are wedding photos usually really PP'd?

20droger wrote in post #4403059
Assuming you aren't unfortunate enough to get one of those clients from hell.

True. In this case, the bride was quite sweet. It didn't hurt that I've known her since she was 13. God, I feel old sometimes!

Mark

I've spent a lifetime performing weddings. Most are wonderful experiences. Virtually all the rest are Hell on Earth. There is almost no middle ground.

I absolutely loath two types:

My first loathing is bride's mothers who think that because they sign the check, they are in charge, and can do or change anything they wish, including the ceremony itself. Signing the check does not give one authority, especially over me. Here in Arizona, I (the officiant) am responsible, and therefore in charge. The law says so. And so does my contract, which says no changes by anyone except the bride and groom, and no changes without first clearing with me.

My second loathing is bridezillas and/or groomzillas who explode if absolutely everything is not perfect. Nothing here on this planet is ever perfect. Ya gotta roll with whatever happens.

Wedding planners who think they can control the ceremony itself don't rate very high on my list, either.

And neither do photographers/videogra​phers who interfere with the ceremony.

That's FOUR types!

hahaha bridezillas / groomzillas!

Wilt wrote in post #4407280
That's FOUR types!

As I said, I absolutely loath two types: bossy bride's mothers; and bridezillas and/or groomzillas. Wedding planners and photographers/videogra​phers I don't loath absolutely.

Wedding planners and photographers/videogra​phers I can put in their place fairly quickly, and do. The same applies to hotel/resort event coordinators, and the like. After all, the law is on my side.

But there is absolutely no reasoning with bossy brides mothers or bridezillas/groomzilla​s.

Bossy bride's mothers I simply ignore, they have no standing with me whatsoever. When a bride's mother calls and wants something in the ceremony changed, my response is always a universal "I'm sorry, but the bride or groom must ask for ceremony changes themselves."

They always come back with "But I'm her mother!"

To which I reply, "I'm sorry, my contract is with the bride and groom alone."

At this point, they always say, "I'm the one paying for the wedding."

To which I reply, "And I'm sure they appreciate it. Please ask the bride to call. Goodbye." (Click).

And you know, the bride almost never calls. What does that tell you..

When I have a Bridezilla or groomzilla, I talk with them about the problem. Just once.

If the problem goes away, fine. If not, they promptly get their money back (less my standard non-refundable portion). They are then free to beat up on some other officiant.

I've been around too long to have to tolerate much in the way of non-contractual crap. And I won't.

20droger, gotta question for you...given the fact that you have a contract with a bride, can a 'bridezilla' truly exist under those circumstances? Or, given the fact that you have a contract with the bride's mother in some circumstances, can a bossy mother of bride exist under those circumstances? And given the fact that the groom is married to the primary contract signer (bride), can a groomzilla truly exist in those circumstances.

In all the above cases, you have a contract to honor and a customer to keep happy, and everything outside the scope of the original written contract is a verbal thing, and the law only recognizes written contracts as overriding what is in verbal form only. And, as you say, if the problem goes away, fine; if not, they promptly get their money back.

johneric8 wrote in post #4402039
When you work as much as I do, you don't have time to do all this stuff everyone is talking about... I apply quick adjustments in Bridge, takes about an hour or so then let client view.. I take instructions from them on what they do or don't want after the fact...

when your busy with tons of jobs you can't sit around and get Anal until you are being paid to be Anal... Photography is as much personlality as it is skill.. Do yourself a favor and work on your personality before photoshop....

I understand what you are saying however, the simple fact that we are shooting digital requires (IMO) at least a pre-press sharpening...... Also, my personality is a large part of how I PP my images. That's probably why we (photographers as a whole) get chosen by our clients because they like the styles that we have. It does not have to take days to PP images. I can average 300 shots in a couple hours if I apply heavy effects to all of them. Knowing the software is a big help as is having a Cintiq 21ux. I guess what I'm saying is that while my personality will help me engage the subject and get them to respond and feel comfortable with me it won't remove the giant zit that popped up on the brides face the morning of her wedding. Photoshop will and I like to be able to do that for her. If I have to take less jobs so that my quality remains I will ( or I will find an intern to boss around )

Until I take a photoshop course, and treble my rates, I'm sticking to shooting practically as is, with some subtle changes, such as vignetting, sepia, black and white on about 50-100 photos.

Wilt wrote in post #4408936
20droger, gotta question for you...given the fact that you have a contract with a bride, can a 'bridezilla' truly exist under those circumstances?

Certainly a bridezilla can exist. A bridezilla is a bride-to-be who does not comport herself in a polite and respectful manner, and/or does not follow the other conditions of the contract.

I never have a contract with the bride's mother. I contract only with the bride and groom. As a result, I answer only to the bride and groom.

Yes, in exactly the same manner a bridezilla can exist.

Incidentally, the bride and groom are not married until the contract is fulfilled. I have a contract with two single individuals, not a couple. For this reason, any refunds are always returned only to the person who paid my fee, and no other.

But not all of it. $75 of my standard fee is non-refundablle. That's in the contract. Exceptions are made for unusual and/or tragic circumstances.

In Arizona, marriage is considered a contract. Therefore, in addition to the laws specific to marriage, the laws applying to general personal contracts also apply.

For example, it is illegal in Arizona for me to effect a marriage if either of the parties is intoxicated, impared, or is otherwise incapable of showing assent. You would not believe how often this comes up.

You wanna get married crocked? Go to Nevada, and leave me out of it.

I should say that none of this applies any longer. I'm retired. I now only do weddings for special friends and relatives, and I do not charge.

20droger wrote in post #4409096
it is illegal in Arizona for me to effect a marriage if either of the parties is intoxicated, impared, or is otherwise incapable of showing assent....I should say that none of this applies any longer. I'm retired. I now only do weddings for special friends and relatives, and I do not charge.

You confused me earlier, but now additional commentary from you makes it clearer...you were a clergyman, who takes photos. This is the only explanation I could have for why you turn down inebriated people in the marriage ceremony.

Wilt wrote in post #4409154
You confused me earlier, but now additional commentary from you makes it clearer...you were a clergyman, who takes photos. This is the only explanation I could have for why you turn down inebriated people in the marriage ceremony.

It's worse than that. I am a retired clergyman who does not take photos. My wife is the photographer in the family (and she does not do weddings). I'm the geek.

And I did say earlier in this thread (in a couple of places) that I was the officiant.

20droger wrote in post #4409215
And I did say earlier in this thread (in a couple of places) that I was the officiant.

Yes, I saw that comment and that was the initially confusing part! Now I am even MORE confused -- a non-photographic clergyman...what's he doing roaming digital photography forums (and why isn't his wife the one doing to roaming?)

A lot of photogs do post process the heck out of wedding photos. It's really up to you. I try to keep them looking real, without going too heavy on the post-processed, magazine, airbrushed look. I personally feel that some of the ultra-post-processed look you see these days will look very dated in twenty years. But I may be wrong.

What I do is color correction, cropping, and contrast tweaking to each and every photo.

When I do go in for extra post processing--and I do when it comes to album making or large print-making time--there's a couple of things I do. I fine tune the skin color and tone down blemishes. I don't make them completely go away, but I do try to minimize them without making it look airbrushed. I will also tweak the colors and perhaps saturate some colors extra to effect. There's two Kubota actions that I like: Lord of the Rings EVERYDAY and Hawaiian Punch. I will use either of those, usually at a 30% or so opacity. I never use any of the effects at 100%. They look fake to me.

My background is photojournalism, so I like keeping things look real and believable. I don't like the "glowing off the page" look. I don't like selective coloring. I don't like ridiculously over-saturated colors and porcelain-smooth skin. That's a stylistic choice. But I also don't like images straight out of the camera, either. You can almost always fine-tune at least the color, constrast, and cropping of an image, even if you're not going to go in and do the more magazine-y stuff to it.

Wilt wrote in post #4409597
Yes, I saw that comment and that was the initially confusing part! Now I am even MORE confused -- a non-photographic clergyman...what's he doing roaming digital photography forums (and why isn't his wife the one doing to roaming?)

Used to do photography in the old days (in the 60s and 70s), including my own processing. Ministry was my vocation; photography was my avocation. I gave it up because, while I was extremely technically competent, I came to recognize that I was simply not that creative.

I have other creative outlets. For example, I am a professional writer. That means I get published and make money at it.

I roam here because I have knowledge to share and things to learn. My wife may or may not roam here. You don't know. Both of us also roam elsewhere.

Well, keep roaming...the new whippersnappers need some perspective on 'the old days' in order to better appreciate the tools available today, and to also understand when the methods used previously are often valid today, too. The automated flash and the lack of understanding of the principle of Guide Numbers, and the questions that arise simply because that basic but useful concept was never taught to them, is an example of the need for passing on knowledge. One of the reasons I haunt these halls, too.