Wedding photos

[Pugrpooh]

We're planning DD's wedding which will be August 14th. Not much time to plan and get everything lined up. I've never had to deal with professional photographers before.

She called the photographer who took her senior pics. He and his dad had a couple of camera stores in town for at least 50 years, but they closed the last store about 7-8 years ago. He's not in the photography business full time anymore, so I thought he would have the date available and he is willing to photograph her wedding. He emailed his portfolio and a contract to look over.

I'm wondering if it's customary not to give the digital files to the customer. Is that something that is negotiable? I'm planning on taking a lot of pictures at the reception, but I'm not during the ceremony. I was hoping to experiment with some, making them black and white, cropping, etc.

Should we keep looking around or is this what they will all do?

TIA! I imagine it will be a pretty stressful 6 weeks until the wedding so the sooner we can line everything up the better! We've only been planning full tilt for a couple of weeks.

One good thing -- I'll get the bride and groom pics for the scavenger hunt!

 

[Chikabowa]

Typical not to give files? I'd say it's probably 50/50. Some do. Some don't. There are a lot of REALLY good reasons not to... and you wrote one of the biggest reason why photographers don't like to include the files in the package (cropping, changing into B&W, photoshopping the work). Their work, regardless, is copyrighted, which means you can't modify the work yourself without violation of that copyright. The other reason a lot don't include digital files is because, after they do, they loose all possibility of making money after the wedding.

(Oh, and I'm not trying to be difficult... but I can tell you from personal experience that it is absolutely heart wrenching to see someone take one of my photos that I took and perfected in photoshop, and then did something terrible to it, and post it on facebook... telling people it was my photo. It's embarrassing and horrible for my reputation to be displayed like that. It upsets me so much. I'm just trying to give you the other side perspective.)

Is it negotiable? Most photographers are willing to consider selling the files... for a price. You can ask, the worst he'll say is no or give you a price you aren't willing to pay.

Congrats on the wedding!! Best wishes to the couple!

 

[mabas9395]

I got married in the days before digital and back then it was not customary to hand over the negatives, I don't think it was even heard of. Asking a photographer now days to hand over digital files seems to me like the same thing.

However, I think a lot of the newer photographers are more open to it and many have packages (the higher priced ones) that include a disc. Some of the old school photogs may not be as open to the idea. But it never hurts to ask.

 

[Master Mason]

when I got married the first time back in 92 the photographer gave us the negatives, they were an extra $50 at the time with that photographer.

I am getting marrried again in Oct, and a personal friend is doing the photographs, he is a professionsal photagrapher, he is selling us nothing but the digital negatives, but it is more as a favor to me than anything else.

 

[Pugrpooh]

Thanks everyone for your replies. That's kind of what I was thinking but I've never had to hire a professional photographer before.

I did a google search and did find one that is reasonably priced and includes hi-res photos on the CD so I'm going to call him to see if he's available for that date.

Since we have such a short time to plan this, I don't feel like I can spend a lot of time looking. We're also planning a 96th birthday party for my Grandma next Sunday and we still don't have bridesmaid dresses, flowergirl dress, flowers, decorations, shoes, my dress, etc. The invitations are on order so we should have them towards the end of next week. I thought my summer would be nice and relaxing!

Congrats Master Mason on your upcoming nuptials!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Since it's important to you, I'd just find a good one who will give you the files. (Though I can understand why one wouldn't want to.)

I've always felt that the photographer was one of the most important pieces of wedding planning. For my own, we broke the bank, lol, spending more on him than any other one thing in our [budget/just out of college] wedding.

Congratulations, Gregg!

 

[mom2rtk]

We got married in the days long before digital photography. So of course we didn't get negatives. I have to say though that it was such a nice surprise many years later when the photographer retired and called us to to GIVE us the negatives.

I guess that's less likely now. Computer files just don't take up the space negatives do!

So how old do I sound????????

 

[Pea-n-Me]

We got married in the days long before digital photography. So of course we didn't get negatives. I have to say though that it was such a nice surprise many years later when the photographer retired and called us to to GIVE us the negatives.

That happened to me, too! (I think he always felt a little badly that somehow his first roll of film got messed up so we missed some of the photos at the very beginning of the ceremony.)

 

[WDWFigment]

Everything is negotiable. If not, find someone else. In today's overcrowded marketplace of wedding photographers (both talented ones and hacks), a lot of the photographers who use outmoded and archaic business models based on the film era will either have to adapt to client demands or will be forced out of business.

While I agree with Chikabowa that there are compelling reasons for not providing digital copies, there are equally compelling reasons for doing so.

I was able to get one of the most popular wedding photographers in our area to provide limited copyright rights to us along with RAW files. It might take some searching to find someone who will provide what you want, but don't give up. The marketplace is oversaturated in most regions so you'll likely find someone.

 

[bamagirl@hrt]

My sister, who is getting married in December, just booked her photographer. If she wants a CD of all of the photographs and a copyright release, she has to pay an additional $500. She decided that it's not worth it to her, since they're already paying $1600 for their package.

 

[MissJanice]

Figure out a way to get the digital copies. We got married almost ten years ago and did not get nagatives or digital (not sure which he used.) BUT we wanted to get more copeis a couple years ago, and he was no where to be found! The pics were gorgeous, which is why I wanted more (now that we have a house and good jobs...) but we can't find them anywhere. And we can't get copies of the originals because of the copyrights. Uggh!

 

[MICKEY88]

Everything is negotiable. If not, find someone else. In today's overcrowded marketplace of wedding photographers (both talented ones and hacks), a lot of the photographers who use outmoded and archaic business models based on the film era will either have to adapt to client demands or will be forced out of business.

While I agree with Chikabowa that there are compelling reasons for not providing digital copies, there are equally compelling reasons for doing so.

I was able to get one of the most popular wedding photographers in our area to provide limited copyright rights to us along with RAW files. It might take some searching to find someone who will provide what you want, but don't give up. The marketplace is oversaturated in most regions so you'll likely find someone.

I believe what you actually got was limited usage rights, quite different from copyright

 

[GrillMouster]

From the initial client contact through the final delivery of products, an average wedding takes about forty hours of work. People focus only on the actual shooting part on the wedding day that they don't think about the initial contacts, meetings, planning, prep, travel, post-production, album design, album approval, image review, ordering, review of images from the lab and reprinting, packaging, etc.. It all adds up. Forty hours of work deserves forty hours of pay. The problem with photography has always been that the average consumer has no idea what professional photography is worth. If a photographer were to charge enough up-front to make his total time worthwhile, the average consumer would not understand. Therefore, photographers have been forced into a model where they charge a lower sitting fee or small package fee up front, then mark up the cost of prints and other products on the back end to make up for the value they've subsidized. It's really not an evil practice when you consider that the photographer has taken a risk by providing much of his time and effort up-front hoping and praying that when it's all said and done he will finally make a decent profit. The problem with this model is that it enforced the notion in the customer's head that the "thing" she's purchasing, the "thing" of value is the paper the image is printed on, not the image (intellectual property) itself. In the current digital age where more people want the image in the form of an electronic file, rather than a print, they don't understand or appreciate that the image, regardless of how its delivered, still has value. For examples of this look at other creative products that have shifted from physical to digital delivery. I pay roughly the same amount whether I rent a DVD from the brick & mortal Blockbuster store or rent the movie as a digital download from Blockbuster OnDemand. I pay roughly the same amount per song whether I buy them on a CD or download them from iTunes. Furthermore, the ease with which people can now gain access to and illegally duplicate music, movies, and images, causes them to value those things even less.

The smart and successful business person (and photographers must view themselves as businesspeople) will adapt with the changing demands of the customer without selling himself short. If you can find a way to provide what the customer reasonably expects without giving away the farm, you should do well. What some photographers are doing is including a disc of images with higher-priced packages. They may also sell the disc ala carte with lower packages. Some will provide a disc of image a year or two later, because by that time the likelihood that the customers would order reprints have greatly diminished.

Using the example someone posted where the photographer charged $1600 for the wedding package, then wanted $500 for the disc of images... That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. $1600 isn't enough to support a family, unless he's shooting several weddings a week and running himself ragged. After taxes, business expenses (too numerous to list), the photographer will only take home a third of that, which is roughly equal to $13/hour. With that package he relies on post-shoot prints/products to make a reasonable living. $500 for a disc makes up for the lost print sales that he needed to make the wedding worth his while. To say that $500 isn't worth it is to say that the images themselves are worthless because they're not on paper, and as I explained before, the true value is in the image, not how it's delivered. If anything, a digital image should be more valuable than a print image, because with the digital file the customer can make as many prints as she likes at whatever sizes the resolution will allow. $500 for, say, 1500 images is like $.33 per image. That's a steal, especially considering that a single enlargement print or canvas can cost hundreds of dollars.

I just wanted to open people's eyes that it's not a "rip off" to sell the image files or to only include them in a higher priced package (one that has enough profit built-in that the photographer feels comfortable that he can feed his family and pay the mortgage). It's human nature to look for a bargain, but we shouldn't expect everything for nothing. We shouldn't get angry because a photographer isn't willing to sacrifice is family's well being so that we can get a freebie that we don't really appreciate.

 

[MICKEY88]

From the initial client contact through the final delivery of products, an average wedding takes about forty hours of work. People focus only on the actual shooting part on the wedding day that they don't think about the initial contacts, meetings, planning, prep, travel, post-production, album design, album approval, image review, ordering, review of images from the lab and reprinting, packaging, etc.. It all adds up. Forty hours of work deserves forty hours of pay. The problem with photography has always been that the average consumer has no idea what professional photography is worth. If a photographer were to charge enough up-front to make his total time worthwhile, the average consumer would not understand. Therefore, photographers have been forced into a model where they charge a lower sitting fee or small package fee up front, then mark up the cost of prints and other products on the back end to make up for the value they've subsidized. It's really not an evil practice when you consider that the photographer has taken a risk by providing much of his time and effort up-front hoping and praying that when it's all said and done he will finally make a decent profit. The problem with this model is that it enforced the notion in the customer's head that the "thing" she's purchasing, the "thing" of value is the paper the image is printed on, not the image (intellectual property) itself. In the current digital age where more people want the image in the form of an electronic file, rather than a print, they don't understand or appreciate that the image, regardless of how its delivered, still has value. For examples of this look at other creative products that have shifted from physical to digital delivery. I pay roughly the same amount whether I rent a DVD from the brick & mortal Blockbuster store or rent the movie as a digital download from Blockbuster OnDemand. I pay roughly the same amount per song whether I buy them on a CD or download them from iTunes. Furthermore, the ease with which people can now gain access to and illegally duplicate music, movies, and images, causes them to value those things even less.

The smart and successful business person (and photographers must view themselves as businesspeople) will adapt with the changing demands of the customer without selling himself short. If you can find a way to provide what the customer reasonably expects without giving away the farm, you should do well. What some photographers are doing is including a disc of images with higher-priced packages. They may also sell the disc ala carte with lower packages. Some will provide a disc of image a year or two later, because by that time the likelihood that the customers would order reprints have greatly diminished.

Using the example someone posted where the photographer charged $1600 for the wedding package, then wanted $500 for the disc of images... That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. $1600 isn't enough to support a family, unless he's shooting several weddings a week and running himself ragged. After taxes, business expenses (too numerous to list), the photographer will only take home a third of that, which is roughly equal to $13/hour. With that package he relies on post-shoot prints/products to make a reasonable living. $500 for a disc makes up for the lost print sales that he needed to make the wedding worth his while. To say that $500 isn't worth it is to say that the images themselves are worthless because they're not on paper, and as I explained before, the true value is in the image, not how it's delivered. If anything, a digital image should be more valuable than a print image, because with the digital file the customer can make as many prints as she likes at whatever sizes the resolution will allow. $500 for, say, 1500 images is like $.33 per image. That's a steal, especially considering that a single enlargement print or canvas can cost hundreds of dollars.

I just wanted to open people's eyes that it's not a "rip off" to sell the image files or to only include them in a higher priced package (one that has enough profit built-in that the photographer feels comfortable that he can feed his family and pay the mortgage). It's human nature to look for a bargain, but we shouldn't expect everything for nothing. We shouldn't get angry because a photographer isn't willing to sacrifice is family's well being so that we can get a freebie that we don't really appreciate.

excellent explanation

 

[Chikabowa]

From the initial client contact through the final delivery of products, an average wedding takes about forty hours of work. People focus only on the actual shooting part on the wedding day that they don't think about the initial contacts, meetings, planning, prep, travel, post-production, album design, album approval, image review, ordering, review of images from the lab and reprinting, packaging, etc.. It all adds up. Forty hours of work deserves forty hours of pay. The problem with photography has always been that the average consumer has no idea what professional photography is worth. If a photographer were to charge enough up-front to make his total time worthwhile, the average consumer would not understand. Therefore, photographers have been forced into a model where they charge a lower sitting fee or small package fee up front, then mark up the cost of prints and other products on the back end to make up for the value they've subsidized. It's really not an evil practice when you consider that the photographer has taken a risk by providing much of his time and effort up-front hoping and praying that when it's all said and done he will finally make a decent profit. The problem with this model is that it enforced the notion in the customer's head that the "thing" she's purchasing, the "thing" of value is the paper the image is printed on, not the image (intellectual property) itself. In the current digital age where more people want the image in the form of an electronic file, rather than a print, they don't understand or appreciate that the image, regardless of how its delivered, still has value. For examples of this look at other creative products that have shifted from physical to digital delivery. I pay roughly the same amount whether I rent a DVD from the brick & mortal Blockbuster store or rent the movie as a digital download from Blockbuster OnDemand. I pay roughly the same amount per song whether I buy them on a CD or download them from iTunes. Furthermore, the ease with which people can now gain access to and illegally duplicate music, movies, and images, causes them to value those things even less.

The smart and successful business person (and photographers must view themselves as businesspeople) will adapt with the changing demands of the customer without selling himself short. If you can find a way to provide what the customer reasonably expects without giving away the farm, you should do well. What some photographers are doing is including a disc of images with higher-priced packages. They may also sell the disc ala carte with lower packages. Some will provide a disc of image a year or two later, because by that time the likelihood that the customers would order reprints have greatly diminished.

Using the example someone posted where the photographer charged $1600 for the wedding package, then wanted $500 for the disc of images... That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. $1600 isn't enough to support a family, unless he's shooting several weddings a week and running himself ragged. After taxes, business expenses (too numerous to list), the photographer will only take home a third of that, which is roughly equal to $13/hour. With that package he relies on post-shoot prints/products to make a reasonable living. $500 for a disc makes up for the lost print sales that he needed to make the wedding worth his while. To say that $500 isn't worth it is to say that the images themselves are worthless because they're not on paper, and as I explained before, the true value is in the image, not how it's delivered. If anything, a digital image should be more valuable than a print image, because with the digital file the customer can make as many prints as she likes at whatever sizes the resolution will allow. $500 for, say, 1500 images is like $.33 per image. That's a steal, especially considering that a single enlargement print or canvas can cost hundreds of dollars.

I just wanted to open people's eyes that it's not a "rip off" to sell the image files or to only include them in a higher priced package (one that has enough profit built-in that the photographer feels comfortable that he can feed his family and pay the mortgage). It's human nature to look for a bargain, but we shouldn't expect everything for nothing. We shouldn't get angry because a photographer isn't willing to sacrifice is family's well being so that we can get a freebie that we don't really appreciate.

I heart you. A lot.

 

[Pugrpooh]

Thank you Grillmouster for the excellent explanation.

I think I've made my decision. The photographer I mentioned in my OP has a rate of $1200 for up to 6 hours, $75 for each additional hour. This includes approx. 300 4x6 photos in an album. I asked him if he had options that included the images on CD and for an additional $200 he would include one, or for the $1200 he would include one in lieu of the proof album.

I met with another photographer yesterday. His package that I would be interested in includes up to 4 hours coverage, a CD with the hi-res images (edited), and a video montage of 40 images of our choosing set to music. His price is $895. He also uses an assistant.

Both have samples of their work online. I was really leaning towards the first photographer ($1200), but when I went through his galleries, it seems like there was very minimal if any editing done. For example, white balance was off in some of the shots. They turned out too yellow. It doesn't look like any cropping was done. For one wedding, there were photos taken inside a two-story foyer next to a staircase. There was too much space around the subjects -- too much floor shown in front of them, part of the chandelier sticking down from the top of the photo. Some of the photos were too dark. There were a few in one gallery that had been converted to black and white, but not too many. Another one that comes to mind is a nice candid, maybe of the mother, laughing, but there was someone sitting near her, perhaps 3 feet away, and only half of her is in the picture. That other lady needed to be cropped out. I got the impression that he just took a lot of pictures and then just uploaded them online.

I liked the photos from the second photographer. There were better edited and he seemed to take more care in staging some of the photos. I didn't see any white balance issues. He shoots in RAW so they could be easily corrected. I've thought of a few more questions to ask him, but I will most likely go with this one.

If we had more time, I would interview more. But to be honest, the only reason they're getting married now is because she's pregnant. She has at least 2 1/2 more years going full time to get her master's in bioengineering. He has about the same to get his degree in marketing.

Money is not an issue and some of the photographers' work that I've seen costing $1800 and up I like a lot better, but with their situation, we're expecting to help them with their finances for a while and I'd rather put the money towards helping the baby. It doesn't help that he quit his job a couple of weeks ago. Although he has a job interview Monday.

I appreciate everyone's feedback! This weekend we're off to find bridesmaid's dresses and address invitations.

 

[KarenAylwood]

Thank you Grillmouster for the excellent explanation.

I think I've made my decision. The photographer I mentioned in my OP has a rate of $1200 for up to 6 hours, $75 for each additional hour. This includes approx. 300 4x6 photos in an album. I asked him if he had options that included the images on CD and for an additional $200 he would include one, or for the $1200 he would include one in lieu of the proof album.

I met with another photographer yesterday. His package that I would be interested in includes up to 4 hours coverage, a CD with the hi-res images (edited), and a video montage of 40 images of our choosing set to music. His price is $895. He also uses an assistant.

Both have samples of their work online. I was really leaning towards the first photographer ($1200), but when I went through his galleries, it seems like there was very minimal if any editing done. For example, white balance was off in some of the shots. They turned out too yellow. It doesn't look like any cropping was done. For one wedding, there were photos taken inside a two-story foyer next to a staircase. There was too much space around the subjects -- too much floor shown in front of them, part of the chandelier sticking down from the top of the photo. Some of the photos were too dark. There were a few in one gallery that had been converted to black and white, but not too many. Another one that comes to mind is a nice candid, maybe of the mother, laughing, but there was someone sitting near her, perhaps 3 feet away, and only half of her is in the picture. That other lady needed to be cropped out. I got the impression that he just took a lot of pictures and then just uploaded them online.

I liked the photos from the second photographer. There were better edited and he seemed to take more care in staging some of the photos. I didn't see any white balance issues. He shoots in RAW so they could be easily corrected. I've thought of a few more questions to ask him, but I will most likely go with this one.

If we had more time, I would interview more. But to be honest, the only reason they're getting married now is because she's pregnant. She has at least 2 1/2 more years going full time to get her master's in bioengineering. He has about the same to get his degree in marketing.

Money is not an issue and some of the photographers' work that I've seen costing $1800 and up I like a lot better, but with their situation, we're expecting to help them with their finances for a while and I'd rather put the money towards helping the baby. It doesn't help that he quit his job a couple of weeks ago. Although he has a job interview Monday.

I appreciate everyone's feedback! This weekend we're off to find bridesmaid's dresses and address invitations.

I also liked GrillMousters response. I'm not engaged but have been talking about it with my DBF, and attended a few local photography club meetings- one of which was on wedding photography. Also in the past year I've been to 10+ weddings and have seen a LOT of wedding photography I've been constantly disappointed by wedding photography (even ones that cost $2500+). There's one photographer I'm pretty excited about- but he's been published, teaches seminars, etc and starts at $4900. I've kind of resigned myself to the fact that if I want pictures I'm going to love I need to spend the money. But what I think is "good" photography is different than what the average person would think is good. Many people in the general public would love some of what I think is just "ok" but that's because I know about the things you mentioned- whited balance, composition, etc. You're likely pickier than most would be just because you're somewhat educated about photography.

Have you talked much with your daughter about who to choose? Each photographer has their own style and she may like something different than you. I agree that chipping in for the baby, etc would be a better use of your money in this situation. Some people think the photographer is just something you should have to capture the moment, whereas others think of it as much more than that. Those who put more value on the photographer will be willing to cut elsewhere to put more money towards it.

Best wishes to the couple and their new baby I hope everything works out and I'm sure the wedding will be beautiful

 

[rtphokie]

We're planning DD's wedding which will be August 14th. Not much time to plan and get everything lined up. I've never had to deal with professional photographers before.

She called the photographer who took her senior pics. He and his dad had a couple of camera stores in town for at least 50 years, but they closed the last store about 7-8 years ago. He's not in the photography business full time anymore, so I thought he would have the date available and he is willing to photograph her wedding. He emailed his portfolio and a contract to look over.

I'm wondering if it's customary not to give the digital files to the customer. Is that something that is negotiable? I'm planning on taking a lot of pictures at the reception, but I'm not during the ceremony. I was hoping to experiment with some, making them black and white, cropping, etc.

Should we keep looking around or is this what they will all do?

TIA! I imagine it will be a pretty stressful 6 weeks until the wedding so the sooner we can line everything up the better! We've only been planning full tilt for a couple of weeks.

One good thing -- I'll get the bride and groom pics for the scavenger hunt!

Some photographers include the digital files, some will sell them to you, some flat out refuse to provide the digital files in any form. Those that will include/sell them to you may only provide reduced size ones (suitable for sharing on Facebook but not really suitable for printing). If you do get digital files, be sure to get a waiver signed by the photographer or you'll have trouble printing the files anywhere but your own home. Ask for several copies all hand signed just to be safe (I've had endless problems at Walgreens including having a clerk insist that copies of a waiver was not acceptable, it must be hand signed in a different color ink).

Personally, I wouldn't deal with a photographer who wont provide digital files at any price. Its a bit of a red flag to other problems down the road with that photographer. If they are that inflexible, they might just see it as their art more than your daughter's wedding. That's a broad brush to paint with here but there are lot of wedding photographers out there, but you've got enough to worry about, why add a potential attitude problem to your day's worries. Just sayin'

My wife and I also got married before the days of digital. For our 10th anniversary, my in-laws bought us the negatives from our wedding (the photog's policy was that he wouldn't sell them for 10 years). It was a very thoughtful gift that I shudder to think how much they spent, but they are locked away in a safe deposit box and we've done absolutely nothing with them.

Warning, totally unsolicited advice follow, and from an overly practical male point of view none-the-less:
As you go through this process, think back to how many times you've looked at your wedding photos or your parent's wedding photos. If you are like most people, there probably are 1 or 2 that you have framed on a dresser or in a scrapbook and the album gets opened every couple years if you are lucky. Focus on getting those photos. Focus on getting photos with family. Those you'll cherish. The pensive one of the bride in front of the window or closeups of the engagement ring, not so much. This is for your family, not for the photog to exercise his/her art or duplicate every hip pose that is on display at the bridal shows and magazines. In 10 years the dresses and hair will look dated, but the photography style doesn't have to be.

 

[rtphokie]

I'm planning on taking a lot of pictures at the reception, but I'm not during the ceremony.

One other bit of unsolicited advice. Don't experience a once in a lifetime moment through a viewfinder. Leave your camera at home and enjoy the day. There will be plenty of cameras at the ceremony and reception, take advantage of that.

Keep your photographer close by during the reception, point out shots you want. That's what you are paying them for. Have some business cards made up (http://vistaprint.com for dirt cheep ones) with your email, phone, address etc. and "We'd really appreciate copies of the photos you take at Little Susies's wedding" and hand it to anyone with a camera. Follow-up later if you have to.

 

[Janell]

We got married in 2008 at WDW. We had two photographers. One on the wedding day that was a non Disney photographer. He was great. We like his style, very tradional with great candid photos. My husband wouldn't hire a photographer unless we got digital rights and all photos on DVD. Which the photographer I liked did offer that at no extra charge. He just had it as part of his package. I thought his prices were very good, sorry I forget the cost right now. We also got any shot the photographer took, he did take out any that were blurry or shots of the ground. lol But if they weren't the best shoots, we still got them on DVD. He printed a bunch of different sizes, and it was put in an album. Very nicely done.

Our second photographer was a Disney Photographer, due to we were doing a MK shoot at 6:00am. Disney only allows their photographers to do those shoots. The package was regular Disney high prices, but still worth it for getting to ware your wedding attire in the MK. We got 12 4x6 photos in an album and the rest of the 51 shots we got were just loose. Now they took way more then 51 shots, but we were not allowed them nor did we ever see them. Again its Disney not shocked. We were not allowed the rights to our photos. In fact my husband worked with Disney Lawyers so if he wanted to use a photo they took in a book he writes later on in his career he can do so. But that took awhile to get. Again its Disney Im not shocked and it was worth it even with out the rights to the photos.

Now I wouldn't choose a photographer that didn't allow me the rights to my wedding photos and who wouldn't give my DVD's of all the photos. There are photographers out there that will do all this. Just have to look for them or know to look for them. This information wasn't something I knew about, it was my husband who knew.

If you need more help, check out the wedding threads on this board. Yeah its for Disney weddings, but not all disney weddings. And lets face it women love to chat about weddings. They are all so helpful from choosing flowers to photographers. I hope your daughter has a wonderful wedding. One peice of advice was told to me that was very helpful. Slow down, take it all in. Because a wedding day flys by faster then a Disney Vacation.