On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:07:52 GMT, "Tom (2)"
>My 21 year old daughter called me today to ask questions regarding a
>bad experience a girlfriend is having with her wedding photographer.
To me, it appears that your girlfriend did not
understand the approach of the photographer...
On first contact, I point out that the client needs
to know and evaluate three things: the photographer's
approach to covering the event, the cost, and the
photographer him/herself. I explain that approaches
range from the traditional director/set-up/light-
everything (most intrusive, with least sense of
"location/event-particulars" imparted in the images)
to "fly-on-the-wall" observe-and-record, but direct-
nothing (may miss some "standard" images, but the
plethora of good images shot available light give
a good sense for what it was like to be there, with
the participants caught "in action" rather than
"lined up"...). If the price is not affordable for
the work desired, this should be known early. And,
the photographer will be part of the whole event - if
the client does not like the photographer, or
appreciate the approach (some "studio-type"
photographers take over the event [some gracefully,
some not...], and some "recording-type" photographers
initiate absolutely nothing, missing some things
the client may have wanted), this should be realized
early.
>To summarize...
>1. a yellow tint to all photos
MUCH better than blue or green - I often ask my
printer to err on the side of yellow with available-light
photos rather than risk green... Some prefer the
"old" look, the warmth. Alternatively, if everything
is shot flash, skin-tone can be good and consistent,
sharpness is assured, but often little shows in the
images but heads atop triangles of shirts, in a field
of black (the "lightbulb in a dark cave" look...).
>2. some people are sharp and others are blurry
Most people have weddings in VERY dark places. The
lighting choice is then "available" (with its limitations),
or "flash" (with its limitations). If the client had
looked at samples, with an awareness of the consequences
for the images of the various choices..... (I often
joke with the potential client that all this will
be MUCH easier the 2nd or 3rd time around...;-).
>3. paid $1200, $800 for the photographer and another $400 for a second
>photographer, and the second photographer just stood around with the
>other photographer and didn't take many pictures
No comment, if true...
>4. all posed shots were initiated by the bride. The photographer did
>not seem to care, or to have a plan
Either the client had no idea of the photographer's
approach, or had expectations that were not justified...
I point out that most good "studio-type" photographers
haven't a clue about how to shoot "candids", and that
most excellent "photojournalistic-type" photographers
haven't a clue about how to set up and light a formal
photograph. I make it clear that I'm there to record
what I see, and not to direct anything - but I'm happy
shoot anything of interest to the client. If the client
(or a family member who knows people and is a good
organizer) is assigned to organize the groups/portraits,
I will shoot them...
>5. she thought he was a good photographer because someone told her he
>was a photojournalist
This is meaningless. It is necessary to talk with the
photographer, and look over representative work, before
agreeing to hire. On first contact, I often refer
people to my web page wedding photo section (at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wedding3.html) to get the
basics of understanding my particular approach (with
some examples of my style) underway early...
>5b. in most candid shots the people are so small you can't tell who
>they are (he's a photojournalist all right!)
Are you looking at very small proofs...? ;-)
>5. no shots of just the bride
See above - though this is rather basic...;-)
>6. didn't get many pictures; more pictures will cost more money (bride
>wants the film but he will only sell prints)
This should be understood before hiring - it is up
to the photographer to set policy on negatives (but
this SHOULD be covered in advance!). I shoot around
500+ images during a wedding, and provide 4x6 proofs
of everything (alternatives are available), and often
add an unexpected second set for free - and sell
negatives at any time, for a flat fee (but this may
be very different for "studio-type" photographers,
who depend more on later print sales...).
>7. "this is her worst nightmare come true!" (I said next time call
>me and I'll do a crap job for half the money. I was kidding of
>course)
One hopes so...;-) Good wedding photography in any
style requires skill and experience (ALL else is
optional! ;-) BTW, this may not be true of your friend,
but all wedding photographers eventually hit the client
who would find fault with a gift of a diamond-studded
gold brick - and NOTHING would have been satisfactory...;-)
>I've been asked to see if I can repair some of these and I will look
>into it. It looks to me that existing light was used and fluorescent
>lighting was a problem. Also a large aperture that blurred key people
>from group shots. I can probably fix the color shift and maybe crop
>here and there, but the blurry stuff will be a problem.
See above... For a reasonable price, an available-light
photographer's hundreds of proofs cannot be perfectly
printed (though my printer comes close!), but the prints
ordered from the proofs should be fairly well corrected
for things that actually are flaws, and not inherent
characteristics of the style. Expecting studio-lighting
and posing in "PJ-stlye" photos is not reasonable...
>I posted this not for personal advice but to share what I thought was
>an interesting story. Happy Turkey Day!
>Tom