# Is this general practice???



## ericz83 (Jul 5, 2012)

So, recently got married.  

Was a pretty low-key, small wedding.  A friend of my wife's sister took our pictures for us.  She has a photography business, not just starting, but I would say - still new.

Good price.

However, it has been almost two weeks and no pictures yet.  She is providing us a disc of the images.  I asked if she could just give me the raw photos, she declined.  That is fine as said she wanted to do edits.

A couple of questions...

Should she provide just the pictures in color if I request?  Reason I ask is she has posted some pictures on her Facebook with weird sepia tones, etc... That is fine, but I can do that if I want.  Just give me the picture!!

Also - what is an average time frame for providing a client with pictures of an event??

This leads to the next question, and probably the thing that has annoyed me most...  Yes she is posting pictures of *our* wedding on her Facebook.  We did sign an agreement that she could do that - but is it only me who thinks it is distasteful to be posting them when she hasn't even provided us with pictures yet????


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 5, 2012)

I'd say 6-8 weeks is the norm.


----------



## MTVision (Jul 5, 2012)

ericz83 said:
			
		

> So, recently got married.
> 
> Was a pretty low-key, small wedding.  A friend of my wife's sister took our pictures for us.  She has a photography business, not just starting, but I would say - still new.
> 
> ...



I didn't notice where you live but in the US you aren't legally suppose to change any color photos to sepia or b/w. In the US the copyright belongs to the photographer and most photographers don't like other people editing/changing photos that was their creative vision. 

Is it her facebook business page or personal page?? Either way it doesn't really matter - its pretty normal. She is probably posting them for a couple reasons: a sneak peek for you as well as promoting and showing off her work. Most photographers I know post a few pictures online before they give them to the customer. Least you get to see some of them ahead of time.

EDIT: about the all color photos - you could talk to her about it if you haven't already. She may give you the color copies of the sepia/Bw photos anyways. But if you haven't already asked her for just all color photos she might not want to go back and re-edit since its been 2 weeks. I'd talk to her soon if I were you.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 5, 2012)

Yes, this is normal practice.


----------



## katerolla (Jul 5, 2012)

Answer to your all your questions should have been agreed before the wedding.
But any ways, generally it takes 4 to 6 weeks for the photos to get edited and returned to the bride, RAW files I would never give or show to the bride they are for my eyes only, 90% of my photos are in colour except for the way over or under exposed that are saved only by monochrome and as for facebook I don&#8217;t post photos on the web before the bride get a copy but that&#8217;s up to the photographer.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 5, 2012)

what does the contract say?


----------



## camerateur (Jul 5, 2012)

Yeah,  this should've  been agreed upon beforehand, so its unfortunate that she left you unsure about it.

Its general practice but I'm sure she'd appreciate feedback (since she's just   starting out) about her being clearer to the client in the future.
The  contract you signed  regarding  the facebook photos should say something about when  you get your pictures.. But if not, I hope you get them soon!! and don't  worry too much, you want the pictures finished, trust me!!!


----------



## KmH (Jul 5, 2012)

How many hours did she spend shooting the day of the wedding?

If it was 2 hours, 2 weeks should be enough time for the photographer to edit the keepers.

If it was 10 hours figure 6 to 8 weeks.

Few wedding photographers will give the client Raw files.

As mentioned, the photographer likely retains copyright to all the photos, meaning you need the photographers express written permission to edit the photos or to use the photos in any manner not covered in the contract you signed.

However, if the photographer is still new to doing wedding photography, it's likely the contract is not very well written, which can be bad for both the photographer and you.

In short, be very careful. We recently had an issue here at TPF where a bride posted photos she did not own the copyright too, and TPF the bride got a takedown notice (a legal document) from the photographer and TPF had to delete the posted photos.


----------



## Forkie (Jul 6, 2012)

I do find it odd that she's putting the photos on Facebook when you haven't even seen them yet.  Technically, she's allowed to do it but you'd think that common courtesy would dictate that she make sure you were happy with them first.


----------



## john5189 (Jul 6, 2012)

Surely the photos should be processed before the next job/ next weekend.

I thought USA was top for service. I have my full gallery up by the following Friday and this is in sluggish UK

Give her ear ache  to get her to hurry up.

If the photos were taken properly in the first place it is just a question of looking at them and then cropping to suit.

I think it my duty to make sure I dont have wedding shoots overlapping so there is no confusion about which photos belong to which event.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 6, 2012)

Forkie said:


> I do find it odd that she's putting the photos on Facebook when you haven't even seen them yet.  Technically, she's allowed to do it but you'd think that common courtesy would dictate that she make sure you were happy with them first.



Agree. A "sneak peek," as in maybe 3-4 images _at most_ is normal. Posting the entire event is not. I'd be upset if the whole world got to see my wedding photos before I did.

Look at the bright side; if she doesn't cough up the disk, you can always DL from FB. I'd suggest not editing, for reasons previously explained.


----------



## bratkinson (Jul 6, 2012)

Based on the responses to this thread and other wedding-photo wait threads in the past, I'd have to say the photographers at my step-daughters' wedding this past March were the exception, rather than the norm.  3 days' flat!  

From what I was told, they were there for the rehearsal on Friday night, figuring out their lighting issues and getting white-balance shots, and spent at least 8-10 hours shooting on Saturday.  On Tuesday, the pictures were available for all to see on their web site!

My pictures, on the other hand, as a guest, took me several weeks to get 'presentable'.  My not-so-great results resulted in my learning about WB and various lighting concerns...the hard way, of course!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 7, 2012)

As others have said, 6-8 weeks is standard for us.  Within 1-2 weeks, usually at least 6-10 are posted on facebook so the bride can tag herself if she chooses.  This lets her get a sneak peak, allows the people who follow the page to see some of the latest work, and also provides free advertising.

The only people I personally know of that turn around a wedding in a few days are either shoot and burn photographers or are really not very busy.


----------



## ericz83 (Jul 7, 2012)

Well, thanks for all the replies.  I didn't start this to debate how quick I should get them or I'm not really complaining as of yet, just wondering what the norm is. 

Again we did not pay a lot and she is a friend of a family member - who kind of did us a favor, last minute, because it was such a small wedding we originally weren't even looking for a photographer, so I am grateful that she was able to shoot for us.

Only thing I think is odd, is the Facebook thing.  The contract says she can use our images to advertise and that is fine.  But I do think it would have been nice to at least have told us she would post them prior to us getting them or just not posted at all.

I asked about the color photos mostly because I just want pictures of the wedding.  I guess what I am saying is, I hope, if she does some creative stuff (sepia, there is one with a verse written over it) she also includes the original picture on the disc as well.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 7, 2012)

ericz83 said:


> Well, thanks for all the replies.  I didn't start this to debate how quick I should get them or I'm not really complaining as of yet, just wondering what the norm is.
> 
> Again we did not pay a lot and she is a friend of a family member - who kind of did us a favor, last minute, because it was such a small wedding we originally weren't even looking for a photographer, so I am grateful that she was able to shoot for us.
> 
> ...



assuming the original photo was worth keeping, you should get the original PP photo as well as the artistically altered photo (sephia, B&W, whatever) all on the Disk. if the altered photo was bad from the start, and the alteration like B&W was just to cover that, then you might not see the original photo at all.


----------



## Tamgerine (Jul 12, 2012)

ericz83 said:


> Well, thanks for all the replies.  I didn't start this to debate how quick I should get them or I'm not really complaining as of yet, just wondering what the norm is.
> 
> Again we did not pay a lot and she is a friend of a family member - who kind of did us a favor, last minute, because it was such a small wedding we originally weren't even looking for a photographer, so I am grateful that she was able to shoot for us.
> 
> ...



By posting an image or two onto Facebook she is most likely trying to "build anticipation" for the main showcasing of your wedding. It's incredibly common, though whenever I do it I always alert the client and attempt to tag them in the photograph. My intent is to get the client, and other people following me, excited about the wedding photos. I don't want you to go too long without thinking about your photos, so I'll post a sneak peak and hope that you'll share it with other people. It's pretty basic social media, and as I said incredibly common. 

Things such as Facebook use and turn around time should have all been addressed at the contract signing, so it sounds like she wasn't clear.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jul 12, 2012)

Based on how she dealt with you guys I am not sure how good of a photographer she is.

Although I am not a pro by any means, I've been asked to shoot a few weddings (probably 7 in total) and I've never posted the couple's pictures without their consent.  

First of all, it's always my top priority to get the pictures done as soon as possible, and the very first people who get to see them are the young couple.
Then, I usually ask them if it's okay if I post a few good shots on my website and if they say yes, I do, otherwise no.  Facebook? Wow...just wow.

Most of the weddings I've shot required me to print out an album, so I didn't need to hand them a CD with pics, but on some that I did, I never gave out RAW's.  I myself only use raws to PP the whole shoot and once that's done, I use some for the wedding album.  But once my album is printed I convert all to jpeg and delete the raws.  Technically I could keep the raws but in these years there was never no need.  I mean, it makes sense because some wedding photographers only shoot jpegs for example.  

Like I said, I am not pro by any means and probably I am doing all this wrong.  But I've never done what this photographer has done and all my weddings have been very successful.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 12, 2012)

ericz83 said:


> So, recently got married.
> 
> Was a pretty low-key, small wedding.  A friend of my wife's sister took our pictures for us.  She has a photography business, not just starting, but I would say - still new.
> 
> ...



There ya go!

You get what you pay for, right?


On a side note.  Don't many, established professional photographers, let you see the proofs on person before finishing up their post processing?


----------



## Tamgerine (Jul 13, 2012)

jake337 said:


> ericz83 said:
> 
> 
> > So, recently got married.
> ...



I think this practice is fading out rapidly to be honest. I would never show a client an unfinished product - which includes post-processing. All of the photographs in my portfolio are finished products, so why would I show an unfinished one to a client and then have to explain, "Oh no, these aren't done. I still have to post-process them before delivery." Regardless of that, most if not all of the shots are going to make it onto my blog anyway, so there is no point in not completing them before delivery.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 13, 2012)

Tamgerine said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > ericz83 said:
> ...



Yeah I was thinking off.  Maybe see proofs of finished images, if a business wants to let the client narrow them down.

I read this article.  Does it offer good advice?  I don't want to link some bad advice!

Business of Wedding Photography - photo.net


----------



## CCericola (Jul 13, 2012)

I shoot the same as I did with film. Proofs were just that. A quick proof of the negative. Retouching was airbrushed on the print or sometimes we had a negative retouched. 

Proofs have a few days turn around but prints and albums are 2-3 months.

But with the digital age came a different process. It is very common  for the photographer to do all the digital retouching before hand. It makes for a longer wait for proofs but a shorter wait for prints and albums.

So all in all. Yes it is common. I'm also all for Facebook but not until the bride and groom have received their proofs first. It is just common courtesy.


----------

