Bridal portraits help
Robert A. James
Hi to all!
I am not sure if this is the right group to post this, but I hope
someone can help me out with this. I am getting my bridal portrait done
in about two months and wanted to get some opinions.
1. First, I am torn between black and white and color. I LOVE b/w, but
also would like to have at least one color picture. I understand that
b/w last longer though. Anyway, I guess I could get both.
2. My real concern is deciding what to get and at what price. My
questions are: is there really a major difference in quality between
portrait and oil finishes? Oil finishes seem to be far more expensive
than portrait (why?).
3. Also, are canvas mounted portraits really worth the hefty price tag?
What is the meaning of hand lacquered?
4. Finally, here are three options that I have so far. a) 20x20
portrait includes negative retouching as needed and then is hand printed
and mounted onto artist board. The print is hand lacquered, inspected
and personally signed, making it ready for framing ($699)
b) same as above, but the portrait is canvas mounted and artist enhanced
($879).
c) finally, (this is the real expensive one) 16x20 b/w print. Print is
archivally processed by hand on fine fibre-base paper. This gelatin
silver print is then mounted on museum-quality 100% acid-free board with
an overmatte of 100% cotton ragboard ($1,775)
As you can see, I am confused by all this jargon. Help! I want something
that my grandkids can see, but what's the bottom line here? Do I really
need to spend thousands for that? Thanks in advance for the responses
and sorry for this post's length.
Natasha Lopez
Doctoral Student
University of Pittsburgh
nll...@pitt.edu
Robert A. James
Robert A. James
mathison
Robert A. James wrote:
>
> Hi to all!
>
> I am not sure if this is the right group to post this, but I hope
> someone can help me out with this. I am getting my bridal portrait done
> in about two months and wanted to get some opinions.
> 1. First, I am torn between black and white and color. I LOVE b/w, but
> also would like to have at least one color picture. I understand that
> b/w last longer though. Anyway, I guess I could get both.
I am assuming you are getting these pictures done as part of the entire
wedding package. I would make the choice after you see the proof
pictures.
In general archival B+W will last longer than color but that is not an
iron clad rule in that archival B+W depends on the lab doing the
printing. Certain color process are also pretty archival. The prices you
list show that you have fallen very deep into the wedding trap. The
prices you list aren't inidicatve of the cost of making the print but
rather what happens when the wedding phorgrapher owns the sole source of
wedding pictures and has no plans on giving you the negatives.
The only choice that is intelligent is one made AFTER you see the
proofs. Pick the picture and how it is framed by how you feel about the
picture. Even "archival" B+W may or may not be depending on how good
the lab is. The photogapher's signature isn't worth anything unless they
are famous and you wouldn't sell the picture anyway - so so what. The
actual cost of the prints is between 100-300 dollars depending on the
exact reproduction system the photographer uses.
The 20x20 size is also very large and will overcome any room it's in
unless the room is huge and the size alone would put me off. (The
number of really ugly heavily retouched huge wedding portraits I have
seen is quite high.)
j
Msherck
>I am not sure if this is the right group to post this, but I hope
>someone can help me out with this.
Rec.Photo.People would probably get you more answers but it's also populated
with a number of unruly children, so this one will work fine, I think.
>1. First, I am torn between black and white and color. I LOVE b/w, but
>also would like to have at least one color picture. I understand that
>b/w last longer though. Anyway, I guess I could get both.
Why not both? I routinely shoot both color & B&W, even if only color is
requested. I love B&W and many brides do too, once they've seen a good print.
Your photographer shouldn't charge much more to run a roll of B&W after s/he's
done with the color. The print will cost more, though: B&W processing and
printing are often more expensive than color because most labs don't see much
of it any more, particularly from professionals. My costs are lower because I
do it myself.
>2. My real concern is deciding what to get and at what price. My
>questions are: is there really a major difference in quality between
>portrait and oil finishes? Oil finishes seem to be far more expensive
>than portrait (why?).
>
Differences in quality? Probably not. What matters is the look YOU prefer.
Oil finishes are more expensive because they involve more work, most of it by
hand, most of it learned by painful trial and error. If you like it, go for
it. If you don't like the look then don't let them talk you into it.
>3. Also, are canvas mounted portraits really worth the hefty price tag?
>What is the meaning of hand lacquered?
Its only worth it if you want it and like it. Personally, you couldn't sell me
a Cadillac: I think they're big and ugly. On the other hand, my uncle
wouldn't drive anything else. Hand laquered can carry any one of several
meanings, mostly devolving down to a coating of laquer or some similar
substance, designed to protect and enhance the print. That's what it says,
right here on the label. :)
>4. Finally, here are three options that I have so far. a) 20x20
>portrait includes negative retouching as needed and then is hand printed
>and mounted onto artist board. The print is hand lacquered, inspected
>and personally signed, making it ready for framing ($699)
>
I have no idea what prices are in your area. Around here (South Bend, IN, a
city of about 100,000,) that would not be unreasonable. Yes, it sounds like a
lot of money but there's considerable cost in that as well. A good retoucher
in this day and age can name their own rate.
>b) same as above, but the portrait is canvas mounted and artist enhanced
>($879).
Don't know: I don't like canvas mounting and don't offer it. If you want a
painting, hire a painter. Probably cheaper, too.
>c) finally, (this is the real expensive one) 16x20 b/w print. Print is
>archivally processed by hand on fine fibre-base paper. This gelatin
>silver print is then mounted on museum-quality 100% acid-free board with
>an overmatte of 100% cotton ragboard ($1,775)
>
This is obscene. I've heard of overcharging but this is ridiculous. I'd be
embarrassed to charge $500 for that, let alone $1775.00 The photographer is
way out of line on this one, at least, I think so.
Another poster complained about the high cost of wedding re-prints. My average
net profit on a wedding package is about 15%. If you pick the $1100 package
that means my net after taxes is $165.00 If I'm going to make a living profit
on this wedding, I HAVE to sell additional prints at a higher margin. Most of
my costs are film (I pay a lot more for properly stored pro film that K-mart
gets for Kodak Gold, for sure!) and processing and proofing. You don't want
your once-in-a-lifetime wedding pictures processed by the local drug store,
believe me. A pro lab with trained personnel costs me, on average, several
times what the drugstore would charge, just for proofs, and you wouldn't
believe my cost for a color 8x10. Sure, the costs are high, but so are the
rewards. I love wedding photography: I'm a born romantic. Good luck! It's
important to find a photographer whom you like and trust to be able to get it
right -- you can't repeat the wedding!
Mike Sherck
Wild Rose Photography, Inc.
South Bend, IN
(219) 272-6444