Question about wedding photography

Factual Questions
1

Soon-to-be-Mrs. Nonsuch and I are beginning to plan our wedding, scheduled roughly for mid-2007. Talking about photographers, we got to wondering, and I thought I would ask the most resourceful folks I know:

Is it easy — or even possible — to arrange to receive digital copies of the wedding photos? (Assuming the photog works digitally, which I gather more and more are doing now.) I realize that reprints are typically a big source of income for these folks, but I was thinking it would be really nice to have the freedom to repro the photos I want when I want, maybe make a nice iPhoto book, etc etc. It’s not that nobody would be ordering prints at all — I know a professional is going to give me much nicer prints than my Canon all-in-one will — but does anyone have any experience in getting this kind of service from their wedding photographer?

2

Nonsuch:

Ask the photographers this question when you’re interviewing them; you’ll probably one (or more) amenable to this. Of course, they’ll probably ask for a higher fee. You may find one who likes to take pictures but doesn’t like the hassle of making prints.

Good luck on the impending nupitals!

3

Interesting you bring this up, cos there are many serious debates amongst shooters about shooting weddings in digital.

One of the biggest issues facing shooters is what prospective customers will be concerned about - there is a perception amongst lay people that didgital image capture is of lower quality than film, and for a day as important as “my wedding” I want the best possible quality, right?

Should shooters try to educate folks about digital? Or shoot on the media that suits the client? Or tell the client, “You stick to the getting-married part, and let me - the professional photographer - choose the gear I use, eh?”.

Of course, the truth is, there is very little noticable quality difference (less and less month to month), and anyway it’s not a Quality issue (in terms of one being better than the other), but a quality issue (small q), in that you can tell the difference, but it’s interesting rather than bad.

And, there are significant workflow savings to be had for shooters. Ends up costing about the same to the client, cos instead of working in a darkroom, or production and printing house, they work in front of a computer.

So anyway, I’d expect most people would shoot your wedding digital anyway (with high end digital SLRs, Canon or Nikon most likely), and unless you’re some place unusual, you’ll be spoiled for choice for shooters anyway. Make a time to check out their work, and bring up the digital question in the meet. As you suggest, there are pricing considerations, but any open minded shooter would be interested in working with you to work something out.

Good luck, and congratulations!

a

4

Congratulations on your upcoming celebration, Mr. and Mrs. Nonsuch!

Yes!! I am one of them, though I may be part of a rare breed.

I cannot speak for others in the business, but I am a wedding photographer (mostly in the summer) who is able to work in both digital and film (mostly digital these days). I very much enjoy attending a joyous event and doing my part to help a couple and their families remember a wonderful day for the rest of their lives. However, I do not wish to deal with reprints. I like to shoot the wedding and reception and be finished with it. I provide the couple with a proof set and negatives and/or photo discs and sign away my rights to the photos.

I am a photographer and not a photo archivist. I don’t need people calling me five years later asking me to send a reprint to their grandmother or whatever. The full time photographers typically eke out every possible penny, but I just prefer everyone to be happy. For the couples’ sake, a middleman in purchasing reprints is just more expensive. For my sake, reprints cost a lot more time running errands and managing information. I do not print or develop photos in my own lab so I just recommend to the couple the same developers that I would use.

I’ve photographed 81 weddings: most working for a studio and some on my own as an individual. The couples who hired me as an individual (out of the ‘jurisdiction’ of said studio, as it were) have all been thrilled with my photos and method of doing business.

So, yes, it’s certainly possible. Also, film negatives can be digitized by most developers but many photographers are using digital SLRs these days.

5

Generally, I find that film SLR cameras take better images without tinkering w/ intricate settings on the camera. Digital SLRs require some adjustments especially when I’m photographing white men wearing dark suits; without such adjustments, the suits may look perfect but the faces are washed out. Film cameras naturally handle the contrast, but the digital cams OTOH provide instant results which I can use to make adjustments.

6

I respectfully disagree, but this is certainly not the place to get in to that!

But I do think your Mac is nowhere near as good as my PC.

a

7

What makes you think I have a Mac? :dubious: I’m all PC.

You are welcome to disagree. I work with Minolta cameras (both digital and film) and am very familiar with how they work. Certainly, my comments may not be applicable to other cameras. I apologize for making an over-generalization.

It’s also worth mentioning that regardless of the camera, the use of additional lighting especially in church sanctuary makes a significant improvement in image quality.

8

What you want is a ‘buy out’ deal whereby the photographer turns up, takes the pix, then hands over the source material (negs or files) and that’s the end of his or her role - what you do with the material is then up to you.

Some photographers will do this, some won’t. So you just need to make your requirements crystal clear when you phone around and hire one, and also agreement in writing. This is very important.

Another tip: if you possibly can (and it can be difficult), get the photographer to give you a complete breakdown of the total price you will be charged for his or her role, including time, labour, materials, rights and so on. If you don’t, you will find lots of little ‘extras’ added on to the bill, which the photographer will say are ‘standard’ charges. You won’t have a leg to stand on, because until you pay up, you don’t get your wedding pictures.

So get it in writing. And make sure it’s complete.

And good luck on the happy day.

9

We’ve just been through the same experience… I’m pretty useful with photoshop, and with digital printing these days being so good, I figured I can sort the prints myself and save myself £100s.

Also means - as mentioned - that I can ping copies to friends / family and they can print them if they wish.

A lot of places only did packages which included the prints and the album - which is fine for those that want it - but 10 mins on eBay and I found the same albums for a fraction of the price, and costs of the pics were miles higher than the online services.

Fair enough, we all have to earn a crust but we’re ona tight budget so no good for us!

Anyway, we found a bloke that will shoot in digital for his usual fee (£295) and then give us a CD of high-res images for and extra £99 (which is about $170).

This will include a signed copyright release so the images are ours to do with as we wish. Means there’s no rush to decide which pics to go for, and I can share them with lots of people v. quickly, cheaply and easily.

10

Well, to be fair, film still does have higher quality than digital (assuming good lenses, good technique, properly functioning camera, etc.). That said, for the purposes of prints in the sizes that most folks will mess with, the higher-end digital stuff is definitely quite good, and that’s not even getting into the digital Medium Format cameras with their 20+ megapixel images.

Hell, my cousin’s 5 megapixel point-and-shoot digicam makes images that look rather nice on 4x6 prints, and that’s without professional lighting, cameras, experience, etc…

That said, until I trip over a $1000 bill in the street, I’m probably gonna keep shooting pictures with my Pentax Spotmatic 35mm SLR :smiley:

11

Oh, BTW, don’t take my previous post to mean that I don’t think you should get a pro photographer for your wedding, by all accounts, wedding photography is an intensely difficult job, and something that should be trusted to a pro with the kind of equipment which he finds most suits his needs and techniques.

12

I am a wedding photographer (well, to be perfectly frank, I am a photojournalist who does weddings, but let’s not split hairs for this question).

Generally, some photographers will release their photos, most won’t–at least not the traditional-style photographers. I do, because at the moment, I’m not concerned with the resale part of my business. Most will charge an extra $400-$500 for the “digital negatives,” which accounts for the amount of money they estimate will be lost by releasing the digital files. Other photographers will release the photos for free or a relatively nominal fee (like $100) after a year.

If you have any further questions, feel free to write me. Address in profile.

p

13

At lower ISOs, digital has the distinct advantage, especially in Canon cameras. In good lighting conditions, film probably still has the edge. In medium format, sure, film is awesome, but cameras like the 12-megapixel D2X and the 16.7-megapixel Canon 1Ds Mark II give medium format a run for its money. In terms of scanned medium format film vs. digital files from these cameras, many tests say the digital files outperform the film scans.

I’ve printed 3 megapixel images poster size (30x40 inches) without any significant loss of quality. You’d be surprised what these cameras and technology can do. No client of mine has ever been disappointed with the quality of a digital capture. I don’t miss film one bit, although I may bring it back in some of my work for fun. (Grainy TMax 3200 images and the sort). Otherwise, I prefer the results I get from my digital bodies.

4x6 is tiny. A 5 megapixel camera will print at about 6 1/2 by 8/12 inches full-resolution at 300 dpi, but you can print much, much larger than that without seeing significant image degradation or pixellization. 8 x 10s are fine, as are 11 x 14s and even 16x20s. Like I said in my paragraph above, if you go to the right labs, you’ll be able to print even poster size from a 5 megapixel camera.

For something like a wedding, 6 megapixels is enough. Personally, I shoot with 10 megapixel bodies now, but I see photographers still working with Nikon D2Hs (4 megapixels) and getting great results.

14

Nah, he’s right in the sense that negatives are much more forgiving (especially to overexposure). Shooting digital is much like shooting chromes (unless you’re shooting RAW, but even there you don’t have the same exposure flexibility as you get with negs). So, yeah, straight out of the box, film cameras are more suitable as point-and-shoots, as you REALLY have to f* up to get an unusable exposure.

15

And that is the very reason that he will furnish you with a complete set of digital prints …

with PROOF marks all over them so you will have to pay for presentable photos to show off to friends and family or be considered a cheapskate.

16

Oopsie…

At HIGHER ISos, digital has the distinct advantage…

17

Without trying to hijack this thread further, (or inadvertantly insult anyone) something to consider in the film vs digital debate is how much post-processing is done to film images by the lab.

Your pictures come back from the lab looking great because of all the color-correction, highlight/shadow balancing and sharpening done by the lab equipment and the techs that operate it.

Digital puts this work into the hands of the photographer. (I prefer to think of it as ‘control’, rather than ‘work’.)

That said, to address the OP: Ask the photographers you interview if they’re agreeable to selling you a disc rather than an album package. Some will, some won’t. But don’t be surprised if you are charged more for the disc than an album package.

18

I got married about 9 months ago, and we found a photographer who was fairly cheap (around $350, I think) who took a ton of great formal pictures, wandered around after the ceremony taking casual shots, then burned a CD (or maybe a DVD) with every single picture he took at the wedding and mailed it off to us. No albums, no fuss. We were thrilled. He wasn’t the first person we asked, but there are lots photographers out there, and I’m sure you will be able to find one who will work with you. Good luck, and congratulations!