Anyone hire a professional photographer lately?

[Jumpem]

Do they use digital now, or do professionals still actually use film?

Also, who keeps the negatives/digital copes? The customer or the photographer? Is it normal to have to buy all your prints from them?

 

[se7en]

Mine used digital.

As a part of our package we recieved the CD's with like 9 billion pictures on them as the originals. CD's were available for family / friends but had watermarks on them so they had to be ordered from the photographer.

If we didn't get the package that included the originals then we would have had to pay for additional prints from the CD.

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: se7en
Mine used digital.

As a part of our package we recieved the CD's with like 9 billion pictures on them as the originals. CD's were available for family / friends but had watermarks on them so they had to be ordered from the photographer.

If we didn't get the package that included the originals then we would have had to pay for additional prints from the CD.

And how much did this run you?

I don't like the idea of having to get prints from the photographer, or them keeping the originals. I basically just want to pay them for an hour of their time, and have them give me everything.

 

[se7en]

$2200

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: se7en
$2200

Wow. I was thinking more in the $300-400 range. :Q

 

[se7en]

Well ours was for like 4 hours + the photographer and an assistant. We did inside and outside photos and got 4 cd's slap full of pictures which included the originals which was several hundred by itself I believe.

Also included a large canvas print in a frame you would hang above a mantle or someplace like that.

She had packagas starting at like 400 for short sessions though but I don't think that included any originals.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: se7en
$2200

Wow. I was thinking more in the $300-400 range. :Q

You get what you pay for.

You won't find a good photographer for that cheap unless they are friend.

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: se7en
$2200

Wow. I was thinking more in the $300-400 range. :Q

You get what you pay for.

You won't find a good photographer for that cheap unless they are friend.

Yeah, no kidding. If it's your wedding, research and then spend the money.

At our wedding, I wanted to hire a professional photographer but my wife insisted her father take the pics (he's a "professional" photog). Anyway, it was a big hassel. Ended up not getting prints til forever, having to pay for copies from negatives for any pictures we wanted (which is a HUGE pain)...and many other family related issues (hardly any pics of my family, almost none of just me and my family, etc). Afterwards my wife wished we had paid for a professional photog. Not worth the "savings" of having her dad do it...

 

[richardycc]

depends on the photographer, the guy that we hired for our wedding used hasselblad, thats one of the reasons we used him, his assistant used a digital camera, a Nikon D70, a good mid-level one at the time. I think we paid around $2000 for his best package, which is cheap for a pro that still uses hasselblad. We got the negatives one year after the wedding, its in the contract, you might want to have that in the contract, if you don't ask, you might not get them.

 

[BCYL]

Mine used film, he charged $600, but we had to provide him with film and get them developed ourselves...

 

[440sixpack]

The one I used for our wedding used both digital and film, she and her assistant were flitting around the whole time with like 3 cameras each hanging off them. Great job by the way, not cheap but as noted you get what you pay for.

Ali Rosa Photography