Evan Baines

You need to specify either pixel dimensions or a combination of PPI AND output size. Here's what I mean: PPI= Pixels per inch. DPI= Dots per inch PPI refers to file information. DPI refers to the number of physical dots put down by the printer. Sometimes, people erroneously call PPI DPI. Here's a hypothetical: I could give you a file with pixel dimensions of 3600 by 5400. If I gave you a 300PPI file, that would be a 12" by 18" print. However, I could change the PPI to 360 and suddenly you would have a 10" by 15" print. Your image file hasn't actually changed size: just the output relative to number of pixels. Alternately, I could give you a 300ppi file, but if the file is only 360x540 pixels, you're only getting a 1.8" print. Typically, most printers do best with 240-360ppi. 300ppi is a good standard number that's widely accepted. However, you should specify in any contract, if this is an issue, terms such as that you will be receiving "images suitable to make an 8x10" print at 300ppi." Just the PPI by itself is useless: you could receive 300ppi images unsuitable for anything but a wallet-sized print.

Quote: Originally Posted by lolkitteh As a relatively "serious" amateur photographer (that is nowhere near pro) I'd have to concur with this viewpoint. I thought the original post was somewhat alarmist and somewhat distorts the value of the images obtained from "workshops". I personally have attended some photography workshops and while some of the images obtained from them are under the guidance of the instructor, the majority of them are taken "from the lens of the student". That is, the images taken do actually reflect the artistry of the photographer taking the shot. Thus, I somewhat disagree that workshop shots are simply "point there, and shoot" to get a great shot. Photography is a far more complicated art than that. No reputable workshop (that I've ever heard of) is ever constructed to just give people good shots; the point of them is to teach students to take good shots on their own. I also think it would be pretty difficult to replicate a "live" wedding shot in a workshop without it being fairly obvious to the observer. Nevertheless, the simple question of whether a photo was from an actual wedding or not should clear up the confusion, and is a worthwhile question to ask. Have you been to a professional wedding photography workshop? Many of them really do enable students to "re-shoot" the instructors shots. Some of the instructors will caution students about using the images in the portfolio, but no real efforts are made to ensure that the students won't abuse the images obtained. Perhaps I came off as a bit alarmist, but I know of at least five studios in my local market using workshop photos as "marquee" images on their websites. I wanted to get the word out because this is becoming a real issue.

Quote: Originally Posted by Adlergray Can you tell us how we would know its a work shop photo since many of us don't get to meet with our photographers before we book them? Well, there's no way to just look at a photo and tell, but workshop images tend to be bridal portraits or bride/groom images. They almost invariably use gorgeous brides and grooms who are, in many cases, professional models. Other than asking, the biggest thing to look for is a big disconnect between the quality of a handful of "rockstar" portraits and the quality of their actual wedding coverage. Make sure you're asking to see complete sample weddings, not just relying on the greatest hits to make your decision. If the photographer only has a handful of images that really impress you, be aware that those images may not be representative of the work you'll receive. Simply asking outright will go a long way though. Most of these folks aren't malevolently trying to mislead potential customers. They have just convinced themselves that those workshop images are "their work," even if they couldn't reproduce that level of quality if they tried.

Hey everyone, I just wanted to make you all of a new trend, and a question that needs to be added to your "ask photographer candidates" list. More and more frequently, I'm seeing photographers that have attended workshops with top-tier talent posting the workshop images on their websites as their own work. In many cases, these images were set up by the workshop instructor utilizing a professional model: the student pretty much only had to click the button. Often, these photographers cannot reproduce the caliber of work you're seeing on their websites. You should be asking any photographer you might be considering if they are using any workshop images in their portfolios, and asking them to identify them. This is all over the place these days, partly as a result of the proliferation of workshops being offered. If a photographer wants to attend a workshop to improve that's AWESOME (I teach workshops... so I've nothing against them), but it really stinks when people use those learning opportunities to misrepresent their current abilities.

You're going to be spending more time with your wedding photographer than just about anyone else on your wedding day. Since you like each of those vendor's work, I'd say the next step is to get as much contact as you can (phone calls, email) to see which vendor has a personality that wins you over. Getting great photos requires that you be comfortable with the person, not just the style. Good luck in your selection!

Quote: Originally Posted by jennwo We are looking for certain pics and a certain style. We definitely prefer the candid shots as well. I guess there is a "look" we like and aren't sure if its taboo to show another photographers work to set a benchmark. It doesn't have to match 100% of course, just want to set expectations and make sure he feels comfortable with them. Is that wrong? The photographer you've elected to go with doesn't have anything in their own portfolio that resembles the style you're looking for? Regardless of any taboo, why not hire someone experienced in the style you're looking for. If your photographer doesn't have any examples in that style, then its entirely possible that they will be unable to reproduce that particular look for your wedding. Expecting a photographer to produce something that is inconsistent with his/her previous work is a recipe for disappointment for either or both parties.

Another thing you need to realize on these quotes is that for a busy photographer, a DW is taking up an entire weekend or more. Those travel days are days the photographer isn't shooting, editing, or meeting with clients. As a general rule, destination weddings are significantly less lucrative than local weddings when you factor in the hours. This is not to say that traveling to exotic locations isn't fun and exciting! However, shooting a DW is real work and the trip is FAR from a vacation. Back to the original poster's question: The average couple in the US spends about $2k on photography for a LOCAL wedding. Prices range from free at the low end to upwards of $15k at the high end. I suppose you could spend more if you wanted Annie L. to come shoot for you For most full-time professionals, an 8 hour domestic wedding represents somewhere in the ballpark of a 40 hour time commitment (or more in some cases) to the couple when factoring meetings, editing, and perhaps an engagement or bridal portrait session. Now add to that the photographer giving up at least two additional travel days where he/she cannot be very productive (and certainly can't book any other paying gigs), and of course travel expenses. When you are factoring in what photography should cost, be aware that a full-time pro is typically facing anywhere from $500-$2000 per day as the cost of a day of shooting, when factoring in insurance, rent, depreciation on equipment, advertising, etc... You can get more information on this here: NPPA: Cost of Doing Business Calculator Thus, when you see someone regularly offering prices significantly below that, it is entirely possible that they are probably cutting a corner or two somewhere. This may just mean they are trying to break into a given market, but you should factor that into your decisions.

Thanks for the kind words Jen! I'll add that Jen and Kyle were just an amazing couple to work with! Kay came up to me midway through the day and said "I've never seen a groom so completely head-over-heels for a girl before." Y'all can click the link below to get to the slides! As mentioned, the PW is "thankyou." Cheers! Jen & Kyle's Wedding Slideshow

I'm sure Jen will fill y'all in on the details, but the folks at Hidden Worlds were just amazing to work with and the location was everything we could have asked for and more....

There's always Denis Reggie... he's in the neighborhood. But alas not cheap

Yeah, as much as it would be nice... I've never received a tip and its def. not expected.

FWIW, Group family photos don't HAVE to be forced and unnatural. The vast majority of my clients prefer to have a selection of these done. As much as a photographer tries to get candids of all the key family and friends during the day, group photos are the surest way to make sure that there is a record of all who were there and how they looked. The big time-eater is not doing large groups: its doing tons of permutations. If you're wanting to streamline the process, ask your photographer to do a few large groups rather than every imaginable combination of people. Good luck and congrats!

Good photography costs money. $30,000 in camera and computer equipment, education, spending 50+ hours working on a single "8 hour" wedding between editing, client meetings, etc... Add on insurance, taxes, pay for assistants... The best deal I know in South FL. is Tony Schreiber... a total steal at his current prices. Tony Schreiber - South Florida Wedding Photographer - Serving Miami, Ft Lauderdale and the Carribbean

Quote: Originally Posted by bride2010 Hi guys, I'm not sure if there's an existing thread about this already, and I apologize if I'm repeating the topic. We're starting to look into photography for our wedding, but not really sure what things to look for when booking one. Sounds silly, I know, but having good pictures to remember our wedding day is really important to me. I obviously know the basics: package, coverage, price, etc. Are there other things I should be asking or taking into consideration while we're looking around? How much on average do people spend on pictures after the wedding if their package includes photography services only? We are open to booking photographers both locally or one to bring down with us. Thanks for your help in advance! Row Can't say on the after-package average, but the average couple in the US spends about $2500 on photography, +/- $500 depending on who you talk to. This includes both the couples who spend $500 on the Craigslist budget-type photographer and the couples who spend $10,000+ on Joe Buissink. Here are some questions that aren't on many brides' radars that I think can be useful: 1. If the photographer offers digital files, ask for specificity on what form they will arrive in. "Digital Files" can mean edited or unedited files, RAW files out of the camera or downsized JPG's that won't look good past a 4x6 print. Ask about what reprint rights you will be granted. 2. If the studio you are considering is pushing "two photographers" as a competitive advantage or upsale item, you should be seeing two portfolios. Many photographers use untrained spouses or photo-students working for free/peanuts as second shooters, and these seconds are sometimes nearly worthless. You should be able to judge for yourself the quality of the second's work and decide based on that whether they represent real value. 3. Ask if any of the portfolio work on their site was shot as a second for another photographer. Many wedding shooters get their start working under someone else. This is normal and good. However, you deserve to know if your photographer has actually experienced the hot-seat with all of the responsibility and additional concerns of being the primary. This is not to say you shouldn't consider an experienced second, but you should be aware that you are taking a calculated risk and the services should be priced accordingly. 4. Ask if any of the portfolio work on the site was created in a workshop or "model shoot." Many of the images on photographer's sites now are created in workshops led by top shooters in the field. These workshops often feature professional models, who are placed and posed by the workshop leader. Often times, the participants in these workshops are able to obtain images that they would not have the skill to create on their own. Professional development is great, but you should be sure that the images you are seeing are comparable to those you can expect under "real world" conditions. 5. You should see at LEAST one complete wedding album, and preferably more than one. Even a monkey, given a typewriter and enough time, will write Hamlet. You should see both excellent individual shots AND a high sustained level of quality throughout the day. Hope this helps!

Consult your photographer on turn around times: a given photographer may range from weeks to months depending on their workflow and how busy they are. Regardless, I recommend at least a month so that in the unlikely event something happens to the dress (IE bride slips), there will be time to remedy the situation. For what its worth, bridal portraits are an AWESOME time and you and your photographer can go to lengths to make an unbelievable shot you'd never have time to do on the wedding day.

Quote: Originally Posted by Nic Dragomire I was with you on the first one Evan but not this time.. Firstly, I shoot 2000-3000 photos myself, my second will shoot 1000-1500 in a normal day. I deliver about 500-700. Most of which will be mine. Your paying for my talent, my vision, my art, my photography, not my my second shooters. My second shooter provides a different angle or perspective, and insurance in the event that one of my cameras goes down in the middle of something important, I can grab his 2nd body and continue shooting with 2 cameras as normal. I've shot weddings with some really big names in so cal and in wedding photojournalism as a whole and I see what they deliver when its said and done. I know what I shoot and some of my stuff makes the cut but not that much, and its not because it wasn't good stuff. The primary photog is what the client is paying for. For instance if you look on Chenin Boutwell's blog she makes mention of me regarding a wedding we shot recently. But the majority of the images are hers. People don't drop 6-15k on Chenin's photography and then get a bunch of stuff from the 2nd shooter like you are insinuating. Looking at the one portfolio or website of the primary photographer is fine, its up to that photographer to deliver consistent images like their portfolio suggests they do. I think that there are different models out there Nic. For instance, regardless of how high the caliber of my seconds (and I've had some great photographers guest shoot with me), I typically only use a percentage of their work, which holds very true with what you just said. However, in the case of duos like the McLellans (two first place WPPI prints this go around... not too shabby), etc.... its a much more even partnership. In such a case where there are legitimately two superb photographers working together, its reasonable to expect to pay a premium for two shooters. I honestly feel that in cases where one photographer is the primary creative force for a studio, one GOOD photographer is totally enough, but a GOOD second provides a level of additional backup and security. However, I continually see studios aggressively selling "with us you get two shooters." My only purpose of the last post was to advocate that if a studio is trying to convince you that they are a better value on the basis of two shooters, it is reasonable to ask to see the quality of the actual second. Even in cases such as Mrs. Boutwell's, would you say that your work added nothing to the client's final result? If only for backup, the presence of a second of your caliber was a huge asset to the client, and one I'm sure they had to pay for (even if only subsumed in the overall package price, you don't work for free, do you?). Now, its sort of assumed that as you get on up toward 5-figure price-points that the photographer won't be using junk seconds... but not all of these ladies here are shopping for $10,000 photographers.

Just realized I left out the two photographer bit. My advice on this is always the same: if you're being promised two photographers, you should be seeing two portfolios. Far too often, photographers will offer "two photographers" when the second is an unpaid photo student or under-trained spouse (Don't get me wrong: there are some GREAT husband/wife duos out there-- and participating on this forum! But more frequently one is the REAL photographer and the other is less adept.). I have even seen, on one memorable occasion, a photographer using his 14-year-old daughter as a "second shooter." You will never go wrong by asking to see samples of the second photographer's work, as you can judge for yourself how much value is added by that person. If the second shooter is truly talented, don't be surprised if the price reflects that. Talented photographers don't work for free. Like many photographers, I choose to make a distinction between "assistants" (do not expect quality photo production from these) and "second shooters," from whom my clients expect a very high level of work. Obviously, having two talented photographers will give you more quality images than having one. However, I would personally opt for one really good photographer over two mediocre shooters.

Be aware that "digital negatives" or "digital files" can mean lots of things. "RAW" files are the best equivalent for true negatives... they are the pure data out of the camera and cannot be viewed without a special program such as Photoshop or Lightroom. However, no color correction will have been done on these as there is no way to edit a RAW file without saving into another format. JPG is the most common format for delivering digital files, but be aware that JPG's can be saved at different resolutions and quality levels. Some photographers will purposely downrez their digital files to make the print quality poor at large print sizes (making the client come back to the photog for big enlargements). Also be aware that many photographers do extensive photoshop work to get their trademark "look." Some of these offer the "digital negatives" in their unedited form, and only sell their edited artwork in print/album form. Be clear with your photographer in advance on whether you will be receiving edited or unedited files. I felt the need to hash out all this jargon because I was just reading a post on one of my photography boards where a FOB was asking questions about the disappointing file quality his daughter received in her "digital files, and a misscommunication about what that actually meant was the root cause. With regards to the digital negatives being available, that is the general direction of the market. Many of the more traditional photographers, or those who have been influenced by them, will still withhold the diginegs. Many/most of the younger generation offer them. However, be aware that any photographer running an honest-to-goodness business will be sure to price the package or digineg option to compensate for the lack of print sales. If the digital files are important to you, then there are many who would accommodate you.

I always encourage my clients to consider professional makeup for a shoot like this: your photographer should have a list of MUA's to whom they refer. Failing this, consider using slightly more makeup than you are used to, and avoid mineral-based foundations like Bare Minerals. Doing a test application and having a friend with a decent camera take some pictures can ensure that the shades of makeup will work well with your skin tones on camera. Hope this helps!

Quote: Originally Posted by Nic Dragomire she said the non pro pics look fine... so its not her monitor first look at your contract to see if you were to be given the "proofs" or original files which are basically files right out of the camera, or were you supposed to get the color corrected files ready for printing? if you were to get the color corrected files, then contact the photog. ~ nic I've seen a lot of folks who are used to dealing with low saturation and contrast from their P&S images, who crank up those two variables on the monitor. Then, if they're using a lab that corrects, they get the prints back more vibrant than the actual files were. To them, they don't see a difference, and assume all is well. Then, if the pro provides more saturated and contrast-y images, they may look wrong on the screen even if they are better prepped for printing. There are a lot of variables that come into play in a situation like this: the only three ways to be definitely sure that the files are defective is to A) Run a test print where you are SURE the lab isn't correcting for you or Get calibrated or C) Send the files to someone who is. I'm not disputing that the files are funky, and the photographer may be on a bad system. I'm just saying it pays to be sure that its not a mis-calibrated screen first. I'll happily view samples on my calibrated system to confirm that its the files and not the monitor!

Quote: Originally Posted by HEATHERMC24 Hello I have been reading the posts regarding photographers and was wondering if someone could give me some advise. We are looking at the Azul Sensatori - in Mexico but up until reading these posts I would have just gone with the local (provided) photographer. Can someone advise why they would be against this? Do they generally not do a good job? Also - what is the cost comparison? How much would you spend on the hotels' provided photographer vs someone you choose yourself? Are there other issues to consider (eg work permits)? Thanks all! Here's my honest advice that will probably go against the grain: If you don't see a difference between the provided photographers and those that you might consider bringing in, then don't spend the extra money. Photography is an extremely subjective thing, and while having a certain photographer at one's wedding may be worth five figures to one bride, it might not be worth five hundred to another. Its pretty much a given that a local of comparable quality will always win on price vs. bringing in talent. The question is whether there are locals available for your date and location that offer the style and quality that you want. Look at the images and decide what's important to you! Good luck!

Step one is to make sure its not your monitor. People can go for years with badly out-of-whack color on their monitor and just get used to it. Professionals (should) use calibrated monitor systems to ensure true color fidelity when retouching... Step two is once you know the prints are definitely off, then contact the pro who delivered these funky files. They should fix it, no questions asked. If the pro shot in RAW (instead of JPG), then you will most likely get a better color correction than you could achieve on the JPGs. (assuming the color problems stem from white-balance issues). If you're going to color correct yourself, you might consider an spyder or other home-use calibration system. the $100 or so can easily pay for itself if you're planning on getting a lot of prints. If the problem is consistent, programs like Adobe Lightroom are ideally suited to batch-process colors into the correct state. You can correct one image, and then apply the correction to the rest of the affected pics. Professional labs like MPIX.com offer color correction of the images as well. Many of these labs include color correction at no additional cost. That would be an easy solution, but if the colors are way out there, I'd feel leery of sending the files off in that state.

I always recommend Adobe Lightroom to both professionals looking for an organizational and basic processing tool, and to photo enthusiasts who don't need to spend all of the cash on Photoshop but want editing capabilities. Lightroom produces some very serviceable slideshows, in flash, HTML, and PDF formats. Just a thought!

Well, here's some additional info to add onto the great stuff earlier in the thread: Depending on which statistics you check out, the average US bride spends anywhere from $2-3k on photography. This is a good guideline for the starting point for quality US-Photographer coverage. Many photographers offer discounts on destination work, but travel can be expensive ESPECIALLY if you're getting two shooters. Ultimately, its simple math that local talent can beat out of towners purely on price... assuming equivalent quality. However, if you're looking for a particularly high quality level or given style, you will have more options if you can afford to look at bringing someone in.

Bella is a big national company that seeks out local photographers who are willing to "shoot on the side" or "fill the dates they haven't booked" by shooting for them at a discount. Bella has a dubious reputation among photographers for their efforts to undercut the local privately-owned studios... One key factor with Bella is that last time I checked, you don't get to chose your photographer: you'll get whoever they assign you and you won't meet the shooter in advance. They might be a talented shooter moonlighting, or they might be a total hack. I'd encourage you to also check out WPPI, which is the largest and most important professional organization for wedding photographers in the world.