Wedding Photographers - Why so $$$?

rgiller

Got a few quotes from photographers for a wedding next year, and they're coming in anywhere between €1900 and €3500. I'm not a professional but I can take photos (check out my flickr) and I know that developing doesn't cost anywhere near what they're charging. Sure, there's labour costs for a few hours work, and fuel costs for getting to the venue. But if they've already got the equipment (flash setup, L lenses and a 1dM3) then actually taking and developing the photos costs very little.

Is it so expensive because in general people don't know how much work / consumable cost is involved, and don't know any better than to pay it? Are photographers ripping us off for this service? I'm thinking I should get a friend to do it and pay him with a new lens or something. i'd be delighted to get that for a few hours work

dakar

Umpteen threads on this lately which seem to degenerate into arguments pretty quickly, but as a strict hobby photographer, even I couldn't let this slide:

rgiller wrote: »

But if they've already got the equipment (flash setup, L lenses and a 1dM3)

They get these for free from some secret benevolent society which only pro photographers have access to? How do I sign up.:(

magicbastarder

a) it's a wedding, and people charge more for weddings
b) it might just be a 'few hours work', but that doesn't mean they do two a day, five days a week
c) they will often hire assistants
d) 'if they've already got the equipment'? it's only natural that their price will partly have to reflect the cost of the equipment, you can't remove it from the equation

Ricky91t

These threads are pointless,just a rant imo.
They might be paying a loan off for the gear they might be renting a studio
It all add's up,They are skilled at their jobs and provide great images which last a long time afterwards,one thing you have to have is alot of confidence theres no way id go and shoot a wedding for cash unless i had done a good few before and knew my pics would be up to a good standard

PopeBuckfastXVI

Head over to the bands & musicians forum and ask why bands charge twice as much for a wedding as for a gig in a pub.

Answer will be the same: people charge more when they know the service is for a wedding. It's not right but there you have it.

You'll melt your brain if you worry about it OP.

Fajitas!

It's stressful - You can't f*ck up. If you do, you'd want to switch towns.

You gotta buy/pay back the gear in the first place. As you know, it's not exactly cheap

There are other costs to cover, such as insurance, petrol, assistants, etc

The day itself (for me anyways) is about twelve hours work. That's long enough as it is. Followed by processing - Usually I run a batch of B&W's on the night itself, followed by the work for the next day or two to go through.

Followed by that, meeting up with the clients before and after the day itself - Especially after - When sitting down with clients, showing them say... 150 photographs, it takes up time!



I can see where your coming from, but as you know yourself, there's more than pressing a button to taking a photograph!

smelltheglove

Ok here's my side of it. I'm new to the game and I've only done a few weddings. I need to make my name so I need to do them very cheap to get the work and get my name spread out there. The cost of the equipment is huge, which means all of the initial money I make will got to equipment, possibly up to about 8 weddings needed just to get the standard of equipment I want.

The work itself, some people ok I agree go a little over the top with their pricing as they know how obsessive some brides can be. My sister wanted to pay 5k for a photographer just for a story book album, I laughed at her, instead she payed 2k to another and 3k on video. I paid 700 for a disc with all the shots. Its an expensive business to be in and sometimes the photographer only has that one job for the week and they need to be paid.

For the weddings I have done so far, I have met with the couple before the wedding, travel expense 1, checked the ceremony venue, expense 2, checked the reception venue, expense 3, never mind the time spent on these 3. Then on the day travel to brides house, get to the ceremony, get to the reception. After that there is work done on the shots, then going to meet the bride to handover the work, if you are doing an album this will be 2 visits as there will be one to choose the shots and another to hand over the final work. There is the ordering of the album and the time spent perfecting it.

It is NOT just turn up on the day take pictures and print them, there is a lot of time and thought and energy gone into it. You cant use the same shot for every couple, you need to get a feeling for what these people are about to get the right shots for them. I have done a free wedding and 2 350 weddings just to get a reputation. It is a lot of hard work and then never mind the people you have to deal with. You have to deal with a hugely hormonal woman, and we are hormonal at the best of times but we go over the top for our weddings, you have to deal with her mother who can often be worse, then you also have to deal with bridesmaids getting drunk and not wanting to be in pictures, grooms that cant see the point of the pictures, grannys that dont want to stand there they want to stand here and the uncle who thinks he can chat away with his mates while you are taking pictures pof him and it will all be ok. Need I say more?

I am not into the idea of charginng extortionate rates but there is a lot to be done and a lot to be taken for the privilege of shooting a wedding, and then there are a lot of photographers who just wont do weddings because of the stress. It suits me because I take people shots, I am not good with landscapes but I enjoy people.(sometimes) I looked at your flickr and I could not take your shots, i just dont feel it iykwim.

Ballyman

If all you want are photos on a CD then you'll be able to get that for much less then €1000 if you shop around.

If you want the whole shebang - album, prints etc. then expect to pay more as there is much more work involved.

I'm not justifying the cost or anything but it is a profession that lasts approx 4 - 5 months every year and even if a photographer was doing 2 weddings a week for those months it's still not a massive salary, especially with the huge outlays on equipment they have.

I had your same issue when trying a pick a photographer a while back and couldn't believe the costs, but I wasn't interested in photography then so had no idea. I am now and have a better idea of the costs and work involved

Anyway, you should know well that anything with the word wedding associated with it is multiples in price of anything else due in the main to insane brides who have no concept of money when it comes to their big day and will pay anything requested with big wide eyes.

spav

I got my photographer for €1200. The wedding isn't til next year, but a friend used her and was happy with the results. She's just starting out so it's a bit of a risk - if you look around there are a few photographer's assistants etc. who are very reasonable.

If you want her details, let me know.

From what I saw when looking around, you don't get what you pay for. One guy was looking for €3k, and the shots on his online gallery were woeful. There was stuff on there where the bride was blinking, really basic mistakes, you'd expect more from a mate with a compact.

Dragan

From what i can see, if you really want to a wedding photographer then you need to be able to cover all possible eventualities of things going wrong.

This means 2 decent level cameras and all the relevant trappings, lenses, flashes etc.

Then you have one day to get what you need and you need to work that around whatever it is the customer has set up to do. Add in being there for a good few hours, a couple of days post prod and then development.

At the end of the day, the majority of industries have standard prices and you will get photographers who operate below and above this.

Rojo

Maybe people should just take mental pictures with the recession here and all.

CabanSail

There are all the production costs as mentioned.

The people who get the top money also have premisis to rent & the costs involved. There is a vehicle to run for the business. Advertising is not free either. They will normally have someone to answer the phone, manage bookings etc. These people need to be paid as well. The other thing that has to be considered is that there will be a lot of inquiries that do not result in work, but still consume time.

Most of the professionals I have spoken to have at least two complete sets of gear & more if they have assistants with them. They will replace one set annually.

Of course if you are demanding the top whack then you need to be producing the work to justify it. It only takes one botched job to ruin a reputation. The quality of work expected these days would have been confined to the very wealthy a couple of decades ago. Have a look at some older Wedding Albums & see what used to the norm 10 or 15 years ago.

I have only done a few weddings for friends a long time ago. It did my head in & I doubt I could do it for a living. I take my hat off to those who do.

Tactical

Smelltheglove has said it very well.

I agree 100% with everything she has said.

You could apply the arguement of the OP to every aspect of wedding from the dress (sure isn't already made, why should I need to pay for alterations?) to the flowers (sure aren't they already grown, why should I have to pay so much to get them arranged nicely?)

TelePaul

You're paying a premium for a specialist, consultancy service. It's like going to the doctor - you're availing of an expertise that not every one has.

spav

Rojo wrote: »

Maybe people should just take mental pictures with the recession here and all.

I've decided to get married to the job.

Freddie59

TelePaul wrote: »

You're paying a premium for a specialist, consultancy service. It's like going to the doctor - you're availing of an expertise that not every one has.

My two cents. These boys aren't saving lives - so let's not go down that road. NOTHING can justify the €5k and €4k that some photographers are charging. It's nuts - plain and simple. There's one local chap here in Waterford who charges €1200. He's very popular - and more than a match for the specialist consultants.:p

In all fairness lads - there's no justifying those charges. But it's not unique to photography. Order flowers - then say they're for a wedding and watch the price leap.

And to think that a priest up in Wicklow (I think) was berated for introducing some charges (€90 I think) for opening the church for a wedding to cover the Sacristan, heat, light, etc. It defies belief. The whole 'how dare he' scenario played out.

And at the end of the day the photo album (along with the DVD) have an active life of about one month after the event. Then they're thrown in a drawer or a cupboard gathering dust. It's stupid.

For what it's worth - I've done several wedding DVDs for family members (all thank you jobs!). Did the whole hog, produced DVD with chapters, etc. Considering the work the DVD guy has to put in comparted to the photographer the prices are inverted IMHO.

Coupled with the advent of Digital, these prices simply cannot be justified. This is not America.
The bubble may burst one day though - look at the construction industry at the minute. They killed the goose. Plain and simple.

But at the end of the day the consumer is to blame. You keep paying - they'll keep charging.

Phototoxin

Freddie read my mind...

I was going to say RE: You're paying a premium for a specialist, consultancy service. It's like going to the doctor - you're availing of an expertise that not every one has.

then the priest should change 7500, he has to study for 7 years,there are less of them involved and unlike cameras not anyone can 'operate' a church.

Its totally OTT

If someone gave me 3900 I'd be laughing at how stupid they were. There's no way it could justiy that. I'd go something like 650 + printing costs. Not bad for about 20-25 hours work overall.

smelltheglove

I dont think anyone would really argue that the 5k mark is unjustified, like i said I laughed when my sis wanted to pay this. Some hguys are in it for the money, the cheaper ones tend to be in it for the love. I'd say 1 to 1.5k is a good enough price for it but then if you wanna go high end to a studio photographer who has to pay for his premises and staff as mentioned before then you will need to expect more than this.

The dvd thing coming in now I would not deny these guys have more work to do in the aftermath with cuts and edits etc but they do not have as much pressure in the day. The dvd guy generally follows the photographer, he vids the motions of the day, if he messes up 5 mns here he can cut it out, if the photographer messes up 5 mns of shots they could be the most important shots, it has to be 100% right. I'm not saying there is more skill to photography than videography but there is no leeway with photography, every shot has to be perfect.

I've done dvds myself and I know they can be hard and tiresome work and I do agree these guys deserve more than what they get but at the end of the day there are still a lot of people who do not get a dvd so they have less booking opportunity. I do look at my photos every day around the house but not my dvd.

My dvd was amazing though. We had a highway to hell music video made.

kgiller

Just dont bother getting married, save yourself the money

TelePaul

Freddie59 wrote: »

NOTHING can justify the €5k and €4k that some photographers are charging.

Sorry, but you're wrong - demand justifies the price. You've contradicted yourself in the last line of your post. It's simple economics, if people weren't willing to pay 4-5K, photographers wouldn't charge 4-5K because the demand would not exist. It's a classic laissez-faire economic condition, the market will find its own level.

The doctor comparison supports this assertion - wedding photographers ('good' ones at least) provide a specialist skill to a relatively niche market and therefore command a price-premium. If everyone with a point and shoot was capable of producing the same results as a 'wedding photographer', supply would increase, demand would fall, and prices would drop (economically, a surplus).

Trojan

I'm really surprised that there are professional photographers here who undervalue their own work so much.

You all know a variation of this story:

Nikola Tesla visited Henry Ford at his factory, which was having some kind of difficulty. Ford asked Tesla if he could help identify the problem area. Tesla walked up to a wall of boilerplate and made a small X in chalk on one of the plates. Ford was thrilled, and told him to send an invoice.

The bill arrived, for $10,000. Ford asked for a breakdown. Tesla sent another invoice, indicating a $1 charge for marking the wall with an X, and $9,999 for knowing where to put it.

snopes.com wrote:

What is the value of a task? As this legend points out, performing the actual labor can easily be the smallest part of the process, with the real value lying in correctly diagnosing the problem and coming up with a viable solution to it. Ultimately, a task is worth whatever the person who needs it performed is willing to pay, whether the work is cerebral or manual.

Freddie59

TelePaul wrote: »

Sorry, but you're wrong - demand justifies the price. You've contradicted yourself in the last line of your post. It's simple economics, if people weren't willing to pay 4-5K, photographers wouldn't charge 4-5K because the demand would not exist. It's a classic laissez-faire economic condition, the market will find its own level.

The doctor comparison supports this assertion - wedding photographers ('good' ones at least) provide a specialist skill to a relatively niche market and therefore command a price-premium. If everyone with a point and shoot was capable of producing the same results as a 'wedding photographer', supply would increase, demand would fall, and prices would drop (economically, a surplus).

Paul, with the greatest of respect, nothing CAN justify those prices....except from the market forces you point out. When was the last time you saved a person's life with a 1D?

As I've said - you keep paying - these buckos will keep charging. Human nature.:)

Freddie59

smelltheglove wrote: »

We had a highway to hell music video made.

Love it!:D

Mylow

Phototoxin wrote: »

. I'd go something like 650 + printing costs. Not bad for about 20-25 hours work overall.

650, less expenses, less finance/depreciation, less tax, less insurance for 25 hours work minimum.

I work for myself and it really annoys me when people say your charging to much. In fact final straw for me was when a client the other day said I was robbing them, €1150 for 5 days work, that was to include €200 of materials, toll fees alone €38, fuel €60, depreciation on equipment (van and tools), my insurance (vehicle and business).

There is a limit to how low you can go on price, below that its no longer worth operating any business. I think we will see lots of people get out of self-employed business, the operating costs are going up and the income is coming down. It will leave the bigger operators in the market, and can only mean one thing, prices go up.

The statement's above re-inforces my decision to wrap up business and go back to the 9 to 5 routine. You need to fully understand the true cost of running a business.

Fajitas!

Trojan wrote: »

I'm really surprised that there are professional photographers here who undervalue their own work so much.

You all know a variation of this story:

Truth!

Freddie59

smelltheglove wrote: »

The dvd thing coming in now I would not deny these guys have more work to do in the aftermath with cuts and edits etc but they do not have as much pressure in the day.

Maybe - maybe not. But they're there from around 1:00pm to 1:00am + the post editing. Far more intense. And deserving of more money any day.

Fajitas!

Freddie59 wrote: »

Maybe - maybe not. But they're there from around 1:00pm to 1:00am + the post editing. Far more intense. And deserving of more money any day.

Arse to that.

nilhg

I wonder will the guys on the sideline at Croker on Sunday earn €4-5K , even more expensive gear than for weddings, highly charged atmosphere, no chance to retake, hundreds of shots to process for a tight deadline.......

Trojan

Mylow wrote: »

The statement's above re-inforces my decision to wrap up business and go back to the 9 to 5 routine. You need to fully understand the true cost of running a business.

Don't do that, it's never that bad.

Assuming your work is decent, you should be able to find people who are willing to pay realistic prices it. Normally those who argue about prices undervalue themselves too.

TelePaul

Freddie59 wrote: »

Paul, with the greatest of respect, nothing CAN justify those prices....except from the market forces you point out.

Well nothing but market forces determines price. Demand is the sole determinant of price in an unregulated industry.

Freddie59 wrote: »

When was the last time you saved a person's life with a 1D?

I can't afford a 1D, Canon are such 'rip-off merchants' :rolleyes:

Freddie59 wrote: »

As I've said - you keep paying - these buckos will keep charging. Human nature.:)

Well who are you to put a price on the satisfaction a woman takes from her wedding photographs? You just can't say, empirically, that a series of well-captured photographs are worth, say, €3,999.99 + VAT @ 21% to a particular person. In all likelihood, the market will grow - at €5000 a wedding, why wouldn't it? - and increased competitiveness will obviously drive down the price.

Also, I don't mean to have a go at you or come off as an asshole, I just hate the Eddie Hobbs take on socio-economic theory.

Freddie59

Fajitas! wrote: »

Arse to that.

Because?

smelltheglove

Freddie59 wrote: »

Love it!:D

pm'd you link

TelePaul

Mylow wrote: »

650, less expenses, less finance/depreciation, less tax, less insurance for 25 hours work minimum.

I work for myself and it really annoys me when people say your charging to much. In fact final straw for me was when a client the other day said I was robbing them, €1150 for 5 days work, that was to include €200 of materials, toll fees alone €38, fuel €60, depreciation on equipment (van and tools), my insurance (vehicle and business).

There is a limit to how low you can go on price, below that its no longer worth operating any business. I think we will see lots of people get out of self-employed business, the operating costs are going up and the income is coming down. It will leave the bigger operators in the market, and can only mean one thing, prices go up.

The statement's above re-inforces my decision to wrap up business and go back to the 9 to 5 routine. You need to fully understand the true cost of running a business.

Great post. Stick at it, you're obviously serious about it.

TelePaul

Trojan wrote: »

I'm really surprised that there are professional photographers here who undervalue their own work so much.

You all know a variation of this story:

I hear that story - or a variation - every day in college. It brilliantly sumarises the role of the consultant. You pay for the know-how.

Fajitas!

Because it's simply not true. Have you shot a wedding? Filmed one?

Trust me, you try get 140 people in for a group photo, when all they want to do is get in for their first round, and you'll know what's worth money. I'm not saying videographers don't deserve money, but there's certainally as much to task with the photographer than videographer.

Usual wedding for me is from 11am to 11pm or 01am. Sometimes even the night before too.

Freddie59

TelePaul wrote: »

Also, I don't mean to have a go at you or come off as an asshole, I just hate the Eddie Hobbs take on socio-economic theory.

Far from it Paul. It's good to debate the issue.:) Far from Eddie Hobbs, I'm just a normal working-class guy with a regular income who finds it incomprehensible that someone (regardless of their equipment costs - which are relatively low in a lot of instances) can command €5k for four hours work (+ the PP).

I find it incredible that there are people who are actually stupid enough to pay it in the first instance TBH.

Fajitas!

Freddie59 wrote: »

which are relatively low in a lot of instances) can command €5k for four hours work (+ the PP).

I find it incredible that there are people who are actually stupid enough to pay it in the first instance TBH.

Er... If you think it's 4 hours work, you've really not looked into it...

spav

I assume also that wedding photographers go into the business as they want to make money from their talent. Working it out pro rata so they earn about €20p/h seems a bit silly to me - in what other sector would you expect a skilled professional to work for that kind of money?

I'd suggest that €1k - €2k is fair, and if you charge €3k - €4k then you need to be really, really, really good. Anything over that seems excessive, unless you have a large team or some other niche.

I know for our wedding the band is costing twice as much as the photographer, and all for 3 hours 'work'.

smelltheglove

Freddie59 wrote: »

Far from it Paul. It's good to debate the issue.:) Far from Eddie Hobbs, I'm just a normal working-class guy with a regular income who finds it incomprehensible that someone (regardless of their equipment costs - which are relatively low in a lot of instances) can command €5k for four hours work (+ the PP).

I find it incredible that there are people who are actually stupid enough to pay it in the first instance TBH.

I would think anyone who paid 5k for 4 hours work and pp would need their head checked. The average photographer spends a lot more time than this but granted there is a minority that show up without any pre appointments take some highly posed shots and do a bit of pp and ordering their prints etc, this does not deserve 5k but the work of the average photographer for a wedding with no premises or staff to pay would warrant a 1k to maybe 2 k price tag.

TelePaul

smelltheglove wrote: »

I would think anyone who paid 5k for 4 hours work and pp would need their head checked.

Some people have more money than others.

smelltheglove

I wouldnt mind be one of those people Telepaul.

TelePaul

smelltheglove wrote: »

I wouldnt mind be one of those people Telepaul.

I'm not saying it's 'right'...I'm just saying that it's the way things are. My bank balance is €70 :eek:

Fionn

i've seen the results of 'friend's' photography sometimes it doesn't actually come out the way the couple wanted, on the other hand it can be a way of saving a lot of dosh - providing the 'friend' is confident and knows what they are doing - so it's a bit of a lottery ok.
But if you hired Yeavant for instance i think you'd need more than €5K, theres people on this site who are as good a photographer as him, but maybe not as good at the business of photography there is a difference.

like you could get hundreds of painters who might be as good or better than Picasso but it's his paintings that are celebrated and fetch huge sums all over the world.
thats the way things are! and as someone said if people are willing to pay, thats the market forces at work.
There is a lot more to wedding photography than simply turning up with a camera and snapping off a couple of shots.

Freddie59

Fajitas! wrote: »

Because it's simply not true. Have you shot a wedding? Filmed one?

Trust me, you try get 140 people in for a group photo, when all they want to do is get in for their first round, and you'll know what's worth money. I'm not saying videographers don't deserve money, but there's certainally as much to task with the photographer than videographer.

Usual wedding for me is from 11am to 11pm or 01am. Sometimes even the night before too.

Fajitas - I've sone several. The whole hog. AND been up[ close and personal with the stills guy. The workload doesn't come close. The last few I've done the stills guy just gathers as many as he can outside the church and hopes for the best. And one of them is the €4k guy.:)

How do you manage to stay until 1:00am when they finish cutting the cake at 6:30 at the very latest?

Freddie59

TelePaul wrote: »

Some people have more money than others.

And some people have more sense than others.:)

Freddie59

Fajitas! wrote: »

Er... If you think it's 4 hours work, you've really not looked into it...

OK Fajitas. Typical wedding 2:00pm Saturday. Can you do a breakdown of the time and costs involved for you? Fair question?

eas

I work a min. 40 hours per wedding, often times more

this includes :

consultations
engagement shoot
general communications
travel
wedding day
post processing
designing albums
making slide shows
proofing
packing / unpacking / checking / cleaning gear
making schedules
making shot lists
researching venues
+ more menial things that I can't think of at the moment.

Some of my expenses are - (without a studio)

training
web hosting
marketing materials
equipment (camera + computer + software + car + more)
insurance
esb
phone
petrol
albums (250-600eur a pop)
accountant
and, again more.

TAX

Yes, most professional photographers pay tax.

If you want an estimate - I get paid under eur20 an hour at the moment for wedding photography and that's charging what would be considered to be mid-level prices.

I'm realtively new at it. One thing is for sure, to make a living I either need to charge more or give less. I think I'll charge more.

I find it the allegations that wedding photographers are money grabbing offensive, especially from people who do not have a clue what they're talking about. Unfortunately, that's life.

edit - feel free to look at my website - www.savo.ie

DeVore

Rojo wrote: »

Maybe people should just take mental pictures with the recession here and all.

Ah things will never get THAT bad..... there's always camera phones


I was invited to a wedding recently where I knew the bride and groom (daughter of a good friend of mine) but knew absolutely no-one else. So I figured they would all be busy and I'd be alone... I asked the bride is she would mind if I brought my camera and documented the day in a different way from the professional she had hired.

Its a lot of fun but its also a long day dragging kit around with you. I didnt do much of the "ok everyone say cheese" stuff because it doesnt interest me. Instead I took a bunch of "guerilla" shots of people relaxing and having fun and enjoying themselves. Needless to say, they were a lot more evocative then the stilted posed shots but hey, thats what people order and expect.

Ultimately I can see why pro's charge so much though I think a good few are over board on the costs (3k+ would want to be something special) but I still would be reticent to hand the day over to an amateur unless you are happy with the idea of getting a lot of non-traditional wedding pics.

In the end my friend liked my pics more because they were more human and caught people clowning about and laughing but its definitely more risky to go that route!

DeV.

DeVore

Eas if you work 40 hours a wedding and you say you get paid 20e an hour, are you simply dividing 800e for a wedding by 40?

800e for a wedding seems awful cheap to be honest.

To put this in some perspective, IT professional contractors will get paid 1k a day for specialist skills and would have the same sort of cost base as pro photographers (the equipment being replaced with the cost of years of training and then an apprecticehood at awful wages and conditions)

Personally anything under 1k seems too cheap and over 3k too expensive imho.

DeV.

Fajitas!

Freddie59 wrote: »

How do you manage to stay until 1:00am when they finish cutting the cake at 6:30 at the very latest?

I've never seen a wedding finish at 6:30

Ever.

Freddie59 wrote: »

OK Fajitas. Typical wedding 2:00pm Saturday. Can you do a breakdown of the time and costs involved for you? Fair question?

2:00 wedding?

Whole hog?

-First meeting with clients, several months before the day of the wedding. Usually takes 1 hour.

-A few months before, check out church & hotel if I've not worked in them before. Usually takes another hour.

-Second meeting with clients to finalise what's happening, who's going to be where, times, all the rest of it. Another hour. Maybe more.

-Night before, rehearsals, get some great expressions, laughter, nervousness, etc. An hour to two hours.

-Morning of wedding, over to Grooms house/hotel, prep pictures in there, glass of champers, etc, some group photos, putting on the tie/bow etc. One hour.

-To Brides place, similar story, bridesmaids getting makeup, champagne, group photos, etc etc. One hour.

-To the church, groom already inside, get bridesmaids coming out first, father/driver helping bride out of car, stay in front of them while coming in along the church. 20 minutes

-Front of church, ceremony, rings, kiss and so on. Straight down to back of church, have couple coming down the aisle, outside, people congratulating couple, happy photos, champers if it's there. Depending on ceremony, anything from 30 minutes to an hour and thirty.

-Straight out with couple to get the portraits done, followed by family photos, best men/bridesmaids and so on. Group photo, generally, the entire group that is attending the wedding, takes more than a while to get together. An hour-ish

-If we can get a chance to cut the cake before it actually happens, we go for it now, if not, worry about it later.

-This is my first break, usually spent between eating, and putting the photos onto my laptop, and picking all the photos that work, and doing minor edits. Exporting at a low enough res that they can be seen on screen/projector if the option is there. Coming up to the desert, head back in, get speeches, people holding up their glasses and whatnot. Get in as many shots of the tables as possible. Up to three hours am eating while not working.

Back to laptop, now's my chance to show if we've agreed on it. If not, no need to worry, pack it away.

-First dance, second dance, third dance. Everyone involved in each one, several photographs of each. Depending on how long the want me, I'll either finish up now (About 11) or stay on until 1 if they want more photos of the drinking and craic. Depends on what they want, anything up to another 2-4 hours.

-Home then, put all photos onto comp, backup. Another hour.

Sleep (Saturday wedding you say? I'll sleep in )

-Next morning, go through all photos again, pick out best, usually get selection to somewhere between 150 and 300. Possibly show couple the photos then, or when they get back. Probably another 2 hours.

-Processing all images to finish. Colour and black & white variants. Anything from a day to a day and a half, to more.

-Another sitting to go through all the images with them, and options for printing/albums/books. Usually takes another 2 hours - Maybe 3 hours.

All together, you're talking about approx 3 days work. You can add traveling time on top of all that. Include the non-negotiable cost of a second photographer/assistant in there too.

I don't think it's fair to quote all my costs on a public forum, hire me, and we'll go through that.

Happy?

eas

DeVore wrote: »

Eas if you work 40 hours a wedding and you say you get paid 20e an hour, are you simply dividing 800e for a wedding by 40?

DeV.

hi Devore,

no, I think you missed the point of my post. There's a lot more than time to factor in.