Photographer - Pick one?

[clop]

Hi!

I was hoping to get everyone''s input. Which photographer do you prefer?

http://www.sunphotographics.com/GalleryOne/01.shtml

http://davidmurrayphotography.com/slideshows/ANewagenInnWedding/
http://www.davidmurrayweddings.blogspot.com/

What is "custom editing, retoning and retouching"?

I like stylized pictures, pictures that can seem almost surreal. Is that usually the result of photoshop/editing/retoning etc, or is that the result of taking the photo?

I love the look of eric laurits, liz linder, person killian immensely, but they are all out of my budget. I do love the second choice too, but it''s also a bit pricey for me. My friend has a generous budget of 10k (that she thinks is low compared to her cousin''s of 15k), and I am quite envious, but I digress

I listed the others so hopefully you can get a sense of what I am looking for.

The first is $2800 which includes cd/dvd, highlight proof album
The second is $3700 which includes dvd with "custom editing, retoning and retouching"

If anyone has any recommendations for photographers in the Boston area that are in my budget (~3000) I''d greatly appreciate it!

Thank you for your help!

 

[newbie124]

I like photographer #2 (david murray). I think his colors are richer and his bw photos have more contrast. Also think he might be a touch more creative w/ his shots.

I think "custom editing, retoning and retouching" just means that they will retouch the photos, but most wedding photographers will do that anyway. I haven''t come across one that just gives the unedited images and doesn''t do any retouching (although maybe someone who shoots just film might be more likely to go that route). Have you looked into what it would cost for each of them if you wanted to add on albums and/or order prints? That could potentially even out the costs.

 

[clop]

Hi Newbie124,

Thanks for your input; I agree with you. They seem a touch more artistic/creative. Though I''ve seen more of Sun''s photography in person, and it was nice too.

I wasn''t sure if the richer colors were because of something done while taking the picture, or of editing done afterwards. I took it to mean after the pictures are taken, they retouch the pictures resulting in the vivid colors etc.

David Murray was/is my first choice, but they''re expensive (though I think they are a bargain compared to others). If I throw in an album, etc, it''d be even more expensive.

btw - just had to mention again, your dress is stunning!! don''t mind me, just another bout of dress remorse on my part

 

[FacetFire]

As a new photographer myself, I can tell you that I without a doubt prefer #2. Their images are more creative and have much better saturation and contrast. The editing/retouching thing can be confusing and is something I never understood until I became a photographer. Most photographers will retouch (meaning remove blemishes, lighten under-eye circles, remove major stray hairs, etc.) any photos that you order prints and/or use in albums. However, typically, if you order a CD/DVD of your "negatives" they will NOT be retouched unless that same image was also ordered for an album/print. Quite simply, it takes a ton of time to retouch images, and it is worth the photographer''s time to do so if you order prints/albums that will be viewed by people, but usually it is just way too time-intensive to retouch every image delivered on a CD/DVD, especially when most of them will never be displayed.

Editing, as opposed to retouching, usually refers to adjusting the images for color-balance, contrast, saturation, and some cropping. Honestly, how much a photographer will usually do to your images varies a lot and is usually indicated in price. Neither of these photographers is super-expensive, and they don''t so a lot of artistic editing..such as antique effects, sepia coloring, vignetting, etc. However, for your money, it looks like the second one is doing a lot more with the images. It really is the post-editing that seperates a great photographer from a good one. Even really well-composed and exposed images need some editing to really pop and become WOW images.

I would ask for clarification from both photographers about what exactly they will do to the images on the CD/DVD v. prints v. albums. It never hurts to ask and you may be surprised. Each photographer has his own policy on this kind of thing. I hope that helps!

 

[Vote4PedroToo]

Date: 5/29/2008 6:18:24 PM
Author: newbie124
I like photographer #2 (david murray). I think his colors are richer and his bw photos have more contrast. Also think he might be a touch more creative w/ his shots.


I think ''custom editing, retoning and retouching'' just means that they will retouch the photos, but most wedding photographers will do that anyway. I haven''t come across one that just gives the unedited images and doesn''t do any retouching (although maybe someone who shoots just film might be more likely to go that route). Have you looked into what it would cost for each of them if you wanted to add on albums and/or order prints? That could potentially even out the costs.

Pretty much exactly. If the photos are digital, they really all do require some tweaking. This is a little time consuming, but is necessary, IMO.


I tried to find comparable images from each photographer. I didn''t do the best job, but hopefully I make sense. If you look at
sun''s image here, I can see it wasn''t retouched. There is not much contrast. The skin looks grey, the whites look like a lighter grey and the darks, not quite dark enogh.

Now, if you look at David Murray''s image here , there is quite a difference. The highlights are high and bright. The darks are dark. The skin looks bright and the photo pops more for this reason.

This one of the few downfalls to digital. I personally love both film and digital. But B&W films have more contrast naturally and color film always has the same saturated colors. When you shoot in B&W, you have to tweak the images to bring the contrast up. When they are digital color, you have to make adjustments to make the colors pop and also fix any color casting that might happen. It is a tedious process for a photographer, but it is getting easier and easier for them to do.

For me, it is money well spent to have the photos re-touched. This doesn''t mean he is going to airbrush everybody, but he is going to make them beautiful and bright right out of the gate for you. They will print better for you for years down the road.

I like that DM, has a blog. That is always a good thing, because you can see his weddings unfold and get a feel for his/her consistency. The first doesn''t seem to have enough variety on her site to get a true idea of how your images will come out.

K, rambling here. I''m just really picky about my photography. Hope that helps

 

[Vote4PedroToo]

Date: 5/29/2008 7:34:36 PM
Author: FacetFire
It really is the post-editing that seperates a great photographer from a good one. Even really well-composed and exposed images need some editing to really pop and become WOW images.

Facetfire, Glad to see a fellow photographer. I think that when we finally get on down with that Photoshop, we really understand the expense of a good photographer.
I very respectfully want to comment on this one quote. I think I know what you mean. With all photographers to really do well, you have to have a good knowledge of post-processing images. but (I hope I'm not sounding rude here), I do disagree that it is the post editing that makes the difference. The most important thing you can do when choosing a photographer is to choose their *eye* first. Any post processing can learned or passed of to an assistant. But the natural creative vision of a good photographer cannot really be learned or passed on. I believe one of the goals and traits of all of really great photographers is to get the image as perfect as possible out of the camera. I believe it's key.

Again, I hope I don't sound rude. I just wanted to make this point for future brides searching. I hate seeing when some consumers get "bamboozeled" by lots of fancy effects and patches post-processing.

 

[FacetFire]

Date: 5/29/2008 8:01:43 PM
Author: Vote4PedroToo

Date: 5/29/2008 7:34:36 PM
Author: FacetFire
It really is the post-editing that seperates a great photographer from a good one. Even really well-composed and exposed images need some editing to really pop and become WOW images.

Facetfire, Glad to see a fellow photographer. I think that when we finally get on down with that Photoshop, we really understand the expense of a good photographer.
I very respectfully want to comment on this one quote. I think I know what you mean. With all photographers to really do well, you have to have a good knowledge of post-processing images. but (I hope I''m not sounding rude here), I do disagree that it is the post editing that makes the difference. The most important thing you can do when choosing a photographer is to choose their *eye* first. Any post processing can learned or passed of to an assistant. But the natural creative vision of a good photographer cannot really be learned or passed on. I believe one of the goals and traits of all of really great photographers is to get the image as perfect as possible out of the camera. I believe it''s key.

Again, I hope I don''t sound rude. I just wanted to make this point for future brides searching. I hate seeing when some consumers get ''bamboozeled'' by lots of fancy effects and patches post-processing.

I think that we are actually saying the same thing, but just in different ways. I agree that the eye is key...to me that makes a truly good photographer. But to get those WOW images, you need good editing too...and that''s when a good photographer becomes a great photographer. In my opinion, take someone without an eye, but who is good at photoshop, and you get only okay images. I am probably just a tough judge...it take a lot for me to think and image or photographer is great. And in my opinion, that requires both a good eye and good editing, not to mention the basics like proper exposure.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Another vote for number 2! Appeals to me more.

 

[clop]

Thanks so much FacetFire & Vote4PedroToo for your in depth explanations and for sharing your expertise!

I will ask each to clarify exactly what they provide. It seems Sun will provide post processing with developed prints only, and DMs will be on CD, but I will double check.

Is better saturation and contrast the product of taking the picture, or post processing?

I do love DM, they are my first choice, however they are $700 over budget. Their shots are very creative, and are saturated with color, and relatively a bargain compared to pricier vendors. I had hoped Sun would be a close second, and inching by with their lower price.

Is my photography budget too low for what I am looking for? I just saw a post with Elley Photography, her shots are beautiful - I am assuming that is thousands more?

Would it be worth it to bring the originals to a graphic designer? That was an option that was mentioned.

Thanks for your vote SarahLovesJS

Thanks again for explaining the different terminologies etc, was very helpful.

ooh I would like to add that Sun Photography has quite a bigger collection to view in person at their studio. Jim is extremely nice & personable, very technical & knowledgeable. They did have a lot of other effects on their album pictures that were lovely.

 

[Vote4PedroToo]

Date: 5/30/2008 1:24:29 AM
Author: clop
Thanks so much FacetFire & Vote4PedroToo for your in depth explanations and for sharing your expertise!


I will ask each to clarify exactly what they provide. It seems Sun will provide post processing with developed prints only, and DMs will be on CD, but I will double check.


Is better saturation and contrast the product of taking the picture, or post processing?


I do love DM, they are my first choice, however they are $700 over budget. Their shots are very creative, and are saturated with color, and relatively a bargain compared to pricier vendors. I had hoped Sun would be a close second, and inching by with their lower price.


Is my photography budget too low for what I am looking for? I just saw a post with Elley Photography, her shots are beautiful - I am assuming that is thousands more?


Would it be worth it to bring the originals to a graphic designer? That was an option that was mentioned.


Thanks for your vote SarahLovesJS

Thanks again for explaining the different terminologies etc, was very helpful.


ooh I would like to add that Sun Photography has quite a bigger collection to view in person at their studio. Jim is extremely nice & personable, very technical & knowledgeable. They did have a lot of other effects on their album pictures that were lovely.

First off, your budget is what it is. I don''t think it''s too low. I think taking it to a graphic designer would end up costing you that $700 you are saving now. Also, a graphic designer isn''t a photographer, so there is the possibility that they wouldn''t do as good of a job as your photographer.

So if you can''t do DM, you can''t. But from what I see, I am concerned about the first one. I understand she has more in her studio, so I''ll take that into consideration. But based on what she has on her site, I honestly feel like she is over charging. Plus, it is fairly time consuming, to post process. But the hard part is editing out the good photos. There are programs that photographers can run that will process images in batches without too much tedious work. It seems to me that she hasn''t gotten there yet. Her prices are still up there, and I wouldn''t want just the prints I order polished up. I would want them all polished.


This is just me as a customer, here. But I would maybe search a little more and find someone closer to your budget with who is a little better. I''d rather have all of the proofs and the disk done well. Then later on after the dust has settled, you could order your album and pay more for it. I understand this might not be something you want to do though.


Facetfire! Thanks, for understanding me. I think we are on the same page.

 

[clop]

Date: 5/30/2008 10:54:32 AM
Author: Vote4PedroToo

First off, your budget is what it is. I don''t think it''s too low. I think taking it to a graphic designer would end up costing you that $700 you are saving now. Also, a graphic designer isn''t a photographer, so there is the possibility that they wouldn''t do as good of a job as your photographer.

So if you can''t do DM, you can''t. But from what I see, I am concerned about the first one. I understand she has more in her studio, so I''ll take that into consideration. But based on what she has on her site, I honestly feel like she is over charging. Plus, it is fairly time consuming, to post process. But the hard part is editing out the good photos. There are programs that photographers can run that will process images in batches without too much tedious work. It seems to me that she hasn''t gotten there yet. Her prices are still up there, and I wouldn''t want just the prints I order polished up. I would want them all polished.

Thanks, I was told a graphic designer would be inexpensive - I wasn''t sure of the details. You''re right, editing hundreds of photos would be time consuming, etc. I was hoping for a cheaper way of getting stylized pictures, this is not the way to go.

Definitely agree, if only the prints that are ordered are polished, in the end, that would end up costing the difference of $700 or more.

This is just me as a customer, here. But I would maybe search a little more and find someone closer to your budget with who is a little better. I''d rather have all of the proofs and the disk done well. Then later on after the dust has settled, you could order your album and pay more for it. I understand this might not be something you want to do though.

heh heh, I really do appreciate all your critiques. My eye is definitely not as polished as everyones, especially yours, being a photographer yourself. I really welcome and appreciate your comments. I''ve actually searched quite a bit, I must have called up 10 people (oops maybe that''s not enough?) that I liked who were either not available, or over budget, not including the 5 or 6 whose prices were on their websites that were too high. I''ve also seen another 5 or 6 whose style was not what I was looking for. Many of the 10 were on wpja.com Should I continue the search? I guess my last question is - Is DM worth it in your opinion? I mean I didn''t quite know enough to see that the first''s prices are still high for what they provide.

This is completely new to me, I''m one of the first of my friends to get married. I feel overwhelmed as is with all the other planning. o boy, can''t wait for it to be over! Thanks again for everyone''s help, it''s definitely made things easier!

 

[newbie124]

clop - Have you tried talking to David yet about your budget and seeing what he might be able to do? I've found in all of my interactions w/ vendors so far that it never hurts to ask! The photographer we're going with ended up creating a custom package for me that's just within our budget(she even dropped the $500 extra fee they usually charge for their upgraded, handcrafted photo album).

Granted, you have to have reasonable expectations (if someone's fee is $5000, it'd be kind of a stretch to expect them to go down to $3000). But if he's only $700 out of your range, and if you really, really want to hire him, then I think it's at least worth asking and seeing what he might do.

 

[Vote4PedroToo]

I don''t want to advise you to go over budget. I know every little thing adds up. I guess, you have to decide how important the photography is to you. For some people it is a major priority, and for others, not so much.

$700 is a lot of money especially when you are on a tight budget. I know, I am trying to stick to a tight budget myself. Everything is adding up. Based on the images from their websites, though. I really think the value gap between these two photographers is vast. Much more than $700. If it were me, I would find a place to cut some $$ and go for BM.

However, it''s your decision. Another thing I should take into consideration is that only you saw more of her work. Maybe she is so crazy busy that she hasn''t been able to update her site. I don''t know.

I also agree with Newbie. You might try to negotiate. Another way to negotiate is on the timing. How much time is he giving you with this fee? Maybe you could cut the "time a little. Maybe he could show up a little later, or leave a little earlier. I am cutting my cake at the beginning of the reception so that I can get a photo while it is still light. If you did that he wouldn''t have to stick around until too late. He could just get a little prep time, ceremony, reception details, dancing, cake cutting and action shots and then skate on out. Shooting weddings is long and rigorous. I know I would cut my fee a little if my client was willing to shave off a couple hours. That is to say if I shot weddings. I''ve done a couple and my body hurt to badly the next day. Just a thought.

Good luck. These decisions are hard, man!

 

[clop]

Hi Newbie124! I''ve had tremendous luck with our venue, but none with any other vendors unfortunately. The $3700 is their lowest priced package. It originally came with a proof book, but they swapped it upon request for the dvd. When I first spoke with them they did say something could be worked out, I guess it was the swap for the dvd.

Yes, my expectations for negotiating are reasonable - I didn''t bother contacting ones that were $4k and above. Thanks again for your input. My fiance doesn''t really care about the pictures, flowers, and my friends cannot see a difference between the two.

 

[newbie124]

Oh yeah, that''s a also a good tip from vote4pedro. We ended up only hiring them for 6 hrs (although our photographer says that they usually throw in 1 bonus hour...they also make a point to at least stay long enough to get all the major events even if that means going a little over the budgeted time). So if your timeline would allow for that, that''s another good way to trim some costs.

Also, just make sure, too, that he has a personality that jives with yours. One of the reasons why I love the photographer we picked is that they are just really pleasant and flexible to work with.

Does he include an e-session into his package? That would be a plus as it would give you an opportunity to work together and get comfortable w/ his shooting style beforehand. Or, if you''d rather save the money, you could see if he could take that out of the package and just have the day-of shoot.

Also, don''t forget to ask for and call references! That could be a deciding factor, too.

Finally, might want to also ask about taxes. I was surprised when I was first looking and realized that many charge sales tax on top of their fees. Most of them seem to charge the fee on top of their full service. Although I think, technically, the tax should only be on the albums/photos since those are the physical "goods" you are purchasing. I don''t know if service hours is really a taxable expense. But then again I''m not a CPA, so don''t take my word for it! (You could call your local state taxing authority, though, to double check). After I did some digging, I asked our photographer about it and she finally asked their accountant and found out that we''d only be taxed on the albums, which ended up saving several hundred dollars!

 

[clop]

VoteforPedroToo thank you for encouraging me to be responsible budget-wise! Our ceremony location was changed - so we have $1400 free now. However, we are $5k over budget.

I hadn't thought of the timing - that makes complete sense. We aren't much dancers, and we plan on a nice dinner, conversation etc. I expect dinner and cake cutting to be finished within 2 hours. I do regret that means we won't have festive dancing pictures; we can have festive sitting down pics instead

They shoot the entire day up to 10 hours; no engagement pics are included. (they are in higher priced packages)

Thanks again!

eta: oh boy taxes?! I'll make sure to ask about that. Yeah, I would have thought services weren't taxed, eek I will check!

Thanks for all your suggestions for cutting the budget.

 

[Vote4PedroToo]

I don''t know how the taxes will work. I charge a session fee that I don''t tax. But I tax for individual prints. With packages, I don''t know how that works.

 

[goldenstar]

Taxes work differently in every state so check your area''s rules.

As an example, here in CA labor/services are taxable when they are related to a taxable sale. Since the sale of the prints, albums et al are subject to sales tax, the labor to create them is also taxed. Blech!

 

[Vote4PedroToo]

Date: 5/30/2008 8:41:49 PM
Author: goldenstar
Taxes work differently in every state so check your area''s rules.


As an example, here in CA labor/services are taxable when they are related to a taxable sale. Since the sale of the prints, albums et al are subject to sales tax, the labor to create them is also taxed. Blech!

Goldenstar! Good info. I just Emailed my accountant. Ouch.

 

[newbie124]

Interesting. I didn''t know the tax on service would vary by state, but of course that does make sense. We might have lucked out, too, b/c we are out-of-state residents. At one point I did call the CA taxing authority and they told me we wouldn''t be taxed (being out of state) since if the album is shipped out it would be like when you make purchases online and ship them to a state where they don''t have business operations, hence no sales tax. I''m not sure how it turned out that we''re not being taxed on service but will be taxed on the album, but since it works out to be a better deal, I didn''t argue!