Crappy attitude about wedding photography

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/20/2007 10:15:48 PM · #201

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by BeeCee:
I just don't understand why it has to be all about the almighty dollar and squeezing every possible one out of everyone.

Capitalism. Communism works differently...oh yeah, that idea failed.

And yet you seem steadfastly determined to establish a price-fixing scheme across the wedding photography industry instead of letting the free market determine the price for services.

Are you an average photographer?
Do you charge average prices?
If you're average and charge better than average prices I guess you've fooled the customers into overpaying. However, if you charge less than average prices they've fooled you.

I'm not price fixing any more than union reps that want higher wages for their members. I am only passing along what I've been told/taught by financially successful photographers and have experienced firsthand myself.

Why on earth would you want to work for less than you can get paid? I haver never heard of anyone ever telling their boss 'I want my pay reduced!' - so what makes photography so damned special that you, and others, seem to be willing and wanting to be working for less than market prices?

If people will pay $20 for an 8x10, very willingly, why would you want to sell it for $15 or $5? Seriously - WHY? I think I've explained why i think you and others should be charging market prices (for your area). Now tell my why I'm wrong.

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

08/20/2007 10:23:43 PM · #202

Chris,

You could probably save a lot of time by simply hitting CTRL-V ;)

AJSullivan

08/20/2007 10:23:50 PM · #203

Originally posted by L2:

Originally posted by ajdelaware:
So I guess the main thing to remember when doing wedding photography is that Spazmo is a jerk?

Dear AJ,

Just because you read it on the Internet doesn't make it true.

Kisses,

L2

Hahaha, I kid. Its the internet, I love everyone.

And Delaware is bigger then Rhode Island. FATALITY!

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/20/2007 10:25:49 PM · #204

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Chris,

You could probably save a lot of time by simply hitting CTRL-V ;)

hehe

Nikon D200

08/20/2007 10:26:22 PM · #205

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

And Delaware is bigger then Rhode Island. FATALITY!

But, RI has the longer official name. Booyah!

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

08/20/2007 10:26:55 PM · #206

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

If people will pay $20 for an 8x10, very willingly, why would you want to sell it for $15 or $5? Seriously - WHY? I think I've explained why i think you and others should be charging market prices (for your area). Now tell my why I'm wrong.

I think I explained this in my post about the comparison of computer prices in the past 20 yrs and the photography in next 5.

Only people rarely take rant posts seriously unless someone is called a jerk in them.

To answer:

You are wrong because of the quantity factor. Yes, there are people willing to pay $20 for an 8x10, maybe 20 of them. Yet there are hundreds that would rather pay $10, so why not address that market?

AM I wrong here?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/20/2007 10:31:49 PM · #207

Anyone want to come to my "If I tell them I'm a pro, they will pay" seminar. No talent necessary, all you have to do is think you are a pro.

:-D

Limited reservations only $199 per seat.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/20/2007 10:34:28 PM · #208

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

According to DPC I'm well below being an "average" photographer. : )

Not too many people are paying the $20. Though I've considered marking my prices up by adding a zero or two to the price, just to see the effect ("If they're charging that much, it has to be 'good' art, right?).

Some of us would rather have more people enjoying their art than extracting the maximum possible from each sale. If the choices are only $5000 or no pictures, only the "rich" will have art. Since it costs me less than $2 to make an 8x10, I think charging $20 or $200 or $2000 for it -- when it's made by a machine somewhere where I never even see the print, much less produce it -- seems a bit extortionate to me.

Now I see it as a completely different animal for a photographer to be making their own (perhaps limited-quantity) prints, complete with individualized dodging and burning during the print exposure. But when I can order 200 identical prints from Costco with no additional work on my part, well, I'd rather have more people able to enjoy them, not just elite collectors.

However, you are welcome to pay $200 for any photo in my print gallery, and I'll even sign it for you if you want. :-)

I think your auto analogy was fine -- do you think that people should only drive a BMW or Rolls, or else walk? Why is someone taking wedding photos for $500 any different in principle than selling a Toyota to someone who can't afford a Lexus?

Message edited by author 2007-08-20 22:37:12.

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

08/20/2007 10:34:47 PM · #209

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Anyone want to come to my "If I tell them I'm a pro, they will pay" seminar. No talent necessary, all you have to do is think you are a pro.

:-D

Limited reservations only $199 per seat.

Jerk! you should charge at least $1000! Do you know that there are people out there that have devoted their lives to teaching others, and your semi-professional $199 class will ruin the industry!

Slowly lower your laser pointer and step back from the overhead projector...

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/20/2007 10:36:27 PM · #210

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

You take it personally enough to resort to childish name calling, both in the forums and in PM's.

I called NO ONE a name in this forum or in any other forum for that matter. I did voice my opinion to you in private.

Sorry, but that's how I'd interpret this line:
Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:

And Spazmo99.... You're a jerk for saying something like that.

I would share the PM she sent, but this is a family website.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

08/20/2007 10:37:01 PM · #211

Originally posted by srdanz:

OK, I think I follow Chris' reasoning up to one point...

Yes, if the photogs used to charge $10K (hypothetically, don't quote me on price) a couple of years ago, and now you can find someone that can do it for $500, that's evolution of the market.

You are (I am too) typing this on a $700-800 worth computer. 20 years ago, the equivalent machine would cost me $500,000 at least.

What happened in between? 100s of other manufacturers showed up with different flavors of the same computer. Can IBM come out today and ask $20,000 for a PC? No. Are the others the same quality? Probably not, but was that enough to keep the prices up? No.

The plethora of photographers out there is bound to bring the prices of the wedding photography down. You cannot force everyone to keep the prices high just because you wish it was so.

Real world isn't such (you or someone else bashed communism in this thread, there it might have been possible to keep the constant rates, state-dictated for all photographers, in capitalism you cannot.)

So, fasten your seat belts, photography prices are coming down.

ps. I am not a wedding photog, neither cheap one nor expensive one. NOr I plan on doing it any time soon...

Problem with your theory is not all weddings are held in china. :D Computers are made there, and have gotten cheaper. labor is dirt cheap, few if any environmental laws, and who knows about insurance (health or liability). apparently putting deadly chemicals in pet food and lead paint on children's toys is not a concern to them.

Food is not cheaper. Cars are not cheaper. Accountants don't work for less, nor do nurses or McDonalds employees.

Photography has actually gotten more capital intensive - used to be the best Canon or Nikon film body was $3000 and lasted years and years, and film was shot sent to the lab and proofs came back.
Now the best body is $8000 and is outdated in 18 months. The labs do nothing but print...YOU have to have handle all the PP (more labor costs) and have a computer ($1200) and PS ($700) and probably a whole slew of other misc things (printer, DVD burner, software, etc) than the pro of 15 years ago didn't have or need.

More competition does drive down prices, assuming demand is constant. In the meantime you need to advertise more to keep teh same level of clients and income. this is a losing proposition. At some point you'll find you can't support yourself on photography alone, or that the part time job at 7-11 pays more and you leave photography as a job. It balances out at some point - are we there or not, and what will be that outcome? who knows. Itinerant immigrant wedding photographer that pick fruit during the week to make ends meet? We'll see.

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

08/20/2007 10:45:19 PM · #212

I still think that the comparison stands.

First, the mass production of computers started before everyone and their mother started outsourcing manufacturing to China. But that's not the point.

The point is that 30 years ago, the only people needing computers were probably NASA and NASA without that first A. Their requirements were high, to be met only by ENIAC and such beasts.

In the meantime, the range of users has expanded, nowadays every grandma uses MS outlook to write emails [and participate in DPC forums, for example].

The requirements on such computing power became low enough that any college dropout knowing how to plant a CPU on a motherboard can make a computer (sorry, Michael Dell, no insult meant here)

So, as long as there are people happy with mediocre photos, there will be a [growing] market for $500 photogs.

I am not saying that it is a good thing, just that it is happening and will continue to happen.

We;ll see...

08/20/2007 10:52:23 PM · #213

Too bad there are people out making money teaching and writing books about wedding photography. We wouldn't have competition if the ign'rnt would just stay ign'ernt.

BTW, Prof... in case ya don't know some wedding photogs still shoot film. I didn't switch over myself until last year (well mid '05) and I assure you that the costs are quite a bit more expensive than with digital.

Message edited by author 2007-08-20 22:53:39.

08/20/2007 10:59:53 PM · #214

what does an 8x10 cost?
The paper costs me $1. The image on that paper....that's a whole 'nuther thing, now isn't it?

I can photograph a bride. So can Joe Buissink. I might get $20 for an 8x10 and he might get $100. the paper costs the same. Even if we use the same camera and lens, he'll get more.

I can sell wedding photos once. To that bride. (perhaps her mom too, but that's about it). I have a friend that shoots landscapes and wildlife - he can sell an image over and over again for years to lots of different people.

Not everything is about selling for the lowest possible price. Works for Kia and Hyunday, Walmart and McD's ONLY because of VOLUME. they can make $1/sale because they have tens of thousands of sales a day. As a single lone photographer you can't do that kind of volume.

How much money do you need to make in a year? How many weddings can you shoot? I know in some markets 3 or 4 a weekend is possible, but here where I am it's 1. Maybe 2. And you don't work 52 weekends a year either. Maybe 30 weddings is a good average. Don't know about the cost of living where you are, but here $50,000 a year is maybe enough to own a house, a car and try to raise a couple of kids - if you're good with coupons.

To make $50,000 on 30 weddings means making $1660 per wedding after expenses. Go cheap (if you can at this price point) and $240 for materials. So you need to charge $1900. Plus cover the cost of insurance, computers, camera, education, advertising, etc.

Gonna charge $500/wedding? Then you have to shoot 100 weddings to make the $50,000.

maybe you don't have the same income needs, but the theory, the math, is still applicable.

08/20/2007 11:11:30 PM · #215

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Costs are different. Used to be the lab handled CC, now the photog does. We also shoot a lot more with digital too, and that means more work of some kind at some point. Film costs money, as does developing, but that's offset by the extra time at the computer.

I know photogs that reduced their lab bills by tens of thousands of
dollars a year - but brought a lot of that cost inhouse and it's not as obvious as a line-item on a spreadsheet, but it's still there.

It's the lack of film cost (and developing) and the ability to 'play in the darkroom' (on a computer) that has brought about the explosion in
photography as a hobby, or cottage industry.

probably happened with the introduction of the typewriter and sewing machine too. i know teh PC killed the small printer - 'desktop publishing' killed an industry. Will professional photography be next?

08/20/2007 11:38:55 PM · #216

** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.

geoffb

08/21/2007 02:06:56 AM · #217

Originally posted by SaraR:

In America, you can seriously demand the price difference back if the item is reduced?

You can at Costco!

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

08/21/2007 02:28:48 AM · #218

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Since it costs me less than $2 to make an 8x10, I think charging $20 or $200 or $2000 for it -- when it's made by a machine somewhere where I never even see the print, much less produce it -- seems a bit extortionate to me.

It's definitely extortion especially when you can't even get the originals so you can go elsewhere to print them.

geoffb

08/21/2007 02:30:50 AM · #219

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Why on earth would you want to work for less than you can get paid? I haver never heard of anyone ever telling their boss 'I want my pay reduced!' - so what makes photography so damned special that you, and others, seem to be willing and wanting to be working for less than market prices?

At my current job, my income has nothing to do with how well the warehouse's sales are for a particular day or week; I get paid solely by the number of hours I work. Since the success of the company doesn't influence my income, I really don't care how much a customer pays for a particular product. I don't set the cost of items, and don't increase or decrease them based on the customer's financial condition.

With my photography, however, I am certainly willing to change my prices, for two reasons:

(1) For family and friends. I enjoy photography, and enjoy helping those I love. If I can use my talents to help them out, then great! I just did a photoshoot for my aunt's band, and am accepting $60 as payment. Is it about the money? NO! I was doing it for free, but they each threw in $10 as a "tip", of sorts. I don't care--she's my aunt!

(2) If I do a shoot for cheaper than my regular cost, at least I did a shoot. If that client then refers three other people to me, those are now four shoots I wouldn't have had before. Even if I normally earn $1000/shoot, but only charge $750/shoot for these four, I'm still making more money than if I stuck to my original prices.

I see your point about devaluing the market, but "cheap" doesn't always mean not valuable (as was said earlier in this thread).

rossbilly and his wife's free wedding shoot a few weeks ago was extremely honourable, and I let him know how much I respect him for doing that wedding. If anything, he added more respect and professionalism to the photography business than any photographer charging $25K/wedding ever could.

(Edit for clarity.)

Message edited by author 2007-08-21 02:35:58.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/21/2007 04:59:44 AM · #220

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

To make $50,000 on 30 weddings means making $1660 per wedding after expenses. Go cheap (if you can at this price point) and $240 for materials. So you need to charge $1900. Plus cover the cost of insurance, computers, camera, education, advertising, etc.

Gonna charge $500/wedding? Then you have to shoot 100 weddings to make the $50,000.

maybe you don't have the same income needs, but the theory, the math, is still applicable.

While your maths may be sound, your appreciation of economics is less so.

The ideal price to charge is the maximum price that the B&G can pay. But you don't know that. So you have to estimate it. Go too high, and you will get no work. Go too low, and you have lost potential profit.

There are ways that can help you better assess how much the B&G are willing to pay - such as the add-ons you suggested. These help maximise the sale.

Part of the assessment of how much the B&G will pay is dependent on the rest of the market. You don't get to set that - among other things, price fixing is generally frowned upon!

Now the rub is that many low priced photogs will be second jobbers who don't have the same income needs as you - it is spending money. They have a competitive advantage on price, squeezing your margins. This is not something that you can do much about. If you start to find that you cannot sell your services for $1660 profit per wedding then, rather than increasing your prices to reflect fewer weddings, you may have to reduce your prices, and perhaps think about a second job or a different profession.

Message edited by author 2007-08-21 05:00:25.

Creature

Nikon D70s

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

08/21/2007 08:09:30 AM · #221

Originally posted by rachelellen:

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.

VERY well put! I am going to stop reading this thread here (pg. 2). I'm sure Prof_Fate and Spazmo had plenty more to say about this, but I don't care. My first wedding was for a young couple in May -- she is a receptionist and he is a volunteer fireman (and yes, the reception was at a fire hall). Their whole wedding was probably under $1500 so it was a great opportunity for me to get a foot in the door of the wedding photography business. My upfront fee was small but I've already surpassed that in print orders (most from/for other family members). It has also already earned me additional business through word of mouth.

Do I plan to continue catering to the bargain crowd? Of course not. But look at Toyota, who entered the market by making inexpensive little subcompacts in order to build a reputation, and now make elite and expensive cars (in the form of Lexus). And look at their buyers, who might only be able to afford Corollas when they are young but come back time and again for more and more expensive Toyotas and Lexuses (Lexi?).

While I generally agree that it would be wrong for someone to take on a wedding if they feel ill-prepared for it, I don't think that's the case for most people here that ask for advice. Most people I've seen asking here already have made wonderful photographs and entered challenges and so forth, so there's no reason to tell them they're not ready. Hell, I've only entered one challenge here and it was a decidedly average photograph, but apparently not indicative of my capability to pull off a wedding since my B&G and their family were so pleased with the results. Did they expect less because I was charging less? Probably, but all the better for me because, yes, each of us is always learning and we all have to start somewhere. It's hard to believe that some of you have gotten too high on your horses to remember that.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/21/2007 10:25:54 AM · #222

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Since it costs me less than $2 to make an 8x10, I think charging $20 or $200 or $2000 for it -- when it's made by a machine somewhere where I never even see the print, much less produce it -- seems a bit extortionate to me.

It's definitely extortion especially when you can't even get the originals so you can go elsewhere to print them.

Only if you think a photograph is the sum of the materials used to produce the print.

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

08/21/2007 10:34:09 AM · #223

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

The thing is I can change my income at the drop of a hat.

From broke to flat broke?

Ubersteiny

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM for Canon

08/21/2007 02:51:07 PM · #224

Originally posted by GeneralE:

how doyou get an 8X10 for under 2 bucks? i doubt its optimum quality. i spend 5 bucks an 8x10

Matthew