| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/17/2005 11:17:05 AM · #1 |
If you get paid you are a professional, right? So I have officially entered the Pro ranks then..ok, as an asistant maybe, but I plan on moving up (quickly I hope).
I got to assist a high end wedding photographer yesterday. High end is : 4 hours for $8,000, 100 prints no album. I got $75 - but expected nothing so I picked her brain for most of the 4 hours.
She used - please open your wallets not - $4500 in flash equipment, perhaps more (not sure of model numbers)...
A 10D with a 28-200 zoom, diffuser filter, flash bracket with a Lumedyne bare bulb flash and battery pack, quantum radio slave. I held another lumedyne head and slave receiver, battery pack. Under the tent (outdoor wedding) were 2 more lumedynes with slave receivers and battery packs on stands. That is a lot of cash tied up in flash equipment!! She used flash (on camera and the one i held) for every shot. Under the tent the otehrs fired too. All manaually adjsuted via ISO on the camera(shot at 1/125 with 5.6-6.3 and just read the histogram).
She shot 300 pics or so, all RAW.
Hmmm...not at all the way I have been learning to shoot a wedding..no wide lens, no fast lens, no natural light, no L glass even!
|
|
|
|
07/17/2005 11:21:22 AM · #2 |
my-oh-my...
congrats to you, sounds like the experience was well worth it. so, will you be refinancing your house tomorrow ;-) |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 11:57:00 AM · #3 |
Wow, that's quite an arsenal! She has more in flash equipment than the total of most of our "systems". Sheesh. She must know what's she's doing, using all those flashes and setups. I would love to see some of the shots if notice her put them online or something.
Thanks for sharing. I KNOW I never want to do weddings! :-) |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 12:03:32 PM · #4 |
WOW! I paid my wedding photographer $1000 (included prints and album). Methinks that someone who got paid 8 big ones should have paid her assistant a little more than $75, but I'm sure the experience was worth it.
Now to figure out how to spring into the burgeoning $2000-per-hour wedding photography business..... |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 12:29:43 PM · #5 |
| a "professional" is someone who makes 51% of their income from doing a specific type of work. |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 12:52:49 PM · #6 |
Wow.. lots of equipment but is she is making 8k on average for a shoot, its all relative.
Wish I could be a professional photographer some day. :(
I think I need to win a few ribbons first ;) hahah |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 12:54:43 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
a "professional" is someone who makes 51% of their income from doing a specific type of work. |
i tend to think it has more to do with competence, presentation, and reputation, as those things can be measured by the public, while the public would rarely know what an individual's financial situation would be...
there are many people who earn money who do not carry themselves as professionals, and there are many people working off of kitchen tables, holding 2 & 3 jobs, that are able to present themselves as professionals. the truth is in the results and the ability of one to sustain themselves, regardless of where the money comes from.
just my 02 |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 12:59:35 PM · #8 |
Congrats, Chris.
28-200 zoom though?!
|
|
|
|
07/17/2005 01:50:20 PM · #9 |
Is there any way you'll be able to share a few of these photos with us? How about even just a link to her website to see other work that she has done?
|
|
|
|
07/17/2005 02:02:57 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
a "professional" is someone who makes 51% of their income from doing a specific type of work. |
Ok, so he was pro for a day :o) (Way to go, Chris, and continued success). |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 02:15:47 PM · #11 |
| Chris -- does she have a web site? I'd be curious to see what her photos look like for $8000! |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 02:22:10 PM · #12 |
youd think that with all that $ in flash equipment and charging that much shed at least be using 2 bodies with a different lens on each.
my friend just got married and the photog had 2 markII's around her neck one with a 70-200 2.8 and the other with a 16-35....she changed the lens on one of em a few times but she just used on cam flashes with omnibounces. i dunno hoe much she charged though. |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 02:47:03 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by debitipton:
Chris -- does she have a web site? I'd be curious to see what her photos look like for $8000! |
Do the bride and groom have a website? What I'm curoius about is how did the canapes look like LOL . If they spent 8 grands on pics, I guess the reception was something to be seen... ;) |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 03:19:26 PM · #14 |
I am officially an unemployeed professional photographer.
I used to be an unemployeed IT guy, but I figured as long as I was unemployeed I could be an unemployed anything ... unemployed professional wrestler, unemployeed alligator hunter, unemployed astronaut ...
So I chose to be an unemployeed professional photographer! Crazy idea in retrospect (but I digress.) |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 03:22:33 PM · #15 |
Technically, an assistant is not a "professional photographer", of course. When you get paid for taking pictures you become a professional. Regardless, it's a definite step in the right direction. Gawd knows, it's how I started out; as a studio dogsbody and darkroom tech. In my case it led to a career, and if you work hard it will do the same for you.
Congrats.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2005 03:29:21 PM · #16 |
| with regards to "being a pro"... I think the "official" concept is that in order to use the expression "proffessionnal" one must earn 51%+ of his/her income at whatever they claim at being "pro". |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 03:35:31 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
with regards to "being a pro"... I think the "official" concept is that in order to use the expression "proffessionnal" one must earn 51%+ of his/her income at whatever they claim at being "pro". |
So by your definition, an 18-year old with no job who makes 2 grand in a year is a professional -- whereas the guy who owns a wedding hall (which he rents out for weddings), a catering business (to supply the bride, groom, and guests with food, of course), and does photography -- but only makes about 20% of his total income from this photography is NOT considered a professional?
I think the definition is too strict...and doesn't fit in some cases. Clearly, I wouldn't call myself a professional after being an assistant at one wedding -- but if you're making a decent bit of money through photography, you could be considered a professional, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2005 04:35:42 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by Gil P:
with regards to "being a pro"... I think the "official" concept is that in order to use the expression "proffessionnal" one must earn 51%+ of his/her income at whatever they claim at being "pro". |
So by your definition, an 18-year old with no job who makes 2 grand in a year is a professional -- whereas the guy who owns a wedding hall (which he rents out for weddings), a catering business (to supply the bride, groom, and guests with food, of course), and does photography -- but only makes about 20% of his total income from this photography is NOT considered a professional?
I think the definition is too strict...and doesn't fit in some cases. Clearly, I wouldn't call myself a professional after being an assistant at one wedding -- but if you're making a decent bit of money through photography, you could be considered a professional, in my opinion. |
There are two ways to lo0ok at the concept of "professionalism"; one of them is to study the balance sheet (earns good money at it = pro), and the other is to study the output itself for evidence of high technical/artistic skill.
I'm more inclined to favor the latter POV; from my perspective (and it's a personal perspective) the hourly employee who shoots babies in a booth at the mall is not a "professional photographer", even if that's his/her only source of income. Not necessarily, anyway. S/he might be a pro, if s/he is good, but most of them are simply technicians running the same rote task over and over again.
On the other hand, I've known several people who earn maybe a quarter of their income with a side photography business who are exceptionally skilled and true professionals.
How about artists? If you earn ALL your money shooting and selling landscapes out of a gallery, are you a "professional photographer"? The people I know who have done that sucessfully call them selves artists, not pros. They won't touch the "professional" designation.
If you are regularly hired to do photography on assignment/to order, you're a pro, basically. Working freelancers are pros also.
Just random thoughts. I don't really care what anyone calls themselves. The images are what they are, and to be admired or panned as the case may be.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2005 06:50:08 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
I am officially an unemployeed professional photographer.
I used to be an unemployeed IT guy, but I figured as long as I was unemployeed I could be an unemployed anything ... unemployed professional wrestler, unemployeed alligator hunter, unemployed astronaut ...
So I chose to be an unemployeed professional photographer! Crazy idea in retrospect (but I digress.) |
Love the idea. I guess I can say I'm an Unemployed Photographer too. |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 08:07:13 PM · #20 |
her site is //www.pamelamccrumb.com/index.html and her weddings 9and some otehr pics) are at //www.pamelamccrumb.com/Storefront.html.
I am disgusted with PS, or perhaps myself right now. But that is another story.
The wedding was very nice, at a house - not a McMansion but the grounds (lots and lots of them) were perfect - that is what comes of Dad owning a landscaping company.
The porta potties (they have well water - that, dry summer weather and 100 guests do not go together) were WOW. Appeared new, with flush and sinks (never saw a flushable porta pottie). All under a tent with an attendant...
They had a horse and carriage to drive the B&G. They hung around for 3 hours to ride anyone else that wanted to go.
There were fireworks at the ceremony and later that night.
The Lens for $359
I guess it really is the light that matters, right?
Four of these or similar - $1349 each
And you gotta fire the light, so she had an olde version of this and 3 of these so add in $900 for radio slavery.
Lightstands are a bargain, 2 for $68 each. Of couse, you need a mount head and carry bags.
The Flash Bracket she used i think was this one - I am sold on it.
So if you add up the equipment you'dhave to charge $8000!
|
|
|
|
07/17/2005 09:13:13 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Congrats, Chris.
28-200 zoom though?! |
But, what would people claim to be perfect wedding lenses? |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 09:16:30 PM · #22 |
You might want to tell her that her web site is too long (horizontally). It doesn't fit on my screen. |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 09:37:31 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by NathanW:
You might want to tell her that her web site is too long (horizontally). It doesn't fit on my screen. |
I can't believe those prices!! Maybe I should be charging more?? hehe |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 09:40:44 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by NathanW:
You might want to tell her that her web site is too long (horizontally). It doesn't fit on my screen. |
I had the same trouble. It was annoying and I quit browsing because of it. Nice pix, though. |
|
|
|
07/17/2005 09:41:01 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Makka:
I can't believe those prices!! Maybe I should be charging more?? hehe |
No wonder she can afford all that flash equipment. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/10/2026 05:45:58 AM EDT.
