My photographer horror story

[Kevin Shaw]

Bill: the problem is that it's not easy to run around with a video camera and still get good images, so there might be a reason why a videographer would be 25 feet behind you. And I've had photographers walk in front of me even when I am in close, unless I get so close to the subject that they physically can't move between us. That's a little closer than I'd like to be most of the time.

In the videographer's ideal world photographers would make sure they're never in front of the video cameras regardless of the circumstances, but then that would hamper the photographers' ability to get the shots they want. Hence the conflict.

[Michael W. Niece]

I sometimes bring my digital camera and have a helper take photos to use in my videos. Every single time, the photographer had an issue with it. I told them all that the signer of my contract is who "directs" me, so we take it up with the bride and groom (in a professional fashion, of course). Recalling paragraph in in my contract, it clearly states that I might take pictures for use only in my videos; not for sale or print. Even though the photographers still didn't like the fact I was taking pictures they agreed to stop acting like babies and get on with the day. I can understand why it might seem like a small threat ... maybe guests will ask me for pictures, if they're psychic. The thing is, not a single person on this planet ever sees those pictures I took *unless* they are used in my video! One photographer insisted we pair up and use their photos in my video, with their watermark on the image. And what was offered in return? I waiver ... a permission slip for me to use the photos in my video. Wow, what a deal. I soon decided that it's time for me to make their "threats" a reality and flat out steal their business. It's dog-eat-dog, so if they are concerned that a Just-Starting-Out videographer can take away their requests for extra photo prints... well, maybe they should consider taking better pictures. If my Nikon D50 can get better pictures than their Canon 20 Billion Megapixel camera than I'm obviously in the wrong line of work. I realize, of course, that the camera is only doing half the quality work, but still, I don't have lights and reflectors and flashes the size of milk jugs... my helper often blends into the crowd and looks like a guest of the party!

-Michael

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Michael W. Niece

I sometimes bring my digital camera and have a helper take photos to use in my videos. Every single time, the photographer had an issue with it.

Technically the photographers don't have any right to keep you from taking pictures in a public place of a public event, but I suppose we wouldn't be too happy if they started running around with video cameras. I've concluded that it's best not to bring my big digital SLR to weddings where I'm not doing the photography, so I bring the smaller Powershot G5 and snap off a few pictures with that as needed. So far that hasn't drawn any obvious displeasure from the photographers I've worked with, and I'm not cutting into their business. I'd be just as happy to take their business and collect their income, but if I'm not hired to do photography then I'll leave that up to them.

[Bill Dooling]

I gladly let the videographer use any still image he would like, as long as I get credit.

I will often email a few images I think they might like. I think it is a win, win.

I even invite them to my studio.

Bill

[John DeLuca]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Technically the photographers don't have any right to keep you from taking pictures in a public place of a public event, but I suppose we wouldn't be too happy if they started running around with video cameras. I've concluded that it's best not to bring my big digital SLR to weddings where I'm not doing the photography, so I bring the smaller Powershot G5 and snap off a few pictures with that as needed. So far that hasn't drawn any obvious displeasure from the photographers I've worked with, and I'm not cutting into their business. I'd be just as happy to take their business and collect their income, but if I'm not hired to do photography then I'll leave that up to them.

They have every right Kevin, especially if you’re a professional company that intends to make profit. All they need to file a lawsuit is to take a picture of you taking pictures.

Typically the photographer will have a contract stating they will be the sole pro photographer at the wedding. If another pro video company was taking photos, the photographer may think he was being undercut.

-John

[Michael W. Niece]

They may as well tell everyone not to take pictures. And not to use video cameras as well. I don't see how anyone can stop anyone else from selling a copy of pictures they took themselves; maybe people won't like the pro pictures and want a copy that pops up in a video; if mine are better than the photographer needs to shoot better pictures (or become competitive with prices). Their contract might say they're the "sole" photographer but I seriously doubt they'll ever be able to stop someone from making a buck. Business is tough; they know that. All of this is assuming, of course, that the videographer even *wants* to make money from the photos. Me, personally, I don't want any ties whatsoever to a photographer's pictures in my videos; not only do they want credit for the pictures (which I will *always* give them) but they also want referrals. Unless the photographer hands out copies of my DVD I don't see how they can provide a visual reference to my product like I'd be doing for them. I haven't met a photographer yet who is willing to give out copies of my work because they are all afraid that if, for some reason, a client isn't happy it'll reflect on them.

In this line of work, the process is simple: if you can't join 'em, beat 'em.

-Michael

[Bill Dooling]

Originally Posted by Michael W. Niece

They may as well tell everyone not to take pictures. And not to use video cameras as well. I don't see how anyone can stop anyone else from selling a copy of pictures they took themselves; maybe people won't like the pro pictures and want a copy that pops up in a video; if mine are better than the photographer needs to shoot better pictures (or become competitive with prices). Their contract might say they're the "sole" photographer but I seriously doubt they'll ever be able to stop someone from making a buck. Business is tough; they know that. All of this is assuming, of course, that the videographer even *wants* to make money from the photos. Me, personally, I don't want any ties whatsoever to a photographer's pictures in my videos; not only do they want credit for the pictures (which I will *always* give them) but they also want referrals. Unless the photographer hands out copies of my DVD I don't see how they can provide a visual reference to my product like I'd be doing for them. I haven't met a photographer yet who is willing to give out copies of my work because they are all afraid that if, for some reason, a client isn't happy it'll reflect on them.

In this line of work, the process is simple: if you can't join 'em, beat 'em.

-Michael

Michael,

I understand what you are saying, but the reason I gladly give photos is because by the time I'm done photographing the wedding I am very good friends with the bride and groom.

It is really all about the bride and groom and giving them the best product, both Video and photos. A photographer and videographer working together will impress the bride and groom, the ones that will really be giving us the referrals, will be the bride and groom, I think it behooves us to work together.

I never know if the Videographer gives me credit, I really don't care, I ask for it and I'm hoping they do, but it is really all for the Bride and Groom. Imho.

Bill

[John DeLuca]

Originally Posted by Michael W. Niece

They may as well tell everyone not to take pictures. And not to use video cameras as well. I don't see how anyone can stop anyone else from selling a copy of pictures they took themselves; maybe people won't like the pro pictures and want a copy that pops up in a video; if mine are better than the photographer needs to shoot better pictures (or become competitive with prices). Their contract might say they're the "sole" photographer but I seriously doubt they'll ever be able to stop someone from making a buck. Business is tough; they know that. All of this is assuming, of course, that the videographer even *wants* to make money from the photos. Me, personally, I don't want any ties whatsoever to a photographer's pictures in my videos; not only do they want credit for the pictures (which I will *always* give them) but they also want referrals. Unless the photographer hands out copies of my DVD I don't see how they can provide a visual reference to my product like I'd be doing for them. I haven't met a photographer yet who is willing to give out copies of my work because they are all afraid that if, for some reason, a client isn't happy it'll reflect on them.

In this line of work, the process is simple: if you can't join 'em, beat 'em.

-Michael

In regards to your comments. The contract outlines they are the sole pro company taking photography at the wedding. Regular guests attending the wedding are not hired professionals with intent to make profit.

Honestly, most photographers probably wouldn’t care, but it’s the principle that counts. How would you feel if the photographer informed the B&G they could make unlimited copies of your dvd with free software off the internet?

-John

[John DeLuca]

Originally Posted by Bill Dooling

Michael,

I understand what you are saying, but the reason I gladly give photos is because by the time I'm done photographing the wedding I am very good friends with the bride and groom.

It is really all about the bride and groom and giving them the best product, both Video and photos. A photographer and videographer working together will impress the bride and groom, the ones that will really be giving us the referrals, will be the bride and groom, I think it behooves us to work together.

I never know if the Videographer gives me credit, I really don't care, I ask for it and I'm hoping they do, but it is really all for the Bride and Groom. Imho.

Bill

Bill, do you give the files high res enough to print? If so then please explain why. I have no problem giving low res 72dpi files away......I give the B&G everything I shoot at that resolution. There is no threat to files that cannot be printed. The videographer has no need for high res files, because the extra resolution will not show up anyway.

-John

[Michael W. Niece]

Originally Posted by John DeLuca

Regular guests attending the wedding are not hired professionals with intent to make profit.

The only time I'd ever want a profit from my pictures is if I was asked for them. And who'd ask for a picture they haven't seen? And who would actually see the pictures if I used them in the video... the bride and groom. And why would they ask for a copy of a picture used? Because the photographer didn't provide them with one like it. I'm looking to fill the gap the photographer left behind. What's wrong with that?

Originally Posted by John DeLuca

Honestly, most photographers probably wouldn’t care, but it’s the principle that counts. How would you feel if the photographer informed the B&G they could make unlimited copies of your dvd with free software off the internet?

Well, I'd probably run through a lot of emotions in a small amount of time. First, if mega-corporations cannot protect their DVDs then mine are no exception. Second, the *signers* are breaking the contract - enough said on that. Third, I probably should thank the photographer and B&G because they are actually taking my name and phone number and helping me get more exposure. Free ads are still ads.

Even if that was done, the bottom line is that I would specifically ask for a dollar amount for my services. Once I get that amount, anything else is fluff. I don't demand or expect any orders for extra copies above the agreed amount; if I get some that's great, but if not I won't cry about it.

I'll say it for the third time, but in a different way: I don't want their photos. I don't want their name in my work unless they can offer something valuable in return. I want to be able to offer my creative material in a way that I think works. Just image how videos would look if they didn't have pictures in them (even freeze frames).

I'm not betting there'll be any resolve to this issue. All I'm saying is that I would not, by any definition, be breaking any laws or even meddling in gray areas of copyrighted works of photographers. I simply want to make sure the B&G get to see everything I saw, in the light I saw it. Two people can paint the same subjects but in 100% different ways.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to stir up trouble with this topic. I simply don't like people telling me to limit my creativeness simply because they won't benefit from it. If they want more money or exposure they need to find the photographic way to make it happen, not me.

-Michael

[Bill Dooling]

Originally Posted by John DeLuca

Bill, do you give the files high res enough to print? If so then please explain why. I have no problem giving low res 72dpi files away......I give the B&G everything I shoot at that resolution. There is no threat to files that cannot be printed. The videographer has no need for high res files, because the extra resolution will not show up anyway.

-John

Hi John,

Not so high, I'm not really too concerned with a videographer trying to undercut me on my own work. Life is way too short to worry about that.

Funny thing is as a still photographer I take along a Video camera to accent my slide shows, so everything comes full circle. These two fields are going to blend in the future.

Bill

[Michael W. Niece]

Thanks, Bill, for mentioning that. I personally don't mind anyone having a video camera, especially a photographer, because I understand they have a quality product to sell. If they find a use for something in their product, then more power to them. If they ask me for video copies then that's another story, but otherwise I think Bill is right; these two business can work together if not as one. Just don't tell me I have to undercut my own work and style so you (any photographer) can feel better about yourself. I'm very easy to get along with as long as people understand I'm trying to give my customers the most bang for their buck.

-Michael

[Jon Omiatek]

Originally Posted by Jim Michael

You know, you have a weapon at your disposal - your video camera. I don't mean hit them with it either. Film their bad behavior and use when necessary/justified.

I would seriously consider using your video footage in showing a photographer in a bad light. Considering they could do the same to you, even if you were never in the way. I went to war with a photographer and lost even though I was in the right.

I would just show brides a wedding with them as the photographer and let the B&G draw their own conclusions. I already have a list of WILL NOT WORK WITH PHOTOGRAPHERS!, no exceptions! Even if the b&g see their work first, I refuse to work with them, it's really that bad. I would rather sit at home with 10 2 years olds than shoot a wedding with them.

Jon

[Jon Omiatek]

Originally Posted by John DeLuca

Bill, do you give the files high res enough to print? If so then please explain why. I have no problem giving low res 72dpi files away......I give the B&G everything I shoot at that resolution. There is no threat to files that cannot be printed. The videographer has no need for high res files, because the extra resolution will not show up anyway.

-John

No matter what still you give from video, even with HDV you will not even come close to matching that of a DSLR. I give up to 50 stills to my brides for free.

Here is an example, is this good enough to print?
http://www.trulux.com/dvinfo/Bride1.jpg
http://www.trulux.com/dvinfo/Bride2.jpg

This is full res HDV.

Jon

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by John DeLuca

The contract outlines they are the sole pro company taking photography at the wedding. Regular guests attending the wedding are not hired professionals with intent to make profit.

Understood, but there's a difference between taking a few photos to use for DVD cover art and trying to actually cut into the photographers' business. Photographers should understand the difference by now and not get worked up about it, but it sounds like some of them haven't caught on.

How would you feel if the photographer informed the B&G they could make unlimited copies of your dvd with free software off the internet?

That sounds like the wrong analogy to me: a better question would be what happens when photographers start shooting video clips on their digital cameras? Technically we might have a right to tell them not to do that, but I don't think I'd be too concerned about it.