putting on a poncy smile for staged photos. Video camera's are also much better. I think its a waste of money because you could do so much with 3K but I suppose that all depends on how much your whipped by your fiancee/wife.

huron
5th-August-2009, 11:32
I do repect copyright law Nuke, I just don't think you have it on your side.
http://193.178.1.79/1963/en/act/pub/0010/print.html
"(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, where
a person commissions the taking of a photograph, or the painting or
drawing of a portrait, or the making of an engraving, and pays or
agrees to pay for it in money or money's worth, and the work is made in
pursuance of that commission, the person who commissioned the work
shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting therein by virtue of this
Part of this Act."
AFAIK there are no further amendments to this section covered in the 2000 or 2001 amendments. I am open to contradiction though.
I think a wedding photographers "rights" other than what's contractually agreed are urban legend and hokey.



Is your quoted part from section 10? "Ownership of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works."


It is. But I don't think that matters, it's the only place I could find where photography is covered specifically. Other than that it's what's agreed in any contractual agreements as far as I can tell. IANAL.
Which would make any copyright claim by a photographer hokey other than what's agreed between them and the client.

But even then from http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/ which Nuke posted earlier;
"This is true even if B has commissioned and paid for the photograph -
as in the case of wedding photographs</span>. If B wishes to enjoy the
copyright, he must agree with A that the copyright will be transferred
to him. B should make sure that the agreement and any transfer are in
writing - or they may be ineffective under Irish law to transfer the
copyright.

The main exception to this principle is where photographs are taken by
an employee in the course of their employment - if X Ltd. employs Z as
a photographer, then the photos taken by Z in the course of his work
belong to X Ltd. and cannot be used by Z without their permission.</span> This
can trip up the unwary - for example, Z may be in difficulties if he
wishes to use those photos as part of a portfolio of work."

Now correct me here, please. But this both directly contradicts the 1963 act, it also agrees with it. That's why I think this is just urban legend. Somewhere along the line some photographer saw that in the States and Britain that copyright is the photographers and from that time maintained that "Dammit, it's my copyright" and over time it's become common practice (also enforceable by law btw) but nobody has ever looked at it.

joconnell
5th-August-2009, 12:03
Nah it's in the rights detailed in the link I posted - the photographer retains the rights in all cases unless agreed by contract. Same as we don't give our clients all the animation assets we make in the production of their ads.

Either way it all comes down to whether you reckon it's worth it or not - if you're of the opinion that the photos you get from your mates are as good then you're probably not the person to be hiring a photog in the first place, if you do value them as a professional then you probably won't mind spending the money on a decent set of prints.

Anything art / design related is a bit of a divisive one I reckon - it's very difficult to put an exact value on it as to how much you think you should pay. Take something like a logo design or a website as an alternative - you could get someone with ms word and a copy of photoshop to make you a logo for a hundred quid or you could pay thousands, there's obviously a huge gap in level between the two but a lot of folks will look at it and not see the difference.

nuke
5th-August-2009, 12:21
my understanding of it, from the 2000 amendment is that copyright is owned by the photographer but the photographer cannot publish commisioned works publicy with out the consent of the commisioner.

So in the case of wedding photo's you can't reproduce the photo's without paying the photographer but conversely the photographer cannot publicly use the photo's without your permission either

Where are our legal eagles when you need them......off argueing about something inconsequential instead of whom might, hypothetically, own the copyright of wedding photo's

It's confusion like this that makes me insist on contracts for every commission i do smileys/smile.gif

Interpretation of author
(h) in the case of a photograph, the photographer.


First ownership of copyright

23.-(1) The author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright unless-

(a) the work is made by an employee in the course of employment, in which case the employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work, subject to any agreement to the contrary,

(b) the work is the subject of Government or Oireachtas copyright,

(c) the work is the subject of the copyright of a prescribed international organisation, or

(d) the copyright in the work is conferred on some other person by an enactment.

(2) Where a work, other than a computer program, is made by an author in the course of employment by the proprietor of a newspaper or periodical, the author may use the work for any purpose, other than for the purposes of making available that work to newspapers or periodicals, without infringing the copyright in the work.


Transfer of copies of work in electronic form

86.-(1) This section applies where a copy of a work in electronic form has been purchased on terms which expressly or impliedly allow the purchaser to copy the work, or to adapt it or make copies of an adaptation, in connection with his or her use of the work.

(2) Where there are no express terms-

(a) prohibiting the transfer of the copy by the purchaser, imposing obligations which continue after a transfer, prohibiting the assignment of any licence or terminating any licence on a transfer, or

(b) providing for the conditions on which a transferee may undertake the acts which the purchaser was permitted to undertake,

then, any acts which the purchaser was permitted to undertake may also be undertaken by a transferee without infringement of the copyright, but any copy or adaptation or copy of an adaptation made by the purchaser which is not also transferred shall be treated as an infringing copy for those purposes and for all subsequent purposes.

(3) Subsection (2) applies where the original purchased copy is no longer usable and that which is transferred is a further copy used in its place.
(4) This section shall apply on a second and subsequent transfer in like manner as to the first transfer to a purchaser and references to the purchaser shall be construed as references to a second or subsequent transferee.

Right to privacy
in photographs and films

114.-(1) Subject to the exceptions specified in subsection (3), a person who, for private and domestic purposes, commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have the work or copies of the work made available to the public.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the act of making available to the public, or authorising the making available to the public, of a work or copies of a work referred to in subsection (1) without the authority of the person who commissions the work infringes the right conferred by subsection (1).

(3) The right conferred by subsection (1) shall not be infringed by an act which under section 52, 71, 72, 76 or 88 would not infringe the copyright in the work.

i don't think it was me that referenced the weblink you quoted though

huron
5th-August-2009, 12:29
Nah it's in the rights detailed in the link I posted - the photographer retains the rights in all cases unless agreed by contract. Same as we don't give our clients all the animation assets we make in the production of their ads.

Either way it all comes down to whether you reckon it's worth it or not - if you're of the opinion that the photos you get from your mates are as good then you're probably not the person to be hiring a photog in the first place, if you do value them as a professional then you probably won't mind spending the money on a decent set of prints.

Absolutely agree about perceived value, it really all does come down to whether or not you think the photographer is worth it or not. In my experience though photographers get REALLLLY precocious about their entitlements. Simply because that's how they make mad amounts of money out of people who don't know any better or care.

I've looked at this a few times with fresh eyes and I still can't find anywhere where it definitively says "The photographer owns the copyright" other than other photographers jumping up and down going "It's our precious, ourrrrssss!"


Anything art / design related is a bit of a divisive one I reckon - it's very difficult to put an exact value on it as to how much you think you should pay. Take something like a logo design or a website as an alternative - you could get someone with ms word and a copy of photoshop to make you a logo for a hundred quid or you could pay thousands, there's obviously a huge gap in level between the two but a lot of folks will look at it and not see the difference.


Absolutely agree to all of this. It really is perceived value. For instance the value I would put on a wedding photographer is as an artist who can capture the mood, tone and moment, can compose and frame, do a reasonable job at wrangling the drunks and make sure there's no nipples, knickers or foolishness on display for the world to see afterwards.
That's why they get paid large amounts of money to do their job IMHO.
Not to print photos. FFS that's why they themselves farm the work out to print shops.
While some photographers feel that while they are artists they retain ALL of the rights with ALL of the benefits and hang the client.
Without whom they'd be doing something a lot less fulfilling.

huron
5th-August-2009, 12:50
my understanding of it, from the 2000 amendment is that copyright is owned by the photographer but the photographer cannot publish commisioned works publicy with out the consent of the commisioner.

So in the case of wedding photo's you can't reproduce the photo's without paying the photographer but conversely the photographer cannot publicly use the photo's without your permission either

Where are our legal eagles when you need them......off argueing about something inconsequential instead of whom might, hypothetically, own the copyright of wedding photo's

It's confusion like this that makes me insist on contracts for every commission i do smileys/smile.gif


smileys/lol.gif
One more quick question.
Do you have an expiration date on your contract? So that after five years the copyright reverts back to the client? I know of one photographer in the mid-west who would offer the client the negs after five years and charge them if they want them. If not they'd be dumped or destroyed (can't remember exactly which one).

nuke
5th-August-2009, 12:50
Without whom they'd be doing something a lot less fulfilling</span>.


small point but wedding photography isn't fulfilling. Very very few photographers aspire to wedding photography for any reason other than money

joconnell
5th-August-2009, 12:55
Sure thing - here's the relevant bits from the rights:


<s&#111;ng>
Ownership of Photographs?</s&#111;ng>


If A takes a photograph of B, who owns the copyright in that
photograph? As a general rule, the photographer owns the copyright.
This is true even if B has commissioned and paid for the photograph -
as in the case of wedding photographs. If B wishes to enjoy the
copyright, he must agree with A that the copyright will be transferred
to him. B should make sure that the agreement and any transfer are in
writing - or they may be ineffective under Irish law to transfer the
copyright.



I've never paid for any prints myself though I know a decent place is about 6 quid upwards depending on size - not sure how much markup is put on that by the photog themselves. A friend of mine got a fashion shooter to shoot his wedding as a favour for their boss and he rather uncommonly is giving them all the raw files on a disc - he isn't grading and posting them all admittedly since there's a few hundred so they're not all usable out of the bag.

nuke
5th-August-2009, 12:58
my understanding of it, from the 2000 amendment is that copyright is owned by the photographer but the photographer cannot publish commisioned works publicy with out the consent of the commisioner.

So in the case of wedding photo's you can't reproduce the photo's without paying the photographer but conversely the photographer cannot publicly use the photo's without your permission either

Where are our legal eagles when you need them......off argueing about something inconsequential instead of whom might, hypothetically, own the copyright of wedding photo's

It's confusion like this that makes me insist on contracts for every commission i do smileys/smile.gif


smileys/lol.gif
Do you have an expiration date on your contract? So that after five years the copyright reverts back to the client? I know of one photographer in the mid-west who would offer the client the negs after five years and charge them if they want them. If not they'd be dumped or destroyed (can't remember exactly which one).


generally no as i don't do weddings anymore and for most of what i do at the moment is performance photography where copyright is alot more complex ie: taking photographs of other peoples copyrighted work.

But i think copyright lapses 70 years after the death of the author if there is no provision made in a contract.

In my contracts where the copyright is strightforward i usually licence the individual or person to use the photo's for whatever purpose is necessary. Sometimes this includes unlimited copies. This gives the commisioner the right to use the photo's but I retain copyright. It's usually a good compromise