Any Professional Photographers out there?

Nemesis TS

Nemesis TS

Well-known member
I'm having some issues with my wedding photographer and wanted to know if this is normal procedure for photo pros.

Paid the guy 2 grand for the wedding. My understanding was he would work from time a to time b and we would get a disc with the photos.

Everything went well he did an amazing job on the photos and several weeks later I got a cd. Fast forward 11 months.... my wife goes online to design a coffee table book and is having issues with the photos being too low res.

I contacted the photographer and explained that we had the cd with low res images. He told me that I could go online and buy individual Full res images and the copyright for 40 dollars or a DVD of HQ images for a thousand dollars.

I pulled the contract and it does say "proof" quality images on CD. I didn't realize that meant crappy quality pics... He never disclosed this $1000 for High Res images and never mentioned $40/ image. I'm still working this out with the guy so I don't want to mention his name or company. But, this is bull shi*. I did tell him that had he disclosed these additional charges that I would NOT have hired him.

So is this normal business practice? Hoping some Pros will know if I've got a swindler or not. I feel like I paid him two grand to show up and take the pictures and now he is holding them hostage.

Sorry for the rant.
 
It is fairly normal for wedding and portrait photographers or was before the market was flooded with clueless newbs, dentists and other market wreckers

Lack of disclosure is less normal

You said it - you paid him to show up and take the pictures - you didnt pay him for a licence to the images he took and the copyright does default to the artist not the commissioner - with no license you cant do anything with them

I think the law (in the UK) tends to favour 'innocent' couples, wheras it will always side with the tog on commercial jobs


If he/she is a big operator with assistant(s), pre meetings and an album creation infrastructure advertising budget, backup kit, legal software, proper post workflow, proper insureance etc, he/she will be needing to make more than $2k per wedding because it takes the whole week to shoot and post produce one wedding properly - he would have to trade on an $80k turnover - nearly impossible to pull a profit

If he/she is a one man band with a 7d and a zoom, that would be a fair price for dump to disc jpg wedding

BTW Im not condoning this practice


S
 
Last edited:
Knowing two professional wedding photogs, I can tell you he's dancing on a really fine line there. Referrals are key to this business and I can't see how he'll be profitable when he's not disclosing everything up front.

Back to your situation though. You signed the contract. I suggest perhaps really choosing the best pictures and then maybe working out a deal with him. And maybe read that contract a few more times. Perhaps there's something in there that he missed or unfulfilled?
 
That's pretty standard practice around here for the more pro photogs.

You signed the contract that said "proofs". He may be KINDA shady for not mentioning it, but if so, you are 50% at fault for not asking about it. IMO.
 
Wait... I'm sure those pictures (if they had faces) if he were to license them requires a model release right? That means if you didn't sign a release for him to copyright a picture with YOUR face on it, you can turn the tables back around on him right?
 
No he owns the rights to the images as the photographer. Without the release however he would be unable to license these images commercially. The subjects have absolutely no rights to the images unless granted. And he very well may have releases written into the contract signed by the bride and groom covering them. I don't do weddings so I'm not quite sure how that's handled. When I do families and individuals though I go ahead and get releases on everyone.

And his practice sounds pretty standard. His execution and communication of it just sucks. I've been getting into the deep nitty gritty of licensing and rights and such in the past few months and it can be a confusing topic. I think its quite important that a photographer carefully explain his/her contract and what rights are granted and what that translates to in layman's terms. That said he's not required to by any means, its just a good way to keep your customer's happy and your referrals coming in.

Doesn't sound like anything illegal, just scummy.
 
question: why does he own the rights to the images ?
Is this not work for hire !

Im going to be shooting a gazillion fotos soon ...but practices like these are a bit uncommon here in Suriname . Hope somebody can explain this I know its another country ...we're just starting with rights for music artist here .

Thanks and I'm sorry for hijacking the thread abit !
 
Thanks for the input guys... The copyright part doesn't bother me much, its not like I would release my photo commercially or sell them.

What kills me is that I was very specific in my needs. Take the photos and put them on a disc. That was a parameter that I set for him, to which he agreed. I didn't expect him to put crap res on a disc.

He did not have his contract with him when we met and I paid him after our face to face meeting before seeing or signing the contract. So thats on me.

**edit: We did not sign model releases so my thought is he couldn't sell the images either.
 
(30 years in this game)
Well, I don't quite know what to think. Technically he gave you exactly as was agreed - images on a CD. I presume you read the contract (right?) before signing but missed the part about "proofs" ... but I have to ask in all honesty if perhaps you then may have missed the part about where he may have told you "proofs".

If he skirted around the issue and made no mention that they are proofs I would think that is poor quality business practice, but on the other hand clients often have no clue no matter what you explain to them until later if they find a problem to what they want.
I've given up on explaining color spaces or telling them that if they go to walmart and get green faces one time and purple the next - don't blame me. The customer does not have a frame of reference - they only know that they aren't getting what they expected.

In this case you signed a contract and one that is pretty much the norm among the better shooters. The fly by night crowd ... well sometimes they don't even have you sign a contract. Then when they have their one camera break ... your are out of luck. A contract protects both parties.

There is much misinformation about model releases. In short in this case he CAN sell the pictures. It hinges around endorsement in this case (imho - but wife was an attorney) Releases are used now as a "just in case" by folk who don't really ever seek professional advice but the idea that if you use the picture commercially that you absolutely need a realease is wrong. Its more complicated.
The best site if you are interested in this release biz is http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

But the thing here is that you want the pictures ( I assume ) and so you will have to buy them from him as per your agreement. Perhaps you can get a volume discount?
Remember too that printing is an art. Pictures on a CD is so often a disaster that it is one of the points I no longer even bother explaining. Did you specify in your request for the full size pictures on a CD what aspect ratio they be, which color space and if they were supposed to be sharpened for printing ( he would then need to know the output size to do a good job) or not sharpened? Was he supposed to give you sized shots or leave them for you to size. It can get complicated and any worthwhile photographer HATES when the customer then does things that make the shots look the disaster that so often becomes the case when they self print.

... Oh ... and no it is not work for hire. That requires a specific contract or you to be their employee.
 
Your lack of understanding of what you were to receive does reflect badly on him. The actual pricing (2k/40/1k) does not seem terribly out of line.

I'd suggest possibly going through the pics and deciding on the actual number you want, then negotiate based on this. $40 for one does not necessarily translate into $400 for 10 . . . A volume purchase can often see a substantial discount.

EDIT . . What Pavel+ said - I just type slow. Outstanding links btw.
 
Last edited:
Let me just add one other detail. Releases as many photographers get them are often not much better than a placebo. They wont stop you losing a case. The reason is that for a contract to be valid there has to be "consideration". What that means is that the smart thing to do is either pay the sitter. Often this is done with prints. In a wedding situation however it is not necessary as the service is the consideration.

Good luck. :)
 
Pavel+ said:
(30 years in this game)
Well, I don't quite know what to think. Technically he gave you exactly as was agreed - images on a CD. I presume you read the contract (right?) before signing but missed the part about "proofs" ... but I have to ask in all honesty if perhaps you then may have missed the part about where he may have told you "proofs".

If he skirted around the issue and made no mention that they are proofs I would think that is poor quality business practice, but on the other hand clients often have no clue no matter what you explain to them until later if they find a problem to what they want.
I've given up on explaining color spaces or telling them that if they go to walmart and get green faces one time and purple the next - don't blame me. The customer does not have a frame of reference - they only know that they aren't getting what they expected.
Click to expand...

When we met in person, I explained that I wanted the pictures on a disc. I did not specify High quality, as I did not expect anything less. Why would I? Who would ask for a cd with low res images???? not me. He talked about coffee table books, and leather bound albums and printed prints. Never did he mention an additional fee for High Res Pics. No where in anything he sent me does it mention the cost of High Res pics.

Pavel+ said:
But the thing here is that you want the pictures ( I assume ) and so you will have to buy them from him as per your agreement. Perhaps you can get a volume discount?
Remember too that printing is an art. Pictures on a CD is so often a disaster that it is one of the points I no longer even bother explaining. Did you specify in your request for the full size pictures on a CD what aspect ratio they be, which color space and if they were supposed to be sharpened for printing ( he would then need to know the output size to do a good job) or not sharpened? Was he supposed to give you sized shots or leave them for you to size. It can get complicated and any worthwhile photographer HATES when the customer then does things that make the shots look the disaster that so often becomes the case when they self print.
Click to expand...

I completely understand the printing dilemma... However, my Father in law bought some of the prints from the photographer's printer and was not happy. I'm savvy enough with photoshop and was able to fix that same photo and gave it to him (father in law) and he was much happier and it wasn't 15 bucks for one picture. I'm descent at photoshop and understand how to get good prints. The photographer did a great job, but I would like to take the photos to the next level and remove moles, pimples, ill placed wine glasses, clean the background up and other photomanipulations that will improve on the great shots the photographer captured. Its not the photographers fault that the tux my father in law was wearing was two sizes too big and rode up on him. So those are things that I wouldn't expect the photographer to fix, but I am more than capable of doing myself. So self printing is not a problem for me, I can see other people having many issues. I'm ok at photography and photoshop, my ignorance came in hiring someone else to take photos, never done that before. He has done all the work already, now he is just trying to get more money out of me, which sucks because I really promoted him to my friends.

Update: My wife asked him for 20 high res images and he sent them to her with no charge, after going back and forth a few emails. However, that means that I paid 100 dollars a photo and that is too much. Wife is happy, but now its really bothering me that he did this. He was a really good guy in our meeting and on our wedding day, a real pleasure to work with.... and now I'm just disappointed.
 
It did not come accross the way I typed it ... but I meant that in a sarcastic way "that technically he delivered what you asked for" but I think it sucks and would have hoped that he would have made that kinda clear that they were proofs. To give proofs in the old days was the norm. Then the couple would order prints. Nowadays many of the lower end just give the full size shots on a cd and they are done. That has now become fairly standard and your expectations are completely reasonable.

For me, if I put myself in your shoes I would feel as you do based on how the verbal meeting went. There are a number of normal questions that are normally on the minds of couples when they contract a shooter. Pictures on a CD are one of them. If you asked and he said, simply, Yes ... I will give you a CD of shots then he has treated you disingenuously. If he said "proofs" but you did not catch that ... then I really feel that he has been fair and that the mistake is one to chalk up to experience.

I'm not trying to be blithe ... but the contract means that you did not really pay attention to fundamental parts of this transaction.

I wasn't there .... so, heck ... I don't really know what to conclude. I hope you and the photographer can walk away from this, both partially satisfied. But ... from the information you have supplied, and my own past experiences sitting on the other side dealing with clients that don't really ask the right questions it would seem more like an honest miscommunication than a jerk photographer.
 
you seem to look at this from an iteresting angle with the "$100 per photo " statement.
You pay for a photographers skill and time.

If you shoot a location video that takes five hours to shoot and you get a two minute video for $500, say a music video for a band. Do you look at that as a rip off that you paid $250 per minute? Or do you remember the time it took the videographer to shoot the video, to learn his trade, to invest in expensive equipment.... and to put up with all the BS - as well?
 
100% agreed with the above.

Made a similar mistake the other day when getting my air conditioner repaired. I called a service company and they scheduled a time and showed up. I told them what was wrong and they got to work. And I went back to my day.

I was expecting that they would come tell me what was actually wrong and what the estimated cost would be. Only because every other service company I've dealt with does this. I never asked them to, they just did as part of their policy. Most would agree that it's the right thing to do.

About 45 minutes later I feel cold air. My first thought was of course joyous because it was getting a tad warm. Then they showed up with my invoice. They said it was a leaking coil. They said it had a big leak. So they refilled it with freon. And charged me. They said it probably would be all gone by the end of the season. Great. Thanks guys. They even gave me a quote to replace the coil. After refilling it for a few hundred dollars and closing it all up.

So two weeks later I actually do some research when selecting an a/c company seeing as how they coil was completely dry once again.... The website explained their estimate/service charge policy among their other policies, guarantees, etc. Should've done more research the first go around, but there's no one to blame but myself for that...
 
Pavel+ said:
you seem to look at this from an iteresting angle with the "$100 per photo " statement.
You pay for a photographers skill and time.

If you shoot a location video that takes five hours to shoot and you get a two minute video for $500, say a music video for a band. Do you look at that as a rip off that you paid $250 per minute? Or do you remember the time it took the videographer to shoot the video, to learn his trade, to invest in expensive equipment.... and to put up with all the BS - as well?
Click to expand...

Good point... I guess I look at photos and video differently. A two minute music video could take days, weeks or months to complete. However, I hire someone to shoot a video and the end products resolution was web quality I would be disappointed. Especially if they guy use a red one on the shoot.

So I agree about the talent and skill being important. However, I went into this with my right brain and looked at price per photo, and what I was willing to pay. I found a great photographer in Mexico who charges 5 grand/day. Wife loved her photos. I broke it down to my wife... How many really good photos can we get? We planned on getting married in mexico with just a very small group of people, our parents and maybe another couple. So I figured with such a small wedding we could maybe get 50 good photos in mexico and at 5 grand thats 100 dollars a photo. Too much, I told my wife. This was my strictly business sense coming into play. We ended up staying more local and our 8 person wedding turned out to be 60 so I figured we would get more along the lines of 200 good photos and at 2 grand thats 10 bucks a photo and I was willing to pay that. So thats where the 200/photo thing came from. As much as a creative left brained person I can be, I still use my right brain when it comes to my money.
 
Before digital the standard wedding shooter package was for shooting the event and the photog delivered contact sheet proofs from which the couple would select the shots they wanted for the album. The final prints and the album were priced separately.

This is still pretty much the standard pro package for weddings shot digital too. Either one light proof sheets or a CD of uncorrected low res JPEGS for review, then you buy just the images you want for the final print album or as high res digital files with copyright license for personal non-commercial use. In either case the photographer retains copyright ownership. Just as location services and post production are separately priced for video work.
The wedding specialists I know usually have a standard minimum album package for X number of color corrected finished 8x10 prints plus corrected JPEGs on a CD they pitch as part of a complete wedding service with the option to upgrade print size or add more prints selected from the proofs. They retain all the raw image files. None of them shoot JPEGs as originals but may shoot raw + jpeg modes to make it easier to do the proofs.
In your case the photographer did not communicate with you well. He should have clearly laid out the options as part of his sales pitch.
 
I guess that despite all of mine and others second guessing, what is left is the fact that you are not a happy customer. The photographer was good and you are happy with the level of the service provided but you feel cheated by the surprise. Your expectations were not met.

I think that the photographer is showing that he is a decent guy in offering a limited set for free - and it is good that your wife is relatively happy. Perhaps if you talk to him more he would be willing to sell the rest of what you want, so that you are more satisfied, but still sell it ... though at a reduced price, and perhaps he will still be satisfied?

I know that while the practice of proofs was common with film nowadays more and more photographers don't want to bother (and trust me it IS a bother!) and just hand over the jpgs on a cd. The problem with that is that to hand over files that are further editable by the end user, you should keep the files in a color space which is awful for printing, keep the shots loose (dont crop to final dimensions) and don't sharpen. Once you sharpen, resizing really makes the shots awful. So ... that sort of biz practice can come back to bite through very bad referals because many end users dont' have the skill to bring the shots to their potential. That makes a photographer nevevous.

But the crossed expectations such as in your case make many just hand over the files (while they cross their fingers that the end user won't butcher their shots )

What I'm saying is that you did have reasonable rights to expect what you expected. The ways of the biz are moving to that. I think it is a shame though. Rarely are the end results very good compared to how this Guy is trying to give you what I expect is good service in his mind.

I hope there is a middle ground where both of you wind up with no real bitterness.

And it is a relatively inexpensive lesson for next time! :) I know I get real steamed when I feel taken advantage of. But even worse when I have to conclude that I was partly culpable too.

Good luck. :)
 
Have to agree with what Pavel said. I use to retain negatives and that is standard practice, but really I'd like to hand them over a CD with large fine JPEGs and be done with them with the understanding with the customer that the job is only half done and that if they just take them to Wal-Mart or equivalent for prints, they could quite possibly look like s##@. I think I would rather set them up with some professional follow through with a good lab/printer that knows me and explicitly explain and pound it into their skulls that they must go where I send them to get professional quality prints from my work. Maybe even have them sign a paper that they understand and comprehend what I've tried to explain and send them on their way. Of course when they can't retrieve those digital images from the CD years later because of CD rot, I'm sure I'll hear about it. I should really also give them a sheet to sign that they understand that the CD images are in no way an archival solution and not to count on it.
 
Thanks for all the feedback guys. I hope it was more of a misunderstanding than the guy trying to okie doke me. I did sign the contract no doubt about it. I should have been more thorough. I'm going to call him and try and work something out, he has not turned sour on me yet so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

It still bothers me that all my friends who hired photographers, who were less money, turned over high res photos as expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top