insomia said:
Photographers are no mind readers.... the last couple of wedding gigs were interesting in that the couple maintains firmly that they want as few frames taken as possible. Actually what they wanted was massive in depth and detail with lots of moment of life and life style shots. But they wanted this as cheap as possible.
Common problem. Couples who say "photos are not really so important lah", end up being the worst complainers when they get a friend with a "big" camera but no experience to shoot on a shoestring budget. And like you described, if they contract a pro, they tend to expect the earth.
Bottom line is, if you want nice photos, be prepared to pay.
Many points have already been covered by previous posters. Here are some more questions to ask, off the top of my head:
Film or Digital?
Colour and/or B&W?
Photographic Style? *
Backup & Contingency: Who covers the shoot if contracted photographer is unavoidably not available? (Will that photog be of similar standard/style/cost?)
Pricing structure? How much are additionals? Per roll, per print? (Note that some will charge hourly for OT, such as 4am starts in Teochew weddings, or party-into-the-night gigs)
Does the photographer have his own vehicle, or does he prefer to follow the bridal car, or in a separate vehicle in the entourage?
If there will be a banquet dinner, do you want photos at every table? (eg. if shooting B&W, then best to either tell photog to use colour for table shots, or even get a friend to shoot instead)
Timeframe for delivery?
Type of Albums available?
Does the couple get a say in the layout/choice of photos, or is it up to the "artistic vision" of the photographer.
Policy on return of negatives? Pay more?
Options on deliverables? CDR? Second Album?
Reprinting (if negatives not returned) and timeframe negs will be archived?
Is there a contract to sign? If so, are there any onerous clauses?
*Comments about Photographic Style:
Possibly one of the most important things to settle in advance. It is FAR better to find a photographer whose portfolio you really like, than to try to force one to match YOUR vision. Do you want "reportage style", "moments of life/lifestyle" (as described by imsomnia), or something more conventional? "Reportage" is probably the most common, while most modern couples prefer "lifestyle". Guess what? Parent like "conventional" and COLOUR photos. It might sound silly, but I've seen couples get into problems when the in-laws get all huffy about what they perceive as overly avantgarde photography for what is, to them, a highly traditional ceremony.
The other thing related to style is the personality of the photographer. Do you want the photographer to play Director and Producer for the day? Or do you want an unobtrusive fly-on-the-wall type person who captures the moments as they happen. This is a preference thing, and frankly too few couples give ANY thought to this. Let me paint you scenarios:
"Director" type:
You cannot move unless he says so. Makes you repeat opening car door/serving tea/etc. When you serve tea/cut cake/pour champagne, he will tell you to freeze, look here, smile, 1-2-3, snap. He will organise the group photos regimentally, according to hierachy. Will constantly arrange posed shots. Traditional parents tend to LOVE this guy, but couples and friends may dislike the "bossiness". (The vast majority of videographers tend to be like this!)
"Fly-on-the-wall" type:
Keeps quiet and tries to let things flow, capturing moments without influencing them. Great for lively weddings, but might not get any nice photos if proceedings are dull. Parents and relatives will pass voluble comments about photographer who "doesn't do anything".
There is a distinction between the personality of the photographer and the photographic style. Both groups described above are capable of shooting really great images. It's just their approach to getting those shots.
Sorry for the long post, but I've shot at, or helped out at many weddings for friends and relatives, and have seen lots of these things first hand! :what:
..