The Photography Thread

[EvilBoris]

What you have to remember with wedding photography is that the photographer is kinda like an artist selling his paintings and although you have bought copies of photos from your wedding, the originals actually belong to the photographer.

I suppose technically though in order for him to use your faces outside of his own personal portfolio he would of needed your permission, but I suppose you could of signed something to that effect anyway when you took him on?

[demon9k]

Thanks Boris.

Yeah I was aware that he owned the copyright for the photos and I had purchased the rights to use these photos although not exclusive rights.

But as you say I thought he might need to ask our permission to use them outside his own business. I'm fairly sure I didn't sign anything to say he didn't have to ask permission. Infact I don't remember signing anything but my memory is terrible so I'll have a look through the wedding folder tonight.

While I'm not bothered most of the people in my family are telling me to phone and try and get some money or a free night at in the hotel. I feel I'm going to be pressured into a phone call pretty soon...

[charlesr]

I don't think you'll get anywhere with the photographer, but you might be able to sweetalk the hotel into a free night (which won't cost them anything really) if you say how great the wedding was at their hotel etc etc.
The chances of you getting anywhere by demanding stuff is zero.

[MartyG]

Although you sometimes get a model release for using shots of people, technically it's not needed for publishing - you think the newspapers and glossies get permission from all the celebs they shoot and publish? I would be surprised if in the contract it didn't have a line that said he can use the photos as he pleases though, as in fact he can use the photos as he pleases.

[demon9k]

I don't think you'll get anywhere with the photographer, but you might be able to sweetalk the hotel into a free night (which won't cost them anything really) if you say how great the wedding was at their hotel etc etc.
The chances of you getting anywhere by demanding stuff is zero.

Yeah I agree.

Although you sometimes get a model release for using shots of people, technically it's not needed for publishing - you think the newspapers and glossies get permission from all the celebs they shoot and publish? I would be surprised if in the contract it didn't have a line that said he can use the photos as he pleases though, as in fact he can use the photos as he pleases.

Thanks for the advice.

Thanks guys

[Taka]

Aye, they'd probably argue that unless the images were defamatory, they're not gonna take them down. As suggested, sweet talk the hotel into some freebies.

[charlesr]

http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/6545344/

Not my photo, but.... right place right time. For the camera guy. Not for the rider.

[Ginger Tosser]

My wife and I are both in this picture.

I'm not particularly bothered but should they, either the hotel or the photographer, ask permission or does the photographer have permission to sell these to anyone they want?

Thanks for any info.

For editorial photography you can't argue about it, but for commercial photography he would need a model release to use your image to sell a product or service. It looks as if an advert in the hotel is commercial, I'd approach the hotel and complain your image has been used for commercial gain without permission. The hotel most likely commissioned the advert so that would be my first contact. Also try to obtain an photo of the advert if you can. Chances are they probably use it on their printed material and website.

[MartyG]

Unless the wedding photographer was a rank amatuer, chances are that will have been written into the contract - I'd definitely read that first.

[Spatial]

Red Chrysanthemum by J_Davies, on Flickr


Chrysanthemum droplets by J_Davies, on Flickr

[MartyG]

That top pic is ace, like the slightly subdued colours. The bottom pic has some really distracting out-of-focus petals at the lower third for me tho.

[egparadigm]

The Flickr set I linked to earlier is now available in book form:

http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/2124676

[Spatial]

Nice one pat, very swish

That top pic is ace, like the slightly subdued colours. The bottom pic has some really distracting out-of-focus petals at the lower third for me tho.

Yeah it's not brilliant but the intention was more to get the upper right more in focus so that was intentional (or that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it ). It could probably have done with a tighter, better crop but I was loosing the idea of what I was going for when I tried that.

I really need my outstanding order for a new Macro lens to come through (31 days and counting now ) as that would probably give me better results out of the camera without having to resort to trying to tidy up shots later by cropping.

[MartyG]

In this case it's a little too distracting though - the idea of DoF is to ensure that the eye is pulled to the intended area of interest and remove the distractions - for me the opposite is true here, it's pulling the eye away. The top pic has the sharp focus squarely at the centre with the focus getting soft towards all edges, helping move the eye to the centre.

Macro is a deceivingly tricky area of photography though, the dof I get with my 105mm Sigma even at f11 and higher is still frighteningly small, focus stacking is a technique a number of macroheads use.

[Taka]

There's a photography competition to potentially win ?10,000 with Bing.co.uk at the moment. Focus is on 5 different categories of Britain (local, natural, night, urban and secret) and completely open to interpretation, but the rules are pretty strict with photos having to be landscape, not currently used on social networks and so on to name a few.

Thought about entering but most of the things I'd like to submit are portrait!