Wedding Photography, style, archiving etc

[Dunepilot]

Hi all,

In just over a year (28th July) I'll be getting married.

Believe it or not, my fiance is finding that a number of good photographers are already booked-up for that date, so we're looking at booking someone in the next day or two, if we can.

For those of you who are in the know about photography, I'd like some advice, if you wouldn't mind.

1) Any general advice from the perspective of experience, as a photographer or as a couple that's had a recent wedding.

2) Interested as I am in archiving and longevity of records, I'm concerned about what photographic processes ensure that the photo will last for as long as possible? How do people do 'real' photos from digital sources nowadays without the exposure process? Presumably there's some sort of high-level process that good photographers use rather than using an inkjet on epson photo paper! I really would appreciate some insight here.

Also, we're getting married in Oxford, so anyone who knows of good photographers in that area please point me to their sites (particularly photographer who are good value - I'm *amazed* at how much most are charging, and many try to rip you off for more for digital copies of the photos they've taken like it's some sort of tough job to burn you a DVD).

Cheers
Dune

 

[Blue Velvet]

Even though it's a year or so away, congrats.

A recent ceremony I went to had an official professional photographer... what struck me at the time was his manner with people and with large groups. He made posing for the official portraits fun and this proved very effective in getting appealing shots.

So that's also one thing to consider; that they're also a guest and pay a key role in the mood of the day. So don't hire someone who seems a little gloomy or short-tempered...

 

[beavo451]

1) Any general advice from the perspective of experience, as a photographer or as a couple that's had a recent wedding.

If you have videographer, make sure they get along with each other. Also, inform the guest that the hired photographer has priority over the pictures and to be courteous to him/her. It is very frustrating when you set up a shot and have a plethora of people around you taking pictures. The couple doesn't know which camera to look at!

2) Interested as I am in archiving and longevity of records, I'm concerned about what photographic processes ensure that the photo will last for as long as possible? How do people do 'real' photos from digital sources nowadays without the exposure process? Presumably there's some sort of high-level process that good photographers use rather than using an inkjet on epson photo paper! I really would appreciate some insight here.

Usually it is a dye sublimation process on archival paper. The prints should last a fairly longtime, much longer than inkjet prints.

Also, we're getting married in Oxford, so anyone who knows of good photographers in that area please point me to their sites (particularly photographer who are good value - I'm *amazed* at how much most are charging, and many try to rip you off for more for digital copies of the photos they've taken like it's some sort of tough job to burn you a DVD).

Cheers
Dune

I'm in Texas, so I can't give you any suggestions. What are the prices you are seeing? $2000 USD for a photographer is not uncommon. It IS a tough job to burn you a DVD. They are giving you digital "negatives" in an essence. They have spent the wedding day and reception shooting (which is not as easy as it looks). Then they go home and spend hours and hours on processing and preparing your images. In addition, once they give you the digital copies, they have in essence lost all print sales, album sales, and control of the images.

Wedding photographers do not make a lot, inspite of the prices. For example if one averages 20 weddings a year, that is only $40,000 a year! And that's exluding travel expenses, equipment expenses, and other business related expenses.

 

[REDSRT4]

I would recommend making sure he uses digital, i just went to a wedding where the guy used film cameras and the pictures were know where near the quality of the pics from a wedding a few years back on a d slr

 

[Dunepilot]

Usually it is a dye sublimation process on archival paper. The prints should last a fairly longtime, much longer than inkjet prints.

I'm worrying about this side of things quite a lot, so any more info would be greatly appreciated. Photos taken from my grandparents' and great-grandparents' youth seem to have survived very well, but I've heard that modern papers are made to a much lower quality (and I remember a friend who was an archivist telling me about paper acidity being a key factor). I really do want to go with someone who cares about this side of the process. Just as I wouldn't make a recording and release it only on CD-R due to its poor longevity, I will want durable real photos as well as the digital (and potentially therefore more volatile) versions.

I'm in Texas, so I can't give you any suggestions. What are the prices you are seeing? $2000 USD for a photographer is not uncommon. It IS a tough job to burn you a DVD. They are giving you digital "negatives" in an essence. They have spent the wedding day and reception shooting (which is not as easy as it looks). Then they go home and spend hours and hours on processing and preparing your images. In addition, once they give you the digital copies, they have in essence lost all print sales, album sales, and control of the images.

Wedding photographers do not make a lot, inspite of the prices. For example if one averages 20 weddings a year, that is only $40,000 a year! And that's exluding travel expenses, equipment expenses, and other business related expenses.

Understood, but many seem to be asking approaching £2,000 which is almost double that figure (and extortionate, in my view). There is a sense that just because weddings are generally viewed as expensive occasions, that everyone tries to 'cash in' on this.

In the charity I used to work for, we hired a top photographer who did work for the Observer for about £300 for a half day. Just because it's a wedding doesn't really justify the huge increase over that figure, to me. But the couple is slightly at the mercy of photographers' prices, because noone wants bad photos of such an important day.

 

[m-dogg]

$2000? I wish! We're paying over $4000 for our wedding photographer (10/21/06 wedding!) here in Connecticut, and that's for one of the more basic packages. We are happy with his work though, and decided to book him after we saw them in action at a friend's wedding (and then the resulting proofs). Seeing them in action is good if you are fortunate enough to be able to do so.

What's even crazier than photographers is videographers - Most charge $2000 to $3000 for something that I could do better myself by using iMovie! A lot are just plain bad, and some are downright scary! If only I wasn't busy that day...

Congratulations by the way!

 

[Dunepilot]

$2000? I wish! We're paying over $4000 for our wedding photographer (10/21/06 wedding!) here in Connecticut, and that's for one of the more basic packages. We are happy with his work though, and decided to book him after we saw them in action at a friend's wedding (and then the resulting proofs). Seeing them in action is good if you are fortunate enough to be able to do so.

What's even crazier than photographers is videographers - Most charge $2000 to $3000 for something that I could do better myself by using iMovie! A lot are just plain bad, and some are downright scary! If only I wasn't busy that day...

Congratulations by the way!

Thanks - you too.

Have you consulted your photographer about papers, longevity of photos etc (not to sound too paranoid about this subject!)?

 

[m-dogg]

Understood, but many seem to be asking approaching £2,000 which is almost double that figure (and extortionate, in my view). There is a sense that just because weddings are generally viewed as expensive occasions, that everyone tries to 'cash in' on this.

I'm convinced every wedding related vendor (phogos, banquet facilities, DJ's, limos, etc...) has 2 price lists. One high priced list for weddings, and another price list that is 50-75% cheaper for any other event...

 

[Dunepilot]

I'm convinced every wedding related vendor (phogos, banquet facilities, DJ's, limos, etc...) has 2 price lists. One high priced list for weddings, and another price list that is 50-75% cheaper for any other event...

At a danger of getting sidetracked (or sounding tight-fisted), I agree. It's the time that it's least-helpful for us as well as we try to start out (I know this is of course not the case for a lot of couples who get married at a later stage in their lives, nowadays). I mean, £2K is about half a deposit on a house.

 

[m-dogg]

Thanks - you too.

Have you consulted your photographer about papers, longevity of photos etc (not to sound too paranoid about this subject!)?

One thing that we wanted was an old-style, traditional photo album, with actual printed pictures. So many we met with only had digital albums which were a turn off.

I didn't question the printing method too much. And at this point I'm just going to hope for the best!

 

[beavo451]

Here is an interesting read regarding printing:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,50663,pg,2,00.asp

I would recommend making sure he uses digital, i just went to a wedding where the guy used film cameras and the pictures were know where near the quality of the pics from a wedding a few years back on a d slr

That is an ignorant statement. Whether film or digital, the skill of the photographer dictates the quality of the pictures. If you want pure pixel peeping comparisons, a medium format camera produces a superior image than a 35mm or APS sensor size digital camera.

In the charity I used to work for, we hired a top photographer who did work for the Observer for about £300 for a half day. Just because it's a wedding doesn't really justify the huge increase over that figure, to me. But the couple is slightly at the mercy of photographers' prices, because noone wants bad photos of such an important day.

In essence you answered your own concern. That job you hired him for probably was a side stint that required minimal effort and processing The guarentee that the photos of that day will be excellent. So say that rate you have goes up to £400 for half a day. A wedding usually takes an entire day of work. So -> £800. Then lets say it take 3 days to process the photos. £800 x 3 = £2400 + £800 (Wedding Day) = £3200. Plus cost of travel, prints included in the package, and other wedding day expenses. -> £4000 Professional camera equipment is very expensive and some of the most expensive components (digital bodies) need to be replaced every couple years. If you are looking for a budget photographer, look some more and you'll find one. Or take a chance on an amateur or starting pro.

 

[seenew]

Not saying you should settle for extremely high prices, but just wanted to let you know that a lot of the "high" prices are extremely justified. I'm just a student now, but I work part time for a local studio near my home that specializes in weddings (also portraits and events, but mostly weddings), and I'm their main digital post-processor when it comes to stuff above and beyond color correction. It's A HUGE amount of work, touching up hundreds of images, especially when the couple backs down and says they only want 25 of the best.. And my boss is no where near "well off" financially. I mean, the studio is nice and has good equipment, but this is not the industry to make a killing on. So yeah.