What's the problem with shooting weddings?

08/29/2007 06:02:08 PM · #51

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Yeah, about 200-250 proofs is ideal, 300 max. Personally, about 450-500 total shots for an entire day is about all I'm going to shoot to start with.

I show a lot more than that ... but most of them are in the "candids" folder.

I separate all of the proofs into separate folders such as: Engagements, Bridals, Preparation, Ceremony, Newlyweds (bride and groom), Portraits, Cake Cutting, Bouquet Toss, Dancing, Car (if I catch anyone decorating the car), Candis and the final Departure when the B&G leave.

That way ... even though I'm delivering tons of proofs, they can concentrate only on what they really want to see. And if they really want to see candids (perhaps a long lost friend that showed up), who am I to decide not to include them? So any candid shots that "look decent" get put online.

I've had customers purchase candid shots long after the wedding because ... a child passed away, a son went to Iraq, etc. So I keep them online forever too. It's a lot of pictures, but hey... if someone decides to buy them, it's a little more money for me and it didn't cost me anything extra to host them online. (that should remain true as long as smugmug continues the "unlimited storage" policy, if that ever changes, I may very well change my ways!!!)

Message edited by author 2007-08-29 18:02:27.

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/29/2007 06:38:04 PM · #52

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Damn, where are you guys getting these hellacious customers? I don't miss many shots, but I've never been blamed because Little Johnny ate too much cake and was being a little bastard or Uncle Joe got snockered and passed out.

Just out of curiosity, how many weddings are you shooting in a given year?

About 15 a year, no more than 20. I don't want more than that.

My ultimate goal is to shoot less weddings, but charge more. It's slowly working out for me.

Why dont you put some of the better pictures of weddings on your website then? Not one to knock another working togs work, but you are hardly selling yourself with the ones you have.

harsh but fair.

fotomann_forever

08/29/2007 07:03:29 PM · #53

Because I can't settle on a design of my site long enough to complete it... LOL. My web site is a piece of crap all around, quite frankly. It's something I should hand over to someone more qualified than myself.

I haven't gotten any work from my website... mostly it's word of mouth that's kept me going. But yeah, I do need to work on it for many reasons.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

08/29/2007 08:45:38 PM · #54

Originally posted by alanfreed:

I have to say that every bride (and even mother, for that matter) has been super to deal with, and I've done enough of them now that I have no lingering anxiety over doing weddings. In fact I kinda look forward to them, even though they are a good deal of work.

See... that's how I feel about the weddings I've done. I hear so many horror stories that it makes me start to wonder if maybe the photographer's own personality plays a role in how it all works out. I know I get along great with just about anyone I meet .. so perhaps that's part of the reason I have nothing but happy stories to tell.

Creature

Nikon D70s

08/29/2007 08:58:05 PM · #55

Originally posted by kellian:

For the record, I would like to say that this is the most volatile subject I've ever read about on the forums here. Such negativity. It actually started giving me anxiety and making me second guess my chosen path... but then I remembered that there are people who do like shooting weddings and I focused on that. Really, where is the spirit of encouragement?

Don't get me wrong by my post in this thread -- I thoroughly enjoyed my first wedding experience. The bride and groom and their families were great, everyone was pretty laid back during the ceremony, I missed a couple of key shots (since I was alone) and the B&G were happy to re-enact them after the ceremony. It was exhausting (since I was alone) but the bride wanted a more candid style, so I mostly used the 70-200 and kept my distance for everything but the formals. Then again, I properly set their expectations before they even decided to hire me, and then I delivered far above their expectations on the day of and in the quality of my photos.

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/30/2007 01:56:30 AM · #56

The reason you hear so many horror stories is partly because it is true, Many brides, grooms, mother's of the bride and other people of the couple can be under a very stressful and emotional roller coaster during that day. Those that normally would not normally be a PIA can become one and those that are normally PIA's can turn into real monsters. Not everyone can deal with people like this in a calm and professional manner. Even those that can, many had to learn how to deal with it... they didn't learn it with the first wedding.

The other part of it is that many people that get into weddings haven't a clue in what they are getting into. It's not just about having the training, ability, talent and equipment, it's about getting pictures of a very special and in some cases, sacred day for two people. To blow it and not come through with what you have promised or what the couple expects, is not only professionally, morally and in some cases legally wrong, it can also have a very emotional impact on the couple to know that they can never get pictures of those special moments. Sure you can stage most of them afterwards, but it's not the same. Plus many weddings are one of the few times when distant relatives and friends get together (a funeral is the other time). Once the wedding is over, these people could be thousands of miles away and not to be seen again for years if ever. And there are always those times when a loved family member dies shortly after a wedding and the pictures at the wedding are some of the last happy images of them all together.

There is a reason many try to make the dicission as hard as possible for people wanting to get into doing weddings. It's just not the same as many other types of photography... and the responsibility to get it right you won't find in very many other forms of photography. And anyone that has every had to look into the faces of a newly married couple and tell them that their pictures didn't turn out, or they lost them, or for what ever reason don't have them... knows what I'm talking about.

Mike

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/30/2007 02:54:24 AM · #57

Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:

Maybe they will blame me or maybe they will see that I had no control over those things.
After all, I'm a photographer, not god.

Trust me, they WILL blame you.

Your job is not to just show up and take some snaps, it's to make the wedding they have look like the wedding they want to remember regardless of the difference between the two.

OK, so they will blame me.
So what?
It's still not my fault.
What are they going to do, beat me up?

As for making the wedding look like what they want it to be whether it was that or not, that's just ridiculous.
A rainy day in a muddy field will not look like a sunny day by the sea, no matter how prepared I am.

If I got the blame for that happening, I certainly wouldn't photograph that brides second wedding!!!!

What about her friend's wedding and that friend's friend, and all their cousins and their friends too? It's not just one bad wedding and then all goes back to business as usual. People talk, and word will get around about how disappointed they were with your work and unless you are the last wedding photographer on the planet. none of those people will even call you to check you out.

And, if you screw up the wrong couple's wedding, yeah, they just might beat you up. More likely, you'll get dragged into court for breach of contract. Even if you win, getting sued is a royal PITA and it's expensive.

Message edited by author 2007-08-30 02:54:59.

PaulE

Canon EOS-50D

08/30/2007 03:44:44 AM · #58

My attitude at my wedding was: I can\'t believe the wedding photography industry; they charge a fortune, for what? After all, I have provided and paid for the subject matter, and all they need to do is press the shutter a few times. All I wanted was five shots good enough to shove in a frame and a story of the day to add to my website. Ultimately it was the website need that tipped me in favour of using an anthusiastic friend. Linky

That was then, this is now: I do wish I had a collection of great artistic shots and candids from the day, like many of our friends do. Do I blame the photographer? Of course not; I made the decision. Do I regret my decision? Well yes, I do.

The thing is, and this is the crux, I didn\'t understand what enough about either photography or wedding photography to appreciate what my money should have bene buying. And this will be the case with many B&G\'s.

So; what we need to do is train the public at large as to the realy value of a weddign photographer.

08/30/2007 06:05:27 AM · #59

Can I see a show of hands of all the wedding photogs who have been sued? Just curious. I hear that comment about just about any venture people want to go into. I think the idea that wedding photogs get sued alot is up there with tornados and trailer parks.

As someone in this thread (I think) mentioned, there is a market for all price ranges - charge what you want, be responsible and professional and have fun and quit when you stop having fun - which is what it sounds like some of these old pros ought to do.

Kaveran

Canon EOS-50D

Sigma 70-200 /2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM II

08/30/2007 09:46:12 AM · #60

I think I paid $900 for my weding photos a few years back and the guy did a horrible job.

I shoot because I enjoy it and honestly shooting a wedding seems too stressfull for me to qualify it as enjoyable. With that in mind I can then look at it and ask, it worth the money? Taking the OP's example of $500 for 12 hours shooting and 12 hours editing thats what, $20 bucks an hour. Hardly worth the hassle in my eyes.

Eyesup

Nikon D300

08/30/2007 10:17:06 AM · #61

Originally posted by Kaveran:

If you do wedding photography just for the money you won't be doing it long.

I would venture that most of us that do it, do get enjoyment and satisfaction out of it. The Bridezilla's and Uncle bob's and truly horrible MOTB's are actually few and far between (but they're memorable).

weather your doing weddingd for $500 or for $2000 or more, the important part is that before you go in to do a wedding, that you are ready for it - both equipment-wise and mentally. cause doing a wedding is like most sports, it's draining, but you come away with a sence of accomplishment... at lease I do... so far...:)

DCThiessen

Canon EOS-50D

08/30/2007 10:33:28 AM · #62

This past weekend, I shot a wedding for a couple... and it turned out to be the most enjoyable wedding I have ever shot. Both the mother of the bride and of the groom were great, the bride and groom themselves were SO easy to deal with.

So ya, sometimes weddings are a hard thing to shoot but when you get one like the one that I had, you remember why you started doing wedding photography in the first place. Like cudjoem said, if you do it just for the money you won't be doing it long. Make it something to enjoy, and you'll definitely feel a sense of accomplishment.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/30/2007 11:01:54 AM · #63

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Yup, you are right. Only 1.7 million hits on google for it. Tornados and trailer parks is about half that :)

Prof_Fate

08/30/2007 01:22:27 PM · #64

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

BTW, you guys that are shooting 1000+ photos (at every wedding) need to slow the hell down. Or maybe you should have used film to "grow up" on. Quality, NOT quantity will get you the jobs you want to shoot.

You aren't going to give the couple that many proofs and if you are shooting that many your success rate is likely lower, so why shoot that many? Do you have to take that many to get exposure right? I damn sure hope not. Why are you shooting 1000+ images? Because you are shooting on "free" media? It's not free if you have to weed through them to cull the bad shots. Slow down ;-)

I've talked with photogs that shoot 4-5,000 at a wedding...and get $8000 to do it.
To be honest...I don't know. I average about 900-950 captures at a typical wedding. I hit 1200 once... My first wedding I shot less than 300.

Some of the excess is boredom during the ceremony...
Some is experimenting - What sells? The formals? No. (in the album, yes, but I mean to the guests) They want pics of themselves (acutally, their kids).
Details..some weddings I take 50 to 75 detail shots.
Formals...10 groups in the church is 30 to 50 exposures. Add in an hour on location and you have 150 more. That's 200 right there, but most get tossed.
Add in a second shooter for any of this and you have that many more images to deal with. My assistant second shoots at the ceremony and has done some other shots as well.

Prof_Fate

08/30/2007 01:29:06 PM · #65

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

As someone in this thread (I think) mentioned, there is a market for all price ranges - charge what you want, be responsible and professional and have fun and quit when you stop having fun - which is what it sounds like some of these old pros ought to do.

Yep, there is market at every price range. And lower end, well, it sucks. You don't know that until you get to shoot/assist/attend a higher end event.

Low end: ugly venues, limited details, no limo, less respect (and cooperation) from the bridal party, fake flowers, off times (friday nights, monday mornings), guests in t-shirts and flip flops, etc.

High End: get ready in ice photogenic locations (NOT the basement bathroom at the church), limo, champagne for toasting at the formals in the park, details galore and pretty ones, nicer venues - they photography better. And usually better guests - better dressed, more well behaved, more fun.

I averaged $900/wedding last year, entered this year averageing $1400 and an ending the summer with my latest bookings averaging $2400.
Yes, there is a definite difference in different price points.
There is also a definite difference if Mom is paying instead of the couple. If mom is paying I get more sales after as well. If the couple is paying, well, they're cautious with the expenses.

NVPhoto

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/30/2007 01:45:15 PM · #66

My first wedding I shot 1600 images. I never assisted or even been to a wedding since I was 15 so I didnt' want to miss a thing. I shot a ton, bracketed sometimes, lots of flowers and table settings etc... I also wanted to make sure I could stretch this 1 wedding into a decent portfolio w/o it looking like just 1 wedding.

My second wedding I didn't even fill a 2GB card.

Prof,
you are right about the nicer weddings. The first one I did, the couple paid for so they were looking for a bargain and I was looking for experience. Did it cheap, but the venue was nice adn the guests were dressed well.

Second wedding was kind of the same thing, but the venue was boring and ugly, the people were not dressed well, only the bridal party was formal. The photos from that wedding looked OK at best. There was only so much creativity you can pull off when you are in a restaurant banquet room for ceremony and reception.

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/30/2007 02:33:38 PM · #67

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

I've never been sued or even threatened to be sued, but I do know those that have been. Out of the 10's of thousands of wedding photographers out there, the percentage is probably small of those that have this happen, but, nobody wants to be one of those small percentage points. And even if you know you will win in court, just the hassle and expense of having to deal with someone that threatens or starts the procedings to take you to court is not worth it for a lot of people. And even being in the right with all the i's dotted and t's crossed, you never know if you are going to win should it go to court.

Mike

08/30/2007 10:01:04 PM · #68

Originally posted by MikeJ:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Can I see a show of hands of all the wedding photogs who have been sued? Just curious. I hear that comment about just about any venture people want to go into. I think the idea that wedding photogs get sued alot is up there with tornados and trailer parks.

I've never been sued or even threatened to be sued, but I do know those that have been. Out of the 10's of thousands of wedding photographers out there, the percentage is probably small of those that have this happen, but, nobody wants to be one of those small percentage points. And even if you know you will win in court, just the hassle and expense of having to deal with someone that threatens or starts the procedings to take you to court is not worth it for a lot of people. And even being in the right with all the i's dotted and t's crossed, you never know if you are going to win should it go to court.

Mike

This is true of any business though. Maybe more so of weddings because of the lack of opportunity for the photographer to resolve an issue (reshoot, etc). My only point is not to let the threat of a lawsuit stop you from doing what you feel a passion to do - I was dissuaded by this several times when I was younger and it occasionally haunts me.

08/30/2007 10:07:27 PM · #69

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

As someone in this thread (I think) mentioned, there is a market for all price ranges - charge what you want, be responsible and professional and have fun and quit when you stop having fun - which is what it sounds like some of these old pros ought to do.

Yep, there is market at every price range. And lower end, well, it sucks. You don't know that until you get to shoot/assist/attend a higher end event.

Low end: ugly venues, limited details, no limo, less respect (and cooperation) from the bridal party, fake flowers, off times (friday nights, monday mornings), guests in t-shirts and flip flops, etc.

High End: get ready in ice photogenic locations (NOT the basement bathroom at the church), limo, champagne for toasting at the formals in the park, details galore and pretty ones, nicer venues - they photography better. And usually better guests - better dressed, more well behaved, more fun.

I averaged $900/wedding last year, entered this year averageing $1400 and an ending the summer with my latest bookings averaging $2400.
Yes, there is a definite difference in different price points.
There is also a definite difference if Mom is paying instead of the couple. If mom is paying I get more sales after as well. If the couple is paying, well, they're cautious with the expenses.

Not to sound redundant, but that is also true of many service based businesses. I agree with you, Prof, the high-end is where it's at. I never hired a wedding photog, but my brother has been a wedding videographer for over 20 years and has consistently averaged $4k per wedding and has had no problems being booked solid through the wedding season. Personally, (again, I have no experience) I would think a typical wedding shoot would cost $2k - $3k for a reasonably experienced pro. But then much also depends on geography and the local economy.

Here's to seeing your average continue to go up, Prof! :)

08/30/2007 10:11:05 PM · #70

Originally posted by Gordon:

No offense, Gordon, but "hits on google" as a measure of how often wedding photogs are sued??

I googled this and got 455,000 hits, including a website devoted to it.

:P (again, no offense intended, just trying to prove a point - we're still friends, right?) :)

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II