| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/29/2007 08:37:33 AM · #1 |
So, what’s the big deal about doing wedding shoots?
I mean, really, what are the problems that everyone seems to have?
I’m not being flippant with that remark.
In fact, I have exactly the same worries that most of the people talk about in these forums.
I'm just trying to be realistic about it.
The fear that I see expressed most is “ruining their big day, the most important day of their life, by delivering crap pictures”.
But really, how are you going to do that?
You’re not going to leave the lens cap on.
Storage media is so cheap these days that you can easily afford to shoot in RAW-so any over or underexposing should be “easily fixable”.
As would color correction etc.
I doubt anyone here is going to cut peoples heads off in the photographs.
I guess camera/equipment malfunction is a possibility.
But really, what are the odds of it happening on that particular day?
Besides, I doubt anyone would be doing it without a back up camera.
And when was the last time you went out to take photos, for a challenge say, and got home only to find out that you forgot to set to auto focus or something equally silly?
(I have done that once, but I noticed after 10 minutes.)
And on a “special” day like a wedding, I’m sure you’ll check those settings twenty times.
This then brings me to my next query.
Why don’t more people readily and willingly do them?
There’s been a lot of talk recently about how much to charge.
But I don’t want to get into that.
Let’s just go for a nice round hypothetical $500.
That seems a very attractive figure for what, 12 hours of taking pictures and how long, another 12 sorting, editing, burning, emailing etc the files?
Sure, you’ll have a lot of stress and be on your feet the whole wedding day possibly getting all hot and sweaty and being uncomfortable in your clothes etc.
But, is your regular day job a bed of roses?
Do you earn $500 a day?
And remember, you love taking pictures!
So it seems like a no-brainer to me.
I doubt many people would get enough work to be able to make a living from shooting weddings alone.
But I’m thinking that doing even 2 weddings for $500 each is going to allow me to buy a nice new lens for my camera.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 08:49:21 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:00:48 AM · #3 |
I'm just getting into photography, just learning how to adjust the settings on my camera and learning the art of taking a nice photo and not snap shots. I would love to start shooting weddings.
I'm well aware of the possibility of something going wrong however if you have any knowledge of photography (and I'm sure that if you frequent this site you do) you should be able to get good shots.
Obviously if someone is going to hire a photographer that has never shot a wedding before there not expecting to get magazine quality photos and their definitely not willing to spend 2-3 thousand dollars on a photographer.
i guess what I'm trying to say is you have to start somewhere when it comes to wedding photography. chances are if your even thinking of shooting a wedding you have some skills & you didn't pick up a camera yesterday.
scwalsh |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:13:42 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by scwalsh:
.....i guess what I'm trying to say is you have to start somewhere when it comes to wedding photography. chances are if your even thinking of shooting a wedding you have some skills & you didn't pick up a camera yesterday.
scwalsh |
exactly, that's what I'm talking about.
How difficult can it be to take photos at a wedding?
Maybe not something you can do with your eyes closed, but certainly not so difficult that you make yourself ill thinking about it (which seems to be how it effects some people!). |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:26:51 AM · #5 |
People are nervous for weddings becuase there are no do overs. The actual shots themselves aren't anthing that hard to accomplish, but the fact that you have 1 chance is what makes it difficult. If you miss the kiss for some reason, you can't redo it. Also, there is alot of stuff going on at a wedding and if you don't have a plan or an assistant, it can be overwhelming. Factor in overbearing clients and you have all the makings for a tough day.
I think equipment makes people nervous too. I carry a fairly light wedding rig, but its what I know will get the job done. I carry 2 Rebel XTs, 1 with a 24-70 2.8L and one with a 70-200 2.8L and a flash on one of them and a bunch of cf cards. If you don't have the right gear, you need to compensate and make adjustments which all need to be done on the fly, that can be difficult.
Pricing is a topic that has been beat to death. My thoughts are charge what makes it worthwhile to you. there is a market for all price ranges. If you charge $500 you will quickly learn its a lot of work for not much money. The OP said 24 hours of working time between editing and shooting, thats only $20/hr and most likely you will spend more than 12 hours editing. Do that for the first few to get a portfolio and then bump up the price.
All in all, weddings are fun and can be easy. What makes it a skilled job is handling the wedding that doesnt' go well. If you mess up there are heavy consequences and there is no excuse the bride will accept if you don't produce results. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:31:48 AM · #6 |
The mothers of the brides. period.
Message edited by author 2007-08-29 09:32:00. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:41:51 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
The mothers of the brides. period. |
 |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:46:20 AM · #8 |
I think the reason boils down to the expectations of the B/G and as stated "Mother of the Bride" :)
Unfortumately, people who have seen my photos have NOT seen too many of the really awful ones. They see the pretty ones that I have "saved" through photoshop or the ones that had optimal lighting or do-over chances.
They truly believe that all the shots I take will turn out great. And...they figure they'll save money using me and still get great shots. I've had a couple of people - who have been referred by people I know - who have talked to me about doing their weddings. The first one called and said right off "I want you to do it", to which I replied, "Let's sit down together and talk about it." She didn't realize that because of my limitations, I may choose to TURN DOWN an event like a wedding. I did turn her, and another request, down because they were both very large wedding parties, inside weddings, and both brides struck me as someone trying to save a buck, but having high expectations. I didn't have the lighting for the large groups, or a fast lens for the darker inside weddings. All of that combined for me to turn them down. I had no regrets.
If it's something I feel I can do adequately, and I think the b/g have a clear understanding of my capabilites, then I will do it. I've only shot a couple of smaller ones, but those have given me great insight into the type of equipment I might need to "graduate" into different types of weddings. I also raised my pricing :) It is a lot of work, however, I do enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:40:34 AM · #9 |
Seriously, either you have never done a wedding, have only done one or two that turned out acceptable to the bride and groom or else you know what weddings are like and you are just making the comment to see what you can stir up from those that have done or do photograph weddings.
Weddings can be classified in 3 ways... The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. If you have never done a wedding or have been fortunate to only experience "The Good" ones, then you won't understand any explanation that is given to you by those of us that have experienced the other two types. Asking for an explanation is probably very much like a man asking a woman what child birth is like. And there is a reason why many would rather go through child birth than do a wedding. ;)
Mike |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:57:40 AM · #10 |
I think I have been lucky.
I have never met bridezilla. I have never had an unbearable mother-of-the-bride. I have yet to "blow" a wedding by leaving the auto focus off, or by shooting the outdoor pictures at ISO 1600.
The absolute "worst" I can come up with, is a bride who is rather picky about how her pictures look. She wants special editing done. And I offer to do it ... for a price.
Outside of that, I generally find that I work very hard on wedding day and yet still come back saying I've had one of the most enjoyable days of my life. Weddings are full of joy. I love that I get to participate and share in that joy, and to be able to offer the couple a way of remembering that joy for years afterwards.
I still have a day job (software engineer). And I get asked many times when I will make photography my full time profession and the answer is always the same: Never. I take vacation from my day job on the days I shoot weddings. And in spite of all the work ... I really *do* feel like I am on vacation! It is so much fun to be out there mingling with the people, shooting them, getting to know them, having fun along the way.
The other thing is ... it seems to be a never ending "growing process". The way I shoot weddings today (and even how I process the pictures) is very different from how I did them a year ago (or even 6 months ago). And as I look back in time through my weddings I can see a rapid growth and change in my style since switching to digital aprox 4 years ago.
Is it hard the first time? Well... it's SCARY! Heck, I still get butterflies even today. But ya just keep doing it and it gets easier and easier.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 11:00:49 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Seriously, either you have never done a wedding, have only done one or two that turned out acceptable to the bride and groom or else you know what weddings are like and you are just making the comment to see what you can stir up from those that have done or do photograph weddings.....
Mike |
I'm not trying to stir anything up.
I've only done a couple of weddings, and they were, as you say "acceptable to the bride and groom".
I have another wedding coming up in October and another person asking me to shoot thiers in May 08.
Anyway, I've been going through the same anxiety as a lot of the "new" wedding photographers seem to be going through here.
And I decided to ask myself why I was getting stressed and worried etc.
I can't really come up with a satisfactory answer.
It's true that I haven't experienced a "bad" wedding.
But surely, if you have you have people around who are bitching and complaining about you, then can't you tell them to "eff off"?
OK, maybe not literally, but what can they be complaining about?
You have a list of shots, you get those shots, and a few more besides and that's it?
Of course, if your thumb was obscuring part of the lens, then they will have every right to complain, but surely not until they see the pictures?
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 11:03:07 AM · #12 |
You mean you are shooting weddings without any L-glass in your bag? How DARE you? ;-)
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 11:05:17 AM · #13 |
I would never shoot a wedding as primary photographer without experience first as a photographer's assistant and/or as a second shooter.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 11:18:01 AM · #14 |
You sound a little tongue in cheek to me...
It's not that you'll 'ruin' the pictures per-se. And no, not everyone believes in back up gear, RAW or has a flash, but they still feel they can deliver the same images as the "overpaid pro". Besides most folks can't the the difference between a good image and a bad one, a proper pose and one that makes the bride look 20 pounds heavier anyway.
What one finds 'acceptable' varies...a rattle in my Ford is fine, in a BMW it's not fine. I'll take a free dinner and not complain even if the foods not the best ever...my expectations are lower so it's harder to disappoint me. I suppose free/cheap wedding photography is the same.
Used to be one would charge friends for costs of film and processing ... so charge $2 for the CD then. Digital is cheaper is the mantra I keep hearing from $500 shooters, so live the lie to the fullest and make it truly cheaper!
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. If it's worth doing right, then charge accordingly. If you don't fee you're worth the average price for the job in your area, then you're below average...is that what the happy couple is wanting, below average wedding photography? |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 12:14:22 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I would never shoot a wedding as primary photographer without experience first as a photographer's assistant and/or as a second shooter. |
I jumped in feet first... I never actually assisted another photographer until last year. And what a wonderful experience that was. I wish I had started out that way 7 years ago (back when I was shooting film) or even 4 years ago when I decided to switch to digital. If I could go back and do it over again, that's exactly what I would do different.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 12:32:07 PM · #16 |
there is something that is harder than being a wedding photographer and that is a photojournalist. Though I don't want to be on that track anymore, I think it was a valuable experience in my life.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 12:49:02 PM · #17 |
I've seen a few weddings (not where I was a shooter) that these were given to guests to use and return. That's extreme budget wedding photography ;-)
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 12:55:13 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I've seen a few weddings (not where I was a shooter) that these were given to guests to use and return. That's extreme budget wedding photography ;-)
|
No it's not.
20 tables, 2 camera per...$3/camera is a good price, and maybe $7 per for processing (24 exposure rolls and 4x6 prints). That's $400. And that's getting the "photographer" for free.
How many images are anything at all? 50%? 40%? Assuming the kids at the wedding don't take half the cameras for pics of themselves, and that people remember to turn on the flash that is.
Perhaps 400 images turn out. So that's $1/image. For proofs, if they're even that good. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:01:36 PM · #19 |
| I had both a "real" photographer and disposable cameras at my wedding. The paid photographer did a great job and I really liked her stuff. The quality of the disposable cameras was about what you'd expect, the exposure wasn't great and there was a fair bit of grain. But the photos that people took, that my friends who've known me my whole life rather than the two meetings I'd had with a pro photog, are so, so special and meaningful and hilarious and full of memories and sometimes that just outweighs whether or not the dress is properly exposed or there's too much negative space or something is too centered or how much each photo is going to cost or what have you. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:01:47 PM · #20 |
In response to Pro_fate:
Try to convince some brides that the idea is bogus though... especially when bridal web sites and some magazines are promoting it (probably at the urging of Kodak).
BTW, I agree with mk, it is a great way to get memories that will last forever.
Message edited by author 2007-08-29 13:04:16.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:09:13 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by mk:
I had both a "real" photographer and disposable cameras at my wedding. |
You're married :-( |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:23:43 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by scwalsh:
I'm just getting into photography, just learning how to adjust the settings on my camera and learning the art of taking a nice photo and not snap shots. I would love to start shooting weddings.
I'm well aware of the possibility of something going wrong however if you have any knowledge of photography (and I'm sure that if you frequent this site you do) you should be able to get good shots.
Obviously if someone is going to hire a photographer that has never shot a wedding before there not expecting to get magazine quality photos and their definitely not willing to spend 2-3 thousand dollars on a photographer.
i guess what I'm trying to say is you have to start somewhere when it comes to wedding photography. chances are if your even thinking of shooting a wedding you have some skills & you didn't pick up a camera yesterday.
scwalsh |
GO out for a day and shoot - 1000 RAW images in 8 hours. You get to sit in your hot car for 10 minutes and 25 more minutes at dinner. No, ou cannot drink anything all day, and please, no bathroom or smoke breaks.
I want portaits, action, low light, long exposure, still life, candids and say, 30% with flash and 30% without - the rest are up to you if you flash or not. Now I need 30 shots of groups - 2 to 40 people, 5 of them are kids. And 7 are guys that want to go drink beer instead of getting their pictures taken. Detail shots - flowers, cake, shoes, jewelry, hair, cars, cards, centerpieces (reflective and in the dark....). We need dancing shots (ISO 1600 at F2.8 and 1/30th second) too. Why RAW? Well you have to have shots in teh sun, shade, and natural light in a house. Easy so far. Now teh room teh bride is in at the church has flourscent, the church has incandscent and a big blue stained glass window. You will be doing your formals in here, and there is no flash during the ceremony of course, so examine the lighting carefully. We have a few in-the limo shots...until you try it you won't understand the problems here. BTW, You have 2 minutes for the inside the limo shots, and no time to practice. Remember, everyone is watching you, and they'd rather be drinking champagne that looking at you and smiling....
Of the 1000 you took, you should have 900+ good shots (properly exposed and in focus). 950 is more like it. If not, you're not ready to be a primary wedding photographer. It's not like DPC where you can take 4 hours and 400 shots to get 1 'keeper'. In weddings they ALL have to be keepers. The other 100 are WB shots, test shots, or where someone walked in front of you. Of the 900 you only want to deliver 500...so now you can delete all that work you just did!
Can we talk about the MOB, or the pushy Aunt, or the kids that won't cooperate, or being told at the church as you start the formals "I know we took too long with the receiving line, but we have to be out of here in 15 minutes (and they still want every damned picture!) Perhaps you should stop by a hotel bar and pull 8 drunks out into the hall (under flourscent lights) and do a 'family photo'.
Ever done formals in a bathroom? In a basement? In the rain (outside)? In the COMPLETE darkness (the gazebo was SUPPOSED to be lit they told me ...as we shoot at 10PM!)
And we haven't even opened PS yet...
Message edited by author 2007-08-29 13:29:20. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:35:42 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:
Originally posted by mk:
I had both a "real" photographer and disposable cameras at my wedding. |
You're married :-( |
I feel for him too :-(
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:37:31 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:
Originally posted by mk:
I had both a "real" photographer and disposable cameras at my wedding. |
You're married :-( |
I feel for him too :-( |
LMAO!
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:46:16 PM · #25 |
Prof, with all the things you said, you make it sound pretty horrible.
But certain things stick out to me....
If the gazebo was meant to be lit and it wasn't, then why is that my (the photographer) fault?
Sure, I won't be able to get the shot I or the B&G wanted, but again, that's not my fault.
I didn't organize the wedding or the location, that's the job of the wedding planner?
900 out of 1,000 shots have to be keepers?
But you are only going to use 500?
so why do 900 have to be keepers, surely 500 will suffice?
No bathroom breaks?
That's just ridiculous.
And kids not cooperating?
Again, that's not my fault.
I'm not the parent.
I can ask people to line up and pose and do what they are expected to do.
But if a person is too drunk and wants to fight rather than smile or a kid wants to be a snotty little brat, then it's out of my control.
I'm there to photograph the day and if the day consisted of turdy kids acting up, then that's what the pictures will be of.
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.
|
|
