I'm suspicious that the 'tog doesn't own Photoshop. ;)
I felt the same way about the "red dot of doom" example. Really? One of the easiest problems to fix!
The problem is that if you have to fix 5-10 photos each wedding and you have 50 weddings in a year, it means 250-500 photos. Time is money for a professional photographer :)
I'm suspicious that the 'tog doesn't own Photoshop. ;)
I felt the same way about the "red dot of doom" example. Really? One of the easiest problems to fix!
The problem is that if you have to fix 5-10 photos each wedding and you have 50 weddings in a year, it means 250-500 photos. Time is money for a professional photographer :)
I'm suspicious that the 'tog doesn't own Photoshop. ;)
I felt the same way about the "red dot of doom" example. Really? One of the easiest problems to fix!
The problem is that if you have to fix 5-10 photos each wedding and you have 50 weddings in a year, it means 250-500 photos. Time is money for a professional photographer :)
No problem. Bill the client. Then it's revenue.
Amen!
Put in a disclaimer clause in your contract regarding guests that get in the way, and any images which need fixing due to the intrusion or actions of guests will be billed separately. Then the "unplugged" weddings will start gaining popularity
Maybe in the US can be easier, but in Italy some clients could search for another photographer if they read something like that.
As for me, I won't waste my time to clone out a guest, unless it's a VERY important photo.
And I'm pretty sure the client wouldn't want to pay for it unless it was a VERY important photo. :)
Sure, they might go elsewhere, but if that tiny clause causes them to walk, you had a pretty tenuous sale to begin with.
ETA: The clause I had in mind is something like "I am not able to control guests, their actions, or positions. It is nearly always the case that some photos are affected by this, however, we agree to provide :"
Option A: "No coverage, and will not be held responsible for photos affected by guest actions (flash photography, obstruction of scene)"
Option B: "Full coverage, all critical shots guaranteed, any editing is covered by insurance plan"
Option C: "Optional After-Coverage - if a desired shot is affected by guest actions, we will provide high end retouching and restoration service at a rate of $150 per photograph" (This could also include a smaller 'insurance' fee)
ETA 2: - I don't know how it works in Italy, but in the US, the client is likely to be able to sue for damages or breach of contract if a critical shot is missed, no matter that it was her plus-sized relative who ruined the shot... We've gotta cover that stuff in the contract here if we want to keep our houses.
Put in a disclaimer clause in your contract regarding guests that get in the way, and any images which need fixing due to the intrusion or actions of guests will be billed separately. Then the "unplugged" weddings will start gaining popularity
This should be a rider on any contract to shoot a wedding. People a generally very nice to the guests at their wedding. Until it starts costing them money.
When I shot weddings, we were always sure to recruit someone as our unofficial "guest herder". Often, this would wind up being the MOB or the church lady/wedding planner who wants to help run the day anyway. The guests have a much harder time telling off or disobeying the MOB or the church lady than they do some guy with a lot of camera gear.
When I shot weddings, we were always sure to recruit someone as our unofficial "guest herder". Often, this would wind up being the MOB or the church lady/wedding planner who wants to help run the day anyway. The guests have a much harder time telling off or disobeying the MOB or the church lady than they do some guy with a lot of camera gear.
Also an excellent solution, except for during the ceremony, when the MOB is otherwise engaged.
When I shot weddings, we were always sure to recruit someone as our unofficial "guest herder". Often, this would wind up being the MOB or the church lady/wedding planner who wants to help run the day anyway. The guests have a much harder time telling off or disobeying the MOB or the church lady than they do some guy with a lot of camera gear.
Also an excellent solution, except for during the ceremony, when the MOB is otherwise engaged.
Hire a sniper - they can just drop anyone who stands up in the isle during the ceremony.
Be sure to ask that they use a silencer though, since the report of a gunshot would otherwise surely cause disruption during the ceremony.
When I shot weddings, we were always sure to recruit someone as our unofficial "guest herder". Often, this would wind up being the MOB or the church lady/wedding planner who wants to help run the day anyway. The guests have a much harder time telling off or disobeying the MOB or the church lady than they do some guy with a lot of camera gear.
Also an excellent solution, except for during the ceremony, when the MOB is otherwise engaged.
When the MOB is also a photographer, she's in a great position to get shots of the ceremony :-). And in my case , I was sensible enough not to use flash so I wouldn't mess up any of the official photographer's pix, and I never stepped into the aisle or otherwise got in her way. I even put the camera down when I needed to be in formal pictures, despite the fact that most of my family thinks my camera is permanently attached to me!
Precisely why I hate to do weddings, seems people do not give the photographer any consideration when doing their job. Last wedding I promised myself never again!!
This has happened to me, fortunately, not many times. When it did I would walk down the aisle and politely ask the individual to refrain from jumping in the aisle and blocking my shots. I'm not going to let some inconsiderate moron ruin somebody's wedding album.
