| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2007 07:55:45 PM · #51 |
Karma, I agree with you... and I am shooting a $500 wedding myself for an older bride the first weekend of Sept. She's in her 60s and can't afford my usual prices. I guarantee that the work will be every bit as good though.
The beauty of the camera is this. Until its invention the only people that could afford to have art of themselves were the rich. It was immediately turned on the common man. As we all know, the most beautiful photos are not of models or the elite, but the common person - a grandmother with her grandbaby, for instance or a photo journalistic essay of a mother and her son (as seen in another thread).
If my photo ventures were all about the money, I wouldn't be doing this. Really, I'd be more happy as an artist than a "working" photographer, but I haven't grown too accustomed to not eating yet (as can be seen by my recent SPs :-) ). But, if I find myself working too much or doing things just for the cash, I back off. I love the art too much to turn it into a photo factory.
Message edited by author 2007-08-19 20:00:20.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2007 08:03:16 PM · #52 |
Maybe I should quit shooting weddings and write a book about it... LOL
|
|
|
|
08/19/2007 08:35:01 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Maybe I should quit shooting weddings and write a book about it... LOL |
I want the motion picture exclusive rights to that one!
Staring Antonio Banderas as the wedding photographer.
Greg Kinnear and Meg Ryan as the B&G
and the gang of wedding photographer critics led by James Wood, Steve Buscemi and Christopher Walkin
Message edited by author 2007-08-19 20:35:46. |
|
|
|
08/19/2007 08:36:10 PM · #54 |
If you know everything there is to know about wedding photography, then why are you sitting on the internet whining and complaining, you should be booked so deep that you dont have time to breath between shoots and edits.
So I would say its safe to assume that everyone here is constantly learning. The day you stop learning is the day you become stale and your work becomes boring.
I have never shot a wedding. I want to. I feel confident that I can handle my equipment well enough to get great shots. I also know that I will be in a little bit over my head at first, but what better way to learn...throw a kid in the water and its sink or swim time.
I dont think anyone has the right to tell anyone else that they shouldn't be shooting this or that. I would say that most people who will attempt wedding photog will be strong to very strong in their knowledge. We all need to do that first wedding to pop our cherry, or else whats the point?
I rule. |
|
|
|
08/19/2007 08:36:20 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by kolasi:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Maybe I should quit shooting weddings and write a book about it... LOL |
I want the motion picture exclusive rights to that one!
Staring Antonio Banderas as the wedding photographer.
Greg Kinnear and Meg Ryan as the B&G
and the gang of wedding photographer critics led by James Wood, Steve Buscemi and Christopher Walkin |
LMAO ... sweet cast :-)
|
|
|
|
08/19/2007 08:38:47 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by kolasi:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Maybe I should quit shooting weddings and write a book about it... LOL |
I want the motion picture exclusive rights to that one!
Staring Antonio Banderas as the wedding photographer.
Greg Kinnear and Meg Ryan as the B&G
and the gang of wedding photographer critics led by James Wood, Steve Buscemi and Christopher Walkin |
LMAO ... sweet cast :-) |
LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
08/19/2007 08:40:32 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I can't afford to eat at Outback, or a new Lexus. I buy my clothes at WalMart not Macys.
I also met with a bride that was getting married at a very exclusing location, showed me her new BMW convertible, talked about her honeymoon to the caribean and then asked for my cheapest package and said that was too much.
|
Oh, I'm TOTALLY not saying it doesn't happen!! And that sucks. I'm just saying that it's possible some people might be on a budget that requires cheaper photography or none at all.
edit: As Karmat pointed out :-)
Message edited by author 2007-08-19 20:41:56. |
|
|
|
08/19/2007 08:47:03 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
What should I charge? is seen as a thread title how often? |
Indeed. Sometimes though people just ask for tips on *how best* to take pictures and they get a lot of stuff about what to charge when they don't want it.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Business is business, |
Except when doing a wedding for a friend, and then it's not necessarly business anymore.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Anyone ever refuse a raise? Ask the boss for less money? Take the lower paying job? Then why do it with your photography? |
Makes sense, for sure! But if I worked as a cashier at 7-11, I wouldn't ask for $40/hour, and if I got offered that I'd figure something was wrong.
Let's say that hypothetically I've been "evaluated" by a professional wedding photographer and magically he said that my potential wedding photos were as good as his. I might be uncomfortable, even with that knowledge, charging a higher price for my very first wedding, simply BECAUSE it is my first wedding. Does that make any sense? Or if it is a friend, even a friend with a really big budget, I might discount the price.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that a lot of things can *potentially* factor into pricing, not just how good the quality of your photos are. |
|
|
|
08/19/2007 09:05:57 PM · #59 |
Yes! Excellent. In fact, my sister, who is getting married on September 1st had 2 options:
1) Have her engagement photo taken by the photographer
2) Get a CD of all her photos, an no engagement photo.
I told her I'd take the photo.
1) I've never done this before
2) People on this site offered me tips
3) The shoot was sucessful and I think I took some of the best photos I have ever taken.
4) My sister was very pleased.
Hence, my support, by example, for your point.
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
This has been building for a while, but it's become quite aggravating to me. It's the general attitude of some people around here that if you have never shot a weeding you shouldn't be doing it. Basically, if ya don't know how, you should never learn.
|
|
|
|
|
08/19/2007 09:06:38 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by klstover:
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that a lot of things can *potentially* factor into pricing, not just how good the quality of your photos are. |
True, there are many types of clients. As a wedding photographer you need to find "your type" of clients. There are wedding photogrphers that shoot 2 or 3 weddings a weekend for $500 each. There are wedding photographers who shoot 1 wedding a weekend for $7000. Is the quality of the $7000 photographer better? Well more than likely yes. But.. who can judge art?
When it comes down to it, shoot what you want. As an artist you have the potential to make alot of money photographing weddings. But if you feel comfortable charging $500 well.. There are people on budgets that are in need of your services.
But remember this, when you charge 7 grand for a wedding chances are you wont be shooting at the local fire hall. You wont even have to work as hard. Location is a major part of photography. Also people who spend that much on photography are generally interested in art and photography more than the person who spends $500. So they are going to trust you as an artist.
I have shot both type of weddings, I am not saying there is anything wrong with getting married at a fire hall. I'm just saying they are differnt types of clients, no better, no worse, just different.
You need to find "your" niche. No one elses.... yours
Travis |
|
|
|
08/19/2007 09:15:49 PM · #61 |
I think what people need to realize is that not everyone is going to shell out thousands for a wedding. Yes, I said FOR A WEDDING, not even just 'for the wedding photographer.' Young brides, especially, don't have a big budget, and 'once in a lifetime experience' or not, they KNOW that they are not going to have a magazine wedding; they're going to have something that is memorable and fun but simple and, yes, inexpensive. Should they not get married? Should they simply elope? Are you, professional photographer, going to tell them to wait and save for years just so they can blow ten thousand dollars to have a memorable day? Thirteen years ago, I was one of those cheap brides myself; I loved my wedding day, I had a great time, I have a lot of beautiful memories (including photos shot for free by a friend). No, these are not wedding photographs that are going to be in a museum or a magazine. But they're ALL I WAS GOING TO HAVE AND I WAS OK WITH THAT. There was simply *no option* to do otherwise (bar saving for a couple of years), and if there had been, we wouldn't have done it. Ten thousand dollars, in those days, was a down payment on a house, and if we'd had it we'd certainly have been using it for the house and not for what is essentially a party.
So, when a friend of my husband's asked me last year if I would shoot the pictures at his daughter's wedding, I told him (and her) numerous times up front that I was not a professional, I was just a hobbyist, and if they wanted a friend who enjoyed taking pictures taking the photos, that's fine, but if they wanted a professional, they'd have to pay for one and that person would not be me. They said it was me or nobody, words with which I was quite familiar, and I gamely went in there and did the best job I could for them, and things turned out OK. Not magazine- or museum-worthy, but they knew up front that that wasn't going to happen, and they were happy with what they got.
I am flabbergasted sometimes at the way some people simply don't realize that there is a world full of people who don't have the money for luxuries. Or rather, that there are people who would classify 'professional wedding photographer' as a luxury (or 'dinner at a $15-a-plate restaurant' or 'lunch with the kids at McDonalds when we're out grocery shopping' or 'new school clothes each year' -- pick your everyday expense and there's someone, someone normal and employed and happy, to whom it's a luxury). These people find ways to have fun and get by and be happy. One of these ways is having friends photograph weddings. |
|
|
|
08/19/2007 10:01:23 PM · #62 |
As just a few points of interest... my sister and her husband spent about $1000 TOTAL on their wedding. That's all they had to work with. This was long ago, and the "photography" was me with a film camera, no professional lights, no nothing. I paid to have them developed (remember developing?) and for the ones they wanted printed for themselves and family. No big fights, no "oh no! You ruined my wedding day!". All good, and it was nice to contribute, even though I cringe now at some of those shots. (And I don't even have any of them - I think my mom has them.)
I recently attended a wedding where I simply took my camera and stayed out of the way of the guy that was hired. I had a good time, the B&G had a good time, the photographer was very laid back and a nice guy. I haven't had a chance to look at his shots yet (they're posted but I can't get to 'em due to internet issues) but I suspect we have a lot of similar stuff. He didn't have anything all that fancy either - had me beat on flash, though. The bride had asked me if I'd do it - I said no, she'd better hire someone. But she didn't put a lot of emphasis on pictures - just not that important to her. She spent her money on the reception, because that WAS what was important to her - and it was the most fun wedding reception I've ever been to. Her memories of that will be from the disposable point-and-shoots she had on the tables - and that's just the kind of thing she wanted, too.
I guess the point is that not all weddings are tens of thousands of dollars worth of extravaganza, and not all B&Gs have the same desires of their photographers. Room for everyone, really. |
|
|
|
08/19/2007 10:11:54 PM · #63 |
Since this is a rant, just wanted to say that me and my wife dished out 600 euros (i think thats like $8.500 US dollars nowadays) for our wedding photographer and all the pictures sucketh.
But now 3 years after, we look at them and still have just the best memories, of course always adding about how bad the photos were |
|
|
|
08/19/2007 10:13:55 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:
And Spazmo99....my mother is proud of what I have been able and going to accomplish. You're a jerk for saying something like that. |
Since you don't seem to care to actually read what I write, I don't know why I bother, yet here I am again.
I never said your mother wasn't proud of you or suggested that she shouldn't be. You're the one who brought the subject of your mom into this. My only contribution was to suggest that she would find it rude to tell someone that they should pass on shooting a wedding when they are ill-prepared to undertake a project of that magnitude.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2007 10:17:45 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Business is business, |
Except when doing a wedding for a friend, and then it's not necessarly business anymore.
|
Until the friend with the camera screws up the picture and then the friends are friends no more. |
|
|
|
08/19/2007 10:28:03 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I am shooting a $500 wedding myself for an older bride the first weekend of Sept. She's in her 60s and can't afford my usual prices. I guarantee that the work will be every bit as good though. |
Does that mean she gets the jacuzzi treatment too?
|
|
|
|
08/19/2007 10:36:54 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I am shooting a $500 wedding myself for an older bride the first weekend of Sept. She's in her 60s and can't afford my usual prices. I guarantee that the work will be every bit as good though. |
Does that mean she gets the jacuzzi treatment too? |
Uh, no... LOL...
|
|
|
|
08/19/2007 11:12:32 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Any chance that somewhere amidst the insanity we're actually going to see some of Buckeye's work? |
You can see in my profile but I'm not about to post my wedding photos for the mere fact that I don't to be critized over what I did and didn't do and be made an example of to everyone. I'm sure Spaz and Prof and just waiting for that. |
Wedding Pics |
|
|
|
08/19/2007 11:24:04 PM · #69 |
Those look pretty damn good to me. Not bad for an "amateur".
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 12:19:25 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Business is business, |
Except when doing a wedding for a friend, and then it's not necessarly business anymore.
|
Until the friend with the camera screws up the picture and then the friends are friends no more. |
Yes. Obviously something you'd have to weigh the risks on. |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 08:40:29 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Somebody has to take their picture.
|
Who says?
No really - who HAS to take their picture? Is there a law or something? Is there some right in the constitution I missed?
[quote]
Originally posted by karmat:
You know, there are people in this world that cannot afford more than 5 or 6 hundred for wedding pictures. (For real. They exist. They are not exaggerating or trying to cheat you out of $9,500.)
|
I can't afford lots of things - private schools, BMWs, a lawn care service, a maid, to have my car detailed every month and I'm not exaggerating! Did you notice that they're all luxury items? Yep, professional photography is a luxury item too. Some people can't afford it. Perhaps welfare will help them with that, but It's not my responsibility to provide services to those that can't afford them.
People pay for what is important to them. The more important, the more they pay, the less important the less they pay. If they don't want to pay for it, then they don't get it. At your next wedding ask how much the pastor, church, food, flowers, cake and DJ and the like cost and see if anyone else is working for slave wages, or if they discounted their services. Yes, it does happen, and I've shot weddings at the VFW where mom caters the food. The photography was important to them so they spent money on it and not on the caterer.
Originally posted by karmat:
I do not "advertise" myself as a wedding photographer. Heck, I don't advertise myself as a photographer. It is a side venture for me. I figure I'll photograph all the bread crumbs that ya'll who are more worthy drop and don't want to waste your time on.
|
So your attitude is that you charge less because it's only a side venture, not worth as much...does that mean you don't take it seriously then? Oh, you DO take it seriously? Then how come you sell it for 1/2 price, on 'clearance' like it was an 'irregular' or damaged item?
Side venture...What you're saying then is if you do it part time is has no real value (or less value)? Next time you go to a store ask if the person waiting on you is full time or part time - offer to pay less if they're part time and see what they say.
It's not that I don't consider someone's pictures or wedding 'worthy' or not - it's not my decision - it's THEIR decision to hire me and pay what I ask.
Originally posted by karmat:
Shoot, I think I come away from this thread learning that if they can't afford 20K for photography, they probably don't deserve to get married.
|
That's an extreme exaggeration. If they don't want to spend $3500 on photography then they have the option to spend $2000, or even $1000. I suggest you (or anyone) charge THE LOCAL AVERAGE PRICE IN YOUR AREA. . That is what every other successful business does - call hair salons, car repair places, plumbers, dog groomers, reception halls, florists - you'll get some variation in price and a few places will be high end and priced like it, but there will be a 'normal average price' for these services.
Message edited by author 2007-08-20 08:50:18.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 09:10:52 AM · #72 |
| Interesting post. I went to a wedding recently and the photog was a friend of the couple who had done a number of weddings before. He was using a 300D with a very nice bit of L glass. Looking at the shots a little later I was frankly a bit shocked by some very elementary mistakes and apparent lack of knowledge of DoF. Most of them were just OK. But as I understand it the b&g were extremely happy with the photos. I guess people don't always look at these shots with the same critical eye as DPC-ers. |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 09:21:57 AM · #73 |
| I think one thing we seem to forget that is why we all want technically perfect pictures, the "average" viewer doesnt wouldn't really know that we shot it on f5.6 isntead of f1.8 in this shot. They tend to notice more obvious things like its crooked or my eyes are closed, things like that. Thats just my experience with the work ive done (non wedding). I mean weve never gotten a complaint like "Gosh, I would have really preferred more bokeh on this shot" |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 09:22:28 AM · #74 |
Prof - I am trying to figure out exactly where you are coming from.
I think that what you are saying is that people should treat wedding photography professionally and get the right training in advance, rather than seek gradual âon the jobâ improvement or an epiphany through a âsink or swimâ approach.
I agree that this would be a good way to obtain the necessary skills, and that it is almost certainly the safest. However, I think that you perhaps overstate the case when you suggest that this should be the only way.
I see no problem with people practising on live weddings, as long as the B&G know what to expect. If the B&G either donât care that much about having the perfect album, or if they cannot afford the price of a pro, then engaging a serious amateur is likely still to result in better pictures than relying solely on your guests to capture the moment between them (and I have been to that kind of wedding).
It is also reasonable for a serious amateur to charge less than the full commercial fee â there are real costs involved (cost of equipment, depreciation, transport, etc etc), and a considerable time investment. While you may not have noticed it, expectations do tend to go up with an increase in price. In addition, as you yourself say, it âTAKES TIME AND EFFORTâ ( ;-) ) (and investment in equipment) to get the shots, so working on a cost or near cost basis for a few weddings may represent a similar dedication to that which you identify.
Where I agree with you and disagree with the OP is that rank amateurs to photography (and sometimes the severely photographically-challenged) are usually poorly placed to take advantage of whatever advice might be given to them in a forum like DPC. There are so many issues to think about, let alone wedding organisational issues on top, that the advice âthink twiceâ can be very good advice (even if it is sometimes given in harsher terms than that).
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 09:23:19 AM · #75 |
| Also - no mattter what your budget is, there is a photographer for you. Look on craigslist, youll see photogs in the thousands and youll see them as low as 500. I saw a guy yesterday on there that charges $500 for 6 hours plus you get the cd with all your images. |
|
