Sudent photographer wanted for wedding!

R

raceyredhead3

Messages
1
Edit My Images
No
Hi,
I'm getting married in Cambridge on 22nd August this year. My budget isn't very big and was hoping that perhaps there might be a student photographer out there that wants to expand their portfolio?
I will pay of course. My budget is around £250, and to be honest if possible I was hoping to get some prints for that too?!
Any thoughts or ideas will be welcomed, thanks
 
Wish I could help out, but I have to be mooving towards a new uni at that point...

As a note to everyone here this time,

NOBODY BE MEAN! :lol:

helpful, nice replies only:D

anyway, hope you find a good photographer and have a lovley wedding!
 
I'm a complete beginner, so wouldn't want the responsibility, but would have loved to have done it to helped you out and for the fun of it.

Best of luck finding someone! :)
 
TomWoozle said:
I'm a complete beginner, so wouldn't want the responsibility, but would have loved to have done it to helped you out and for the fun of it.

Best of luck finding someone! :)
Click to expand...

Im willing to play 2nd tog to a budding wedding shooter if thats any help :)
 
Hello,

I would be interested in talking to you about this opportunity. I have shot two weddings in the past and both of them have turned out really well. Please refer to my website for examples, I believe we can work out a price to your budget. I look forward to hearing from you. Please contact me at .

Kind Regards,

Caroline
 
I could be mistaken but i was led to believe that its never a good idea to
give your phone number on a public forum :shrug:
 
snoop69 said:
I could be mistaken but i was led to believe that its never a good idea to
give your phone number on a public forum :shrug:
Click to expand...
Then again you could go to her website she advertised and get it there :)
 
JIMC said:
Then again you could go to her website she advertised and get it there :)
Click to expand...

I new that was coming :lol:

Seriously though, i thought it was something to do with trolls or spam bots
& the like. Maybe im mistaking what i read with emails or something :shrug:
 
snoop69 said:
I new that was coming :lol:

Seriously though, i thought it was something to do with trolls or spam bots
& the like. Maybe im mistaking what i read with emails or something :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think it is mainly emails that the bots pick up on.

As already said, as much as I would love to do it I am nowhere near ready for responsibility even though I'd shoot for free! :)

It's not easy finding a wedding tog, just had the invoice from mine. £600 for the film option and £795 for the digital option :O You've then got albums on top etc. It's a very pricey thing! :(
 
It's because of the time it takes to do it right Harvey. It's not so much about the time on the day although 14 hours is not a bad shift!

It's as much to do with the pre wedding consultation (3 hours) the Wedding day (14 hours) the processing images time (1 day) and album design (1/2 day) and proofing (3 hours) and delivery (3 hours) If you add that lot up.............it's a working week.

Then there is the gear to pay for (£10K of it!), public liability insurance, professional indemnity insurance, gear insurance, travelling costs, PC and software costs and last but not least..... A pension, because, one day I will be even older and crankier than I already am. (if I shoot 20 weddings a year for three years each one actually COSTS me £100 before I even get there and that's not including providing a car or pension)

So from a fledgling pro wedding tog, that's why they cost so much to do.
 
Hi Raceyredhead3

I have an idea about your wedding. I have pm'd you

regards

stew
 
AliB said:
It's because of the time it takes to do it right Harvey. It's not so much about the time on the day although 14 hours is not a bad shift!

It's as much to do with the pre wedding consultation (3 hours) the Wedding day (14 hours) the processing images time (1 day) and album design (1/2 day) and proofing (3 hours) and delivery (3 hours) If you add that lot up.............it's a working week.

Then there is the gear to pay for (£10K of it!), public liability insurance, professional indemnity insurance, gear insurance, travelling costs, PC and software costs and last but not least..... A pension, because, one day I will be even older and crankier than I already am. (if I shoot 20 weddings a year for three years each one actually COSTS me £100 before I even get there and that's not including providing a car or pension)

So from a fledgling pro wedding tog, that's why they cost so much to do.
Click to expand...

Oh I understand where the pricing comes from, although it sounds to me like you give a lot more for your money than we are getting :)

So far, we've had a 45 minute pre wedding consulation, we are getting 4 hours on the day + 1 hour total travelling for him, and the rest will be going onto after work.

Although, I did chuckle when he said it would cost us £11 a picture to be put on to DVD!:cuckoo:

I'd much rather just pay him a flat fee for turning up and then just have everything put onto a DVD so I can touch the images up myself as well as create a wedding album :)
 
snoop69 said:
I could be mistaken but i was led to believe that its never a good idea to
give your phone number on a public forum :shrug:
Click to expand...

snoop69 said:
Seriously though, i thought it was something to do with trolls or spam bots
& the like.
Click to expand...

:lol: yup, the last thing you want is one of those trolls or spam bots phoning you up at all hours.... :cuckoo: :lol:
 
commercial link and phone number removed. we have advertising rules, you will have read them when you signed up, wouldnt you?
 
To Racyredhead3. Your price of £250 is very low, your on the budget end of the market there, I doubt you'll get an experienced pro for that sort of money. By asking for a student like this you chance getting someone inexperienced and poorly equipped, I hope YOU are prepared to take the risk if it goes pear shaped, as I doubt a student will have any insurance. Wayne
 
swanseamale47 said:
To Racyredhead3. Your price of £250 is very low, your on the budget end of the market there, I doubt you'll get an experienced pro for that sort of money. By asking for a student like this you chance getting someone inexperienced and poorly equipped, I hope YOU are prepared to take the risk if it goes pear shaped, as I doubt a student will have any insurance. Wayne
Click to expand...

she only every posted the once, and hasn't logged on since the 7th April - I guess she found what she was looking for elsewhere

Hugh
 
fabs said:
You have to remember that if you are getting the images on a CD then the tog is in effect relinquishing any further print sales. In fact £11 is quite reasonable.
Click to expand...

£11 for burning 1 photo onto a DVD will never in my eyes be reasonable, especially if you are already paying £800 for him to come and take the photo's. And £800, for 5-6 hours work is a bloody good wage in my eyes, especially if you haven't got to do any post-processing on the images.

I understand that with processing, album design etc you guys really do earn your money. My issue is with the way things are done across the board, not with any of you guys :) It just feels like you are paying for something twice, kind of like paying a tattoo artist to ink you, then having to pay again to be able to walk out of the shop with it.

Just a quick question while we are on the subject. If I go out into the street and take a photo that image belongs to me, however, if someone was to pay me to take photo's of an event would the photo's belong to me, or to the person who employed me? or is it contract based?
 
Harvey_nikon said:
£11 for burning 1 photo onto a DVD will never in my eyes be reasonable, especially if you are already paying £800 for him to come and take the photo's. And £800, for 5-6 hours work is a bloody good wage in my eyes, especially if you haven't got to do any post-processing on the images.

I understand that with processing, album design etc you guys really do earn your money. My issue is with the way things are done across the board, not with any of you guys :) It just feels like you are paying for something twice, kind of like paying a tattoo artist to ink you, then having to pay again to be able to walk out of the shop with it.

Just a quick question while we are on the subject. If I go out into the street and take a photo that image belongs to me, however, if someone was to pay me to take photo's of an event would the photo's belong to me, or to the person who employed me? or is it contract based?
Click to expand...

But that was my point. You're not just paying for the effort of burning the image on a CD. Once he has given you that image he cannot make any further income on it. The tattoo comparison is invalid as once the tatt0o is on your arm he couldn't sell it to someone else but he could recreate the design.

In answer to your question, if you are employed by a company to take those phoitos, the copyright will be with the employer. If you are contracted/commissioned, it will belong to you unless you sign it over.
 
fabs said:
In answer to your question, if you are employed by a company to take those phoitos, the copyright will be with the employer.
Click to expand...

Not in my experience... can you show me a source for that info please?
 
Harvey_nikon said:
£11 for burning 1 photo onto a DVD will never in my eyes be reasonable, especially if you are already paying £800 for him to come and take the photo's. And £800, for 5-6 hours work is a bloody good wage in my eyes, especially if you haven't got to do any post-processing on the images.

I understand that with processing, album design etc you guys really do earn your money. My issue is with the way things are done across the board, not with any of you guys :) It just feels like you are paying for something twice, kind of like paying a tattoo artist to ink you, then having to pay again to be able to walk out of the shop with it.

Just a quick question while we are on the subject. If I go out into the street and take a photo that image belongs to me, however, if someone was to pay me to take photo's of an event would the photo's belong to me, or to the person who employed me? or is it contract based?
Click to expand...

if you took photos of an event then the copyright belongs to you not the person who contracts you.

Just FYI my £800 package costs me around £350 to produce. Your comment about paying for something twice irritaes me a little. I'm very clear on what I supply for a package. If somebody wants to buy extra prints or electronic files from me, I'm only to pleased to oblige but at a price thats fair and reasonable to me and them.

Hugh
 
KIPAX said:
Not in my experience... can you show me a source for that info please?
Click to expand...

I thought that if you were taking photos as an employee then the copyright belongs to the employer. It's what I've seen posted in this forum many times. Is that not right?

I have done a search but can't really find the threads I'm thinking of though.
 
fabs said:
I thought that if you were taking photos as an employee then the copyright belongs to the employer. It's what I've seen posted in this forum many times. Is that not right?

I have done a search but can't really find the threads I'm thinking of though.
Click to expand...


AFAIK the photographer always owns the copyright unless pre arranged... But I cant show a source for what i believe either :)
 
fabs said:
I thought that if you were taking photos as an employee then the copyright belongs to the employer. It's what I've seen posted in this forum many times. Is that not right?

I have done a search but can't really find the threads I'm thinking of though.
Click to expand...

I thought that the copyright went to the employer too. I worked for a sports photographer last year and he kept my photos to sell; I was under the impression that he owned the copyright to them?
 
Who owns the copyright on photographs?

Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:

If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.
If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.
In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.

Examples:

If Bill Smith asks Peter Jones the photographer to photograph his wedding. Peter Jones will normally provide a single copy of the prints as part of the fee, but any additional prints Bill or his family and friend want must be ordered via Peter as he is the copyright owner and controls who can copy his work.
If Bill Smith engages the services of XYZ-Photos for the same job, and Peter is an employee of XYZ-Photo who instruct Peter to take the photos, XYZ-Photos will be the copyright owner and control how they are used.

Extract from the UK copyright service
 
TrevDR said:
Who owns the copyright on photographs?

Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:

If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.
If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.
In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.

Examples:

If Bill Smith asks Peter Jones the photographer to photograph his wedding. Peter Jones will normally provide a single copy of the prints as part of the fee, but any additional prints Bill or his family and friend want must be ordered via Peter as he is the copyright owner and controls who can copy his work.
If Bill Smith engages the services of XYZ-Photos for the same job, and Peter is an employee of XYZ-Photo who instruct Peter to take the photos, XYZ-Photos will be the copyright owner and control how they are used.
Click to expand...

Thank you. That is exactly what I was trying to convey. :thumbs:
 
Twizzel said:
I thought that the copyright went to the employer too. I worked for a sports photographer last year and he kept my photos to sell; I was under the impression that he owned the copyright to them?
Click to expand...

some sports such as football are under licence.. if you work for a football club or a sports agency you are photographing using there licence therefore they retain the copyright. paid or not paid.. there licence so there copyright .
 
I see it from KIPAX's point too.

I do freelance for the press and I own the copyright even when they ask me to go out to do a job for them, but if I was employed as a staff photographer, then the newspaper would have the copyright.

Trev
 
KIPAX said:
some sports such as football are under licence.. if you work for a football club or a sports agency you are photographing using there licence therefore they retain the copyright. paid or not paid.. there licence so there copyright .
Click to expand...

Nope it was an independent event company photographing horse shows so no licensing that I know of.
 
boyfalldown said:
if you took photos of an event then the copyright belongs to you not the person who contracts you.

Just FYI my £800 package costs me around £350 to produce. Your comment about paying for something twice irritaes me a little. I'm very clear on what I supply for a package. If somebody wants to buy extra prints or electronic files from me, I'm only to pleased to oblige but at a price thats fair and reasonable to me and them.

Hugh
Click to expand...

You're not my photographer so in no way was it a dig at you or your service. I tried to get across the point in my post that I wasn't having a go at anyone here. :) I am sure you provide an excellent service that your customers are happy with!

It's just that, after reading threads here for some time and then finally joining up I've seen all the posts regarding wedding photograhy, however, I am now on the other side of the fence so I can see things from both perspectives.

We booked our wedding photographer over 12 months ago now, and tbh, I knew very little about it all then. Had I of known then what I know now I would of requested a set fee for him turning up and taking photo's with all images and copyright to be mine. He may of refused, but I know that no one else will want to buy any images from him so it's not like he is going to be losing out.

We went with this guy because he came highly recommended by the people at Rowton Castle where we are getting married. We did look at other photographers, ranging from the dirt cheap to the stupidly expensive but on the whole I think they all had the same policy.
 
fabs said:
I thought that if you were taking photos as an employee then the copyright belongs to the employer. It's what I've seen posted in this forum many times. Is that not right?

I have done a search but can't really find the threads I'm thinking of though.
Click to expand...

Well I can only speak from my experience so far and that is that when working for someone as an employee and the employer requires copyright, then it is normally discussed prior to hire.

In this instance the boss informed me that I would receive a daily rate, the same as their in house staff and they require all copyrights.
In the stock galleries the credits and rights are labled like this.

Unless it's a term and condition specific to the job/assignment then, universally, the rights remain with the author of images ie the photog.

For most of the editorial work I've been involved in, full rights are not required by the employer/editor/magazine, they have a limited rights usage period limiting the use of the image to be published a single time. They simply don't need to buy full rights to an image they will only publish once.

Most if not all of my invoices state either a Full rights, Limited rights or N/A, meaning rights status non applicable.

There have been instances where I have provided images for media banks or stock archives and the client has asked for full rights usage privileges for a certain time period only. If after expiry, they require an extension, another contract is drawn up with a new usage period and paid accordingly.

For weddings I can't see the customer having full rights privileges or copyright ownership nor can I see the wedding photographer offering them over. :shrug:
 
I love these wedding threads , they all go the same way

Someone makes reasonable request , states their budget and expectations etc

then the bunfight starts !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top