| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/08/2005 04:00:00 PM · #26 |
| I think Eric's price structure is right on. |
|
|
|
01/08/2005 04:25:40 PM · #27 |
Part of my 2005 goals are to do two weddings. One will be done with another professional photographer here in the area and the other will be done solo for free to a deserving couple. I'm doing this for the sole purpose of finding out exactly what is involved in it.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2005 06:35:19 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
800 pictures at a wedding seems incredibly over the top!
At our wedding, the photographer took just about 300 images. |
I took 1,000 + pictures at the zoo the other day.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2005 07:21:58 PM · #29 |
My wedding photographer took 144 pictures, over a 4 hour wedding. Only one shot was not a keeper.
Quantity isn't often a good indicator of quality. |
|
|
|
01/08/2005 07:52:25 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by EddyG:
That's because wedding photographers are one of the most overpaid jobs in the U.S. |
That really irritates me. (not you EddyG) but the fact that people think that. WHen you only shoot one or two weddings a week as a maximum and weigh in the cost of your time before hand and after including editing, and your equipment, materials, printing, etc..it's ridiculous. I would like to think that my clients are more informed than that. Since I make sure they know how much time and effort is involved. Anyway...sorry..I'm ranting. lol |
If you read the section of that article that talks about wedding photographers, it says that the ones who are overpaid are only the ones who just do it for the "extra income". Says they should leave the work to the ones who really care about shooting weddings and producing great images from them. |
|
|
|
01/08/2005 10:18:59 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by EddyG:
That's because wedding photographers are one of the most overpaid jobs in the U.S. |
That really irritates me. (not you EddyG) but the fact that people think that. WHen you only shoot one or two weddings a week as a maximum and weigh in the cost of your time before hand and after including editing, and your equipment, materials, printing, etc..it's ridiculous. I would like to think that my clients are more informed than that. Since I make sure they know how much time and effort is involved. Anyway...sorry..I'm ranting. lol |
If you read the section of that article that talks about wedding photographers, it says that the ones who are overpaid are only the ones who just do it for the "extra income". Says they should leave the work to the ones who really care about shooting weddings and producing great images from them. |
So, according to that article you can only care about producing great images if that is your only source of income?? I'd beg to differ. :)
|
|
|
|
01/08/2005 10:29:22 PM · #32 |
I think that article is funny.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2005 11:55:01 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
My wedding photographer took 144 pictures, over a 4 hour wedding. Only one shot was not a keeper.
Quantity isn't often a good indicator of quality. |
Was everything posed? Did he capture the dancing and drinking and action and music and laughter and tears?
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 12:45:41 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
Originally posted by Gordon:
My wedding photographer took 144 pictures, over a 4 hour wedding. Only one shot was not a keeper.
Quantity isn't often a good indicator of quality. |
Was everything posed? Did he capture the dancing and drinking and action and music and laughter and tears? |
Yea, I was going to say the same thing. Sounds like he just did traditional formal stuff, nothing wrong with that if that's what the couple wants but it's rare these days.
Back to the article, I have to agree with the post which disagreed with the statement that basically only fulltime wedding photographers are worth their salt. Stereotypes pulled out of their arses doesn't negate the fact it was probably said by full time photographers wanting to give potential clients another reason to hire them, and doubt others.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 12:50:02 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by EddyG:
That's because wedding photographers are one of the most overpaid jobs in the U.S. |
That really irritates me. (not you EddyG) but the fact that people think that. WHen you only shoot one or two weddings a week as a maximum and weigh in the cost of your time before hand and after including editing, and your equipment, materials, printing, etc..it's ridiculous. I would like to think that my clients are more informed than that. Since I make sure they know how much time and effort is involved. Anyway...sorry..I'm ranting. lol |
If you read the section of that article that talks about wedding photographers, it says that the ones who are overpaid are only the ones who just do it for the "extra income". Says they should leave the work to the ones who really care about shooting weddings and producing great images from them. |
So, according to that article you can only care about producing great images if that is your only source of income?? I'd beg to differ. :) |
No, that's not the way I read the article. If a photographer is shooting weddings (or anything else for that matter) and they have no interest in weddings beyond the money, they should leave wedding photography to those who DO care about more than just the paycheck because their lack of enthusiasm for the subject will come through in the final images.
That does NOT mean that the only photographers who are good at weddings ONLY shoot weddings. I know plenty who don't. My wedding photographer shoots mostly corporate stuff but does a few weddings a year because he enjoys them. The photographer has to have a deeper connection to the subject than just to his wallet.
Message edited by author 2005-01-09 00:56:13. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:37:20 AM · #36 |
Well tell me where I fit then. LOL.
I shoot weddings part-time and only for the money, although I like all my clients, and care about the photos and their satisfaction. But I have no desire to be a wedding photographer.
I guess that must make me a bad person? Or just a bad photographer?
lol |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:41:59 AM · #37 |
i shot one wedding for free and i can guarantee you that i would never do it again. i shot the rehearsal, 3 location shootings the day of, the ceremony and the reception. i was completely and totally exhausted, both mentally and physically. wedding photographers should be pain at least as much as pro football players...it's almost as strenuous! :)
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 02:27:47 AM · #38 |
| yes..it is very hard work...straining. Also, I compare it to sports photography with its stop action and in the worst of lighting conditions. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 12:59:42 PM · #39 |
I agree with Gordon.
I haven't shot a wedding since the early 90's, and I've never shot a digital wedding. I apprenticed with a fine photgrapher, and when we discussed the price list, he told me not to short myself, but not to short the client either.
At that time, for a five hour wedding and a 20 page 8x10 album, the minimum cost was $1000 dollars.
I shot 150 6x7 frames, and generally showed 100 in a proof book so they could choose twenty. I made about $400 on a basic package. I was up front with the customer - if they wanted more pictures, they should order them up front as it was cheaper. Getting reprints took more of my time, which was paid for. An ala carte 5x7 was $15, an 8x10 was $25 and and an 11 x 14 was $35. Wallets were printed in 8x10 sheets and priced as an 8x10. There was very little need for cropping and none for editing. The printer, of course, made made adjustments in printing.
I spent an hour with the bride, an hour with the bride and bridesmaid, an hour with the men, the wedding ceremony, and an hour after the wedding. I let them talk me into 'donating' time at the reception *grin*, becuase that's where I made my money. 'Oh look, Johnny's dancing with Grandma.' Several people want copies of that one (at ala carte prices). A 5x7 cost me about $2, so I made $13 on each ala carte print. My time is worth it. I generally sold a minimum of 30 ala cartes, mostly 5x7. I could also offer large canvas prints, etc., priced according to my cost (generally a 50% profit).
Wedding photography is a business. I can see more images and less time with digital cameras, but a good photographer is an artist, and their time should be paid for.
Shooting 800 images is, in my opinion, snapshooting. For 5 hours, that's 160 frames an hour, almost one every twenty seconds. Snapshooting. I cry when I see the quality of images a lot of people get because they went cheap. In ten or twenty years, those images will be all they have of that wedding, of many family members. I still (occasionally) have people coming to me and asking, 'Do you still have that picture of so-and-so?' She passed away, and we don't have a good picture of her.' They're very pleased when I can say 'Yes.'
Don't undersell yourself, if you're good. Your customer, in the long run, will be happy. If you're not good, the customer will never forget it. My mother-in-law hired our photographer, and to this day I'd probably try to strangle the *!%$ if I ever saw him |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:20:24 PM · #40 |
Oh, yeah... Don't forget the time I spent going to the site of the wedding in advance, and scoping out locations for 'special' shots, taking light measurements and planning for any special items that might be needed.
That takes time that should be reimbursed also. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:34:04 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
Originally posted by Gordon:
My wedding photographer took 144 pictures, over a 4 hour wedding. Only one shot was not a keeper.
Quantity isn't often a good indicator of quality. |
Was everything posed? Did he capture the dancing and drinking and action and music and laughter and tears? |
About 30 were posed. I'm actually a good friend with her now and I've assisted her shooting weddings. She has a great eye and good timing along with many years of experience. I'm continually amazed to see her proof books
Message edited by author 2005-01-09 13:39:51.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:34:38 PM · #42 |
" I can see more images and less time with digital cameras, but a good photographer is an artist, and their time should be paid for. "
The thing with digital is that the expectations by the client is huge now. They expect all sorts of post-processing and editing. I actually charge more for my post-editing time than the shooting time, only because I have years of editing experience (most Brides want perfect skin and no bags under their eyes in the final product) and it's very very time consuming. But the expectation is definetly there.
Clients are getting to the point where, even if they're 250lbs, they want to look like skinny models in their wedding photos. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:36:43 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
...Clients are getting to the point where, even if they're 250lbs, they want to look like skinny models in their wedding photos. |
That's kinda tough to do even for the most talented Photoshopper! ;) :D
|
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:39:56 PM · #44 |
I took 1,000 + pictures at the zoo the other day.
If you were at the zoo for ten hours, that's about 1.5 snapshots a minute. Next time, limit yourself to 70 well-considered frames over the entire visit and see what happens.
As an experiment.
Message edited by author 2005-01-09 13:42:44. |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:40:52 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
...Clients are getting to the point where, even if they're 250lbs, they want to look like skinny models in their wedding photos. |
That's kinda tough to do even for the most talented Photoshopper! ;) :D |
My point exactly. I've never been a film photographer, so I can only speak for my digital clients, but they expect a lot of bells and whistles..basically, they expect you to perform miracles.
"Uh, sorry ma'am, I don't have time to take 4" off your waist in each shot". |
|
|
|
01/09/2005 01:56:02 PM · #46 |
Goldberry
If you can post-edit, then great! Just don't do it for free. Of course, I had a retoucher available (whose time was paid for). People have always expected miracles. That's nothing new.
Fathers of the bride always expected group photos to last about 15 minutes. "I've got people waiting at a reception, dammit!" "Then have the bride sign the release agreeing she won't get these photos she contracted for, and we'll stop." "Daddy, shut up!"
Sound familiar?
Educate them in advance, as you're selling yourself. Don't promise what you can't deliver, and if their expectations are too great, be willing to say "I'm not your photographer'. Don't bring stress on yourself.
Message edited by author 2005-01-09 14:29:05. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/15/2025 10:09:23 AM EST.
