Oh, to be a wedding photgrapher...

How exactly does one become a wedding photographer?


Just last week, my brother got married and I couldn't help but feel annoyed at the cost of the wedding photgrapher and his evil ways (ie; won't give them digital copies of the photos to make their own prints, etc.) and whilst watching him take his photos, and after having seen the final product, couldn't help but feel that anyone with a disposable camera and patience could take just as good shots.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking anyone here, the guy did do a fantastic job, there's no doubt about it. But i just can't help but fail to see the challenge in taking photos of grown adults acting in a responsible, slow paced manner.


Of course there's obviously a lot of pressure and stress on the photgrapher during the wedding, and a fair bit of time consumption on the lead up/aftermath of it, but it doesn't strike me as something too difficult, and seems like a profession one could live very healthily in financially if he can remain to be consistently doing a good job.


So my question is.. How do you get involved in Wedding Photography. What's required and what's involved (I'm sure I've over-simplified it).



(I'm sure there's been 124,637,427 threads on this before, but when I search the page loads forever..?)


Cheers

PaulieC

I fully agree. Basically it's a couple of grand for doing a few hours easy work. You could definitely do it yourself with a P&S.

I'm sure the regular wedding photographers on here will back me up on that:rolleyes:

AnCatDubh

In essence you can start advertising your services as a professional photographer about 2 minutes after you've bought your first camera. No professional qualification required. Quality may vary greatly (obviously).

But a lot of people complain about their wedding photographer after the event but fail to see or appreciate that they are in the controlling seat before they engage them. If you want digital copies you have the option of requesting this before signing a contract and if they aren't able to / don't want to provide that then the buyer should just move along. There are lots of photographers that do all kinds of photography. You'll be sure to find someone suitable.

If they did agree it and then the photographer doesn't provide it, then the photographer is a schmuck and should be pursued through the legal mechanisms.

Contracts, contracts, and more contracts. Ensure it is right before you engage someone.

And after all of that you still have no guarantee of great images from the day.

Ballyman

The simple answer to your question is:

Buy a disposable camera and give it a go.

Come back to me here again when you're finished.

DaireQuinlan

Deleted User wrote: »

How exactly does one become a wedding photographer?


Just last week, my brother got married and I couldn't help but feel annoyed at the cost of the wedding photgrapher and his evil ways (ie; won't give them digital copies of the photos to make their own prints, etc.) and whilst watching him take his photos, and after having seen the final product, couldn't help but feel that anyone with a disposable camera and patience could take just as good shots.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

So my question is.. How do you get involved in Wedding Photography.

Ballyman wrote: »

The simple answer to your question is:

Buy a disposable camera and give it a go.

Come back to me here again when you're finished.

That's not an answer to my qustion, and I was obviously exaggerating with the disposable camera comment.

AnCatDubh wrote: »

In essence you can start advertising your services as a professional photographer about 2 minutes after you've bought your first camera. No professional qualification required. Quality may vary greatly (obviously).

But a lot of people complain about their wedding photographer after the event but fail to see or appreciate that they are in the controlling seat before they engage them. If you want digital copies you have the option of requesting this before signing a contract and if they aren't able to / don't want to provide that then the buyer should just move along. There are lots of photographers that do all kinds of photography. You'll be sure to find someone suitable.

If they did agree it and then the photographer doesn't provide it, then the photographer is a schmuck and should be pursued through the legal mechanisms.

Contracts, contracts, and more contracts. Ensure it is right before you engage someone.

And after all of that you still have no guarantee of great images from the day.

Well as I said, the guy did genuinely do a great job of the photos and he didn't waste any time in getting them printed off, etc. and getting them to the newlyweds, but I'm still very confused about the justification of the cost of such a person. Wedding Photography strikes me as something that isn't that difficult, but im saying that from the standpoint of someone who is not very well informed.

I'm aware there is no certification or qualification involved, and I imagine the vast majority of wedding photographers aspire via word of mouth comments from people who have used them. I'm making this thread to get a much fuller, mor ein-depth look into what is required with wedding photography, and if someone is interested in it, what they would do to get involved directly.

Quackles

Oh man, I would never, ever do that job. My brother has suggested he'll want me to do his, and I dread it. Organising bridal party, families, friends etc requires skills I wouldn't have.. Yes, any twit can take pics, but if you want it done well, that's another story entirely!

AnCatDubh

Ah, but there's a zillion threads in search for this one.

To pull up an old one; Here's a good description from Fajitas! from a similar thread

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.

Well, at least we know there's work involved with it.

kjt

Deleted User wrote: »

Well as I said, the guy did genuinely do a great job of the photos and he didn't waste any time in getting them printed off, etc. and getting them to the newlyweds, but I'm still very confused about the justification of the cost of such a person. Wedding Photography strikes me as something that isn't that difficult, but im saying that from the standpoint of someone who is not very well informed.

The justification of cost comes down to the photographers expertise in all areas.

To be a wedding photographer you have to:
- Have heavily invested your time to become a good photographer (3-5years minimum in photography IMO <photography, photoshop, album design, communications skills>)
- Not just be a wedding photographer but be good at landscape, portraits, people, photojournalistic, macro. You need to be good at everything!
- Have good communication skills, be a real people person (if you want any type of decent shot!)
- Have public liability insurance
- Have fairly decent gear (camera/glass)
- Have business sense
- Own a car (insurance, tax, nct)
- Own a computer (laptop, printer, backup solutions, software etc etc)
- Have talent

That's pretty simplified but gives you a better idea I hope

eas

Deleted User wrote: »

Wedding Photography strikes me as something that isn't that difficult, but im saying that from the standpoint of someone who is not very well informed.

I thought the same about golf.

DonkeyStyle \o/

kjt wrote: »

- Have good communication skills, be a real people person (if you want any type of decent shot!)

This ^

At the last wedding I went to, I was watching the wedding photographer with interest (drooling jealously at his gear as you'd expect!), and I was really impressed by his organisational skills, herding people in and out of shots, engaging with people, making them feel at ease... getting in there, getting the shots, bang bang, done, next... no hesitation or screwing around... I didn't catch his name, but it really was like watching a pro at work.
Even if you have killer gear and know how to use it, you still need a giant pair of balls to jump into a wedding full of strangers, start ordering them around the place and laughing and joking with them.

KarmaGarda

I think AnCathDubh's has linked the answer for you from Fajitas!. A cousin of mine does wedding photography and I can assure you it's no 2-4 hour job! Depending on what the couple want she often will spend the guts of 3 days taking photos alone which includes a day after the wedding too. So taking meetings/editing/sussing out the venue/etc some weddings can take almost a full week adding everything up. Not an easy job.

And as the rest pointed out, if you don't have the communication skills to compliment all this then it's a whole different ball game. It also reminded me of a photographer I was watching myself once. He used to play one really excellent trick for group shots. He'd climb up on the back of a bench and started to pretend to nearly fall. Little did they know he had already primed his shot and got some seriously great group photos with massive laughs and smiles. I was very impressed with his handling. Have no idea who he was though.

Eirebear

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055184390

Thats a post i made almost two years ago, looking at it now i missed a fair bit out of it.

Its dead easy...

thecommander

Is there a rough average as to how much a wedding photographer will charge for the shoot, editing and one album?

Eirebear

thecommander wrote: »

Is there a rough average as to how much a wedding photographer will charge for the shoot, editing and one album?

Depends on the photographer really.

Over here it seems to be averaging around the £1000 mark and maybe a little bit more.

I know a guy who wont go near a wedding for less than £2500

thecommander

Eirebear wrote: »

Depends on the photographer really.

Over here it seems to be averaging around the £1000 mark and maybe a little bit more.

I know a guy who wont go near a wedding for less than £2500

3 days work for 1k sterling. Not bad money.

I know theres a lifetime of training etc, but still as an hourly rate and pretty much a constant stream of potential clients its nice.

kjt

thecommander wrote: »

Is there a rough average as to how much a wedding photographer will charge for the shoot, editing and one album?

€200-€20,000 .......
It depends what album (design, amount of pages, amount of processing of shots, style etc) and how good a photographer you want too

Eirebear

thecommander wrote: »

3 days work for 1k sterling. Not bad money.

I know theres a lifetime of training etc, but still as an hourly rate and pretty much a constant stream of potential clients its nice.

Where does the 3 days work come from?

I done 8 weddings between May and August. (I dont charge 1,000 by the way. I dont see myself quite at that level yet)
I reckon each of those weddings took up about 40-50 hours of my time, between planning meetings, reccies, the day itself and proccessing.

I also managed to put in about 3,000 miles all over Scotland

Cabaal

Alot of very foolish comments on this thread...all along the lines of......
"A painter wanted 600e to paint my house sure thats easy all you need is a brush and some paint"
or
"Asked a lad to make a bookshelf and he wanted 1000e to make it, what a ripp-off sure all it is is wood and some screws and a lick of paint....anyone could do that"
:rolleyes:

Photographing a wedding is not a walk in the park and can be a stressful afair, you very much so have to be on the ball and have gear up to the job.

Sure you could use a P&S but then that would be the very last wedding you'd likely do when the bride and groom see your work

In relation to the OP's comments on the bride and groom not being allowed digital copys, well this is their fault for not checking this before hand and simply assuming they'd get them.

You should never assume something that you view as important when it comes to such an important day and the amount of money thats involved.

Dave!

This is kinda topical, so thought I'd post it here ! Think I might have seen it posted in another thread in this forum actually

http://www.cusicphotoblog.com/

Just some really class wedding photographs, definitely worth a look. I'm not a photographer, but I'm really impressed

DotOrg

thecommander wrote: »

3 days work for 1k sterling. Not bad money.

I know theres a lifetime of training etc, but still as an hourly rate and pretty much a constant stream of potential clients its nice.

That's the gross income for one wedding, not taking into account the costs involved, the days or weeks that may go by at slow times of the year when there is no work.

And the taxman wants a pretty big percentage of that €1000 too

Yes, if you were doing 100 weddings year after year it would be a good income but to do that takes a huge level of skill and professionalism as well as a decent photographic talent

Cabaal

DotOrg wrote: »

Yes, if you were doing 100 weddings year after year it would be a good income but to do that takes a huge level of skill and professionalism as well as a decent photographic talent

Lets not forget its also the VAST majority of your weekends taken up by work,

AnCatDubh

Eirebear wrote: »

Where does the 3 days work come from?

That was probably my post #8 which was a repost of an old Fajitas! post.

thecommander wrote: »

3 days work for 1k sterling. Not bad money

Well that depends on your expectations in life but assuming all things are legitimate and your tax authority take perhaps up to half of it from you, then you've gotta make sure you're doing a few of them a week to make ends meet. And what then if you aren't. It is to be hoped that you are good at what you do and have many clients beating down your door for your skills.

smelltheglove

thecommander wrote: »

3 days work for 1k sterling. Not bad money.

I know theres a lifetime of training etc, but still as an hourly rate and pretty much a constant stream of potential clients its nice.

Any money earned pays for this,

time spent with client to include phonecalls and travel costs during the booking procedure
Travel costs to venues to do a first check
Time spent on preperation for wedding, prep for all the gear etc
travel to the wedding and time spent there
time spent on edits
wedding album, cds etc
travel and time with the clients during the choosing process

Above are the obvious.

Now the hidden
costs of upgrading equipment, depreciation of equipment, my full set new would cost over 5k I'd say if I had to start out new.
insurances as mentioned before for public liability and professional indemnity
car insurance and tax
computers and hardrives, value of this I couldnt even count at this stage
programs for picture editing
advertising, business cards, business stationary
websites
printers and ink


time spent on having to explain yourself to people who assume you are making money for nothing.....

AnimalRights

Whatever the excuses or genuine income a Wedding 'Tog is due there is no fcking excuse for not giving the couple the negatives.
I recently bumped into someone that had pet photographs done which were so mundane and she too was denied the negatives.
300 sobs for a few poxy Doggie photos, ya Woman that took them was at that RDS Animal type expo....
That's what I'm going to get into next year......
I will def under cut every Cowgirl out there. :cool:

AnimalRights

smelltheglove wrote: »

Bla bla

Sorry but if these Wedding photographers are as good as they claim they can fly through most of your points, I suppose it's naive to expect someone to shoot a wedding that actually has a love for Photography?

kjt

AnimalRights wrote: »

Sorry but if these Wedding photographers are as good as they claim they can fly through most of your points, I suppose it's naive to expect someone to shoot a wedding that actually has a love for Photography?

Yea true, it's probably naive to think people need money to get by in life too, eh?

AnimalRights

kjt wrote: »

Yea true, it's probably naive to think people need money to get by in life too, eh?

Aye so many grand a week is a struggle.

Think about it why are so many Photographers Wedding photographers!

smelltheglove

AnimalRights wrote: »

Sorry but if these Wedding photographers are as good as they claim they can fly through most of your points, I suppose it's naive to expect someone to shoot a wedding that actually has a love for Photography?

Bla bla? how condescending can you be??? Yes I fly through all of this and yes I have a love for it.... but hello, the point is it COSTS money to do all of this....

kjt

AnimalRights wrote: »

Aye so many grand a week is a struggle.

Think about it why are so many Photographers Wedding photographers!

I can see what you're saying. I'm sure there's plenty of togs into weddings for the money but there is also a big amount in it for the love of the job (imo the best in the business are the ones who love it).

On the same note, theirs only so many weddings you can do a year. Do you know many wedding togs doing 30+ weddings a year? The togs who are charging thousands are usually the ones who include very high class albums. These cost a minimum of €400 before even starting to design the album.

humberklog

AnimalRights wrote: »

Think about it why are so many Photographers Wedding photographers!

Well it's probably more correct to ask why are so many wedding photographers wedding photographers?


It's probably same reason why most vintage rolls royce owners use their car for weddings or wedding dress makers make wedding dresses.


There does seam to be a lot of disgruntled costomers though. You see it here ocassionally or Joe Duffy or G. Ryan. Of all the services provided for a wedding day it's the photographer that pips all other complaints.

AnimalRights

smelltheglove wrote: »

Bla bla? how condescending can you be??? Yes I fly through all of this and yes I have a love for it.... but hello, the point is it COSTS money to do all of this....

Bla bla in my world is a shorthand type reply...
Mmmm maybe it's a lazy reply or maybe this convo has popped up a few times, think the Popcorn .jpg earlier was much correctos. :cool:

smelltheglove

I'm sorry animal I just wouldnt have expected a reply like that from you, my point there is for someone from outside the photography world to realise the costs, at 1k a wedding there is not that much profit considering the work to be honest. I do it because I love it, if I wanted to get rich quick I'd be in a different game.

AnimalRights

humberklog wrote: »

You see it here ocassionally or Joe Duffy or G. Ryan. Of all the services provided for a wedding day it's the photographer that pips all other complaints.

I will be phoning fat Gerry R tomorrow 'cos my large bottles of Cider in a certain pub have not been reduced in line with Bulmer's own policy of reducing their cost a fair few weeks back, fecking 6 Euro's a bottle!

AnimalRights

smelltheglove wrote: »

I'm sorry animal I just wouldnt have expected a reply like that from you,

I've never behaved so well on a forum in my life, at times my mask slips.

humberklog

AnimalRights wrote: »

I will be phoning fat Gerry R tomorrow 'cos my large bottles of Cider in a certain pub have not been reduced in line with Bulmer's own policy of reducing their cost a fair few weeks back, fecking 6 Euro's a bottle!

See, now if you pulled in a few wedding gigs you wouldn't give a monkey's how much it cost, you'd be minted!!


Are the chances of scoring at a wedding high?

Slidinginfinity

I think next time someone asks for information on wedding photographers my answer will be: "Invite everyone from boards, supply food and have an open bar. We might all show up for free." :rolleyes:

stcstc

man i always chuckle when these threads turn up

because the most replies come from people that dont seem to have a clue about whats involved or any form of business sense


yes there are some photogs who make lots of money out of doing weddings, generally they are ones who have been doing it forever, but like stepping up the rungs in the corporate ladder

Some of my clients are wedding photogs, and i can tell you some of them are really struggling. people are spending less on weddings in general, and so photogs are one of the things that are being cut

One client i can think of, would be one of the average. He shoots about 35 weddings a year.so on the average price quoted earlier, thats not even a decent wage!!!!!!!

there again another client ha 53 booked this year and he would be well above avarage price, BUT its him and his wife, he shoots she processes and designs, so even if he charges 3K a wedding

they will maybe only earn around 50K each. a decent computer programmer in one of the state agencies will earn well above that!!!

so not sure where people get the idea theres load of money in weddings!!!!

the people who make good money in weddings are the semi pro photogs, who dont bother having all the right kit, insurance etc. as they are generally working fulltime and not declaring tax etc on the cash in hand wedding jobs!!!!

and we know noone here would ever condone that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AnimalRights

I chuckle when I get the professionals views who after all "know"

chuckles

outspann

In typical stalker stylee, I was at a friends wedding earlier this summer where I made a point of shadowing their photographers. After a while of hiding behind trees and around gateposts, I ended up talking to (hassling?) Trish and Brian of We Are The Mastersons and I got to understand the whole other side of wedding photography which is the photographers relationship with the couple. ((David McClelland's website also seems good))

From watching them work, it wasn't just the shots they were getting but it was also having to do so by making people laugh instead of having to bark out orders all the time. I've been to a couple of friends weddings since, and (quirkily) I've set myself the task of pretending to be the "official" photographer. It's certainly not as easy as the shots I've taken in a studio where I've been able to control every miniscule detail of the shot from lighting to backgrounds to the way the model glances.

I believe people are happy to pay well for a photographer who does a good job. If the album you get back is rubbish, then regardless of whether you've spent 500 or 5000, it's a series of shots that you're never going to get back. It's the fact that there's no second chances that makes a good wedding photographer worth the money. So my advice to anyone even thinking of looking for a photographer is talk to as many of them as you can, look at their portfolio and see who you get on easiest with...

RCNPhotos

Never really got into the whole wedding thing. Did one, stress central and just wasn't really for me. But good to at least try it. But then found this fella the other day through a magazine. Love his wedding stuff, and his site too I think is great.

http://www.jeffnewsom.com/

Freddie59

smelltheglove wrote: »

Any money earned pays for this,

time spent with client to include phonecalls and travel costs during the booking procedure
Travel costs to venues to do a first check
Time spent on preperation for wedding, prep for all the gear etc
travel to the wedding and time spent there
time spent on edits
wedding album, cds etc
travel and time with the clients during the choosing process

Above are the obvious.

Now the hidden
costs of upgrading equipment, depreciation of equipment, my full set new would cost over 5k I'd say if I had to start out new.
insurances as mentioned before for public liability and professional indemnity
car insurance and tax
computers and hardrives, value of this I couldnt even count at this stage
programs for picture editing
advertising, business cards, business stationary
websites
printers and ink


time spent on having to explain yourself to people who assume you are making money for nothing.....

I've done a fair few wedding videos since around 1993 (mainly relations/friends as it's so time consuming) and I'm told I'm good at it. In that time I have seen many stills photographers in action.

At a niece's wedding a couple of ytears ago I had a few drinks with the stills guy after the event and he pointed out most of the stuff Rachel has pointed out above (all valid I add). But when I pointed out to him that the videographer has to do much the same (and about three times the work) he thought about it for a while and agreed it was a bit mad.

There are two photographers who (in the boom times - not now) would charge €5k; another €3.5k, and another 3k. Yes, the work was excellent, but, at the end of the day, they are photographs. Personally I think those level of charges are outragoeus. But, if people keep paying, they'll keep charging.

There is another chap that charges between €1200 and €1400 and his work is every bit as good as the others. Ultimately, both the stills and the wedding DVD end up in a press somewhere, gathering dust. But, given the wastage on other wedding stuff like flowers, dresses, hotel backdrops, etc is there any difference?

eas

Freddie59 wrote: »

At a niece's wedding a couple of ytears ago I had a few drinks with the stills guy after the event and he pointed out most of the stuff Rachel has pointed out above (all valid I add). But when I pointed out to him that the videographer has to do much the same (and about three times the work) he thought about it for a while and agreed it was a bit mad.

Hi Freddie -

When you're videoing a wedding, do you set up your own shots or do you just take footage of all the photographers set ups? Do you have a list with all the names of guests and gather them for the formals? Who's responsibility is it to get the BnG back to the reception with enough time to mingle? When something unexpected happens do the bride and groom turn to you for direction? Do you have to deal with Mother of the bride when she's not happy? The list goes on.

Don't get me wrong, videographers have their own things to worry about, but in my experiences (generally) it's the photographer who take the brunt of the responsibility on the day.

In any industry there will always be people who can ask a premium for their services, and these people will not always be the best at what they do.

thecommander

AnCatDubh wrote: »

That was probably my post #8 which was a repost of an old Fajitas! post.

Well that depends on your expectations in life but assuming all things are legitimate and your tax authority take perhaps up to half of it from you, then you've gotta make sure you're doing a few of them a week to make ends meet. And what then if you aren't. It is to be hoped that you are good at what you do and have many clients beating down your door for your skills.

I know. Im a designer and charge by the hour. People try to tell you "sure you can do that with Word", so I know where you're coming from.

If the taxman is taking half your income then you need to change accountant.

Freddie59

eas wrote: »

Hi Freddie -

When you're videoing a wedding, do you set up your own shots or do you just take footage of all the photographers set ups? Do you have a list with all the names of guests and gather them for the formals? Who's responsibility is it to get the BnG back to the reception with enough time to mingle? When something unexpected happens do the bride and groom turn to you for direction? Do you have to deal with Mother of the bride when she's not happy? The list goes on.

Don't get me wrong, videographers have their own things to worry about, but in my experiences (generally) it's the photographer who take the brunt of the responsibility on the day.

In any industry there will always be people who can ask a premium for their services, and these people will not always be the best at what they do.

I see where you're coming from eas. The only shots that I shoot which the photographer sets up are the post-wedding shoot and end of church. As you will appreciate, the church photographs are not 'set-up' per se and are covered by both stills and video.

I would cover the same ground as the stills person, meetings, priest, rehearsal, etc. I would cover far greater gound than the stills person over the day, and the post-editing is far more intense.

And, FWIW, I have often helped the stills photographer to gather people, etc.

I don't want this to develop into a stills v video issue (as I enjoy both immensely), but the fact is that some of the stills prices being charged are, as I've already said, outrageous.

The reality is that, in most instances, (let's say for a 2:00pm weddng) the stills photographer will attend from 1:00pm to 6:30pm at the latest (I agree some may stay later than this). Nice money if you can get it. Granted, there will be an amount of PP. But €5k's worth?

But the ones I've seen, in the main, attend at these times. Can you REALLY justify €5k for this? I couldn't.

But, at the end of the day, it's a personal choice. People pay above the odds for things like cars, TVs, etc, so photography's no different. You keep paying - they'll keep charging.:)

BTW - great website. Loved the portfolio.

eas

Freddie59 wrote: »

I don't want this to develop into a stills v video issue (as I enjoy both immensely),

amen to that.

smelltheglove

Freddie59 wrote: »

I would cover the same ground as the stills person, meetings, priest, rehearsal, etc. I would cover far greater gound than the stills person over the day, and the post-editing is far more intense.

I see where you are coming from Freddie, I have met many videographers, I have to say the best I have come across were the ones for my own wedding, a team of 3 men, from around 12.30 until 11pm. They admitted that my editing was one of their hardest as I steered away from romantic music and went for a more edgier theme so their editing had to go with that. It was 5 mths before I received my dvds.

I think these guys were hugely underpaid, yet they were still starting out. I often think to myself that it is a harder game for videographers, only about 50% of my weddings have a videographer. Many couples say they couldnt be bothered spending the money on a dvd that they will watch a couple of times but I always recommend a videographer. I think the difference is that pictures will hang on the walls for years, the dvd comes out once in a while so thats why people put more attention towards the photos. I would never argue the job being easier, I have edited films myself, a couple of hours of wedding footage and christenings. I have to say though, I did spend less time with the editing than you would I'd say, but the hardest part of it was setting the editing to the theme of the music and fitting it all in properly.

What I love now is watching the face on my 2yr old when she watches my dvd, she often takes it out to watch it as her daddy is singing in the dvd and she loves it, when she sees mammy and daddy dancing she gets so excited and I have to say it is unfortunate that so many people do not go for it.

As was said before though, a chunk of the cost for these expensive guys are the albums, one my sister viewed for 5k had an album included worth over 1k. Ok so I still see it as being steep but there is that huge bit coming out of the money too, along with taxes etc.

As mentioned before though the photographer is the one who people give out most about and as eas says I think it is due to the photographer taking the brunt of responsibility. When something goes wrong it is the photographer that is blamed, if the driver takes a wrong turn and gets the couple to the reception 30 mns late, they dont think they were late for dinner because of the driver, they think they were late because the photographer spent so long photographing.

stcstc

i am not sure the costs we are talking about are getting though in sensible conversation


if say a photog does a wedding for say 1K

now say their expenses, ie insurance album etc etc come to say 500

so then say it takes 50 hrs total for a wedding, well thats only 10 euro per HR

NOW i dont know about anyone else, but i dont work for that much.

If i did i could work in a takeaway and get paid that, without the stress and maybe even free food!!!!!!


now say a photog charges 2K, and costs are maybe 800

so 1200 is left, now say even the photog does the wedding is say 40 hrs

thats still only 30 euros an hr

now most skilled people earn at least that!!!!!


with video its slightly diff in that there are less materials costs and more manpower costs

bp_me

kjt wrote: »

- Own a car (insurance, tax, nct)

On this point, there is a very good chance your typical SDP insurance is not sufficient here if you are carrying camera equipment in your car (for commercial/professional purposes). Worth checking out.

Nisio

Duffy wrote:

"If I give you a violin, you will not be able to get a tune out of it. If I give you a camera, you run the possibility of taking a seminal snap."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8287779.stm

Freddie59

smelltheglove wrote: »

I see where you are coming from Freddie, I have met many videographers, I have to say the best I have come across were the ones for my own wedding, a team of 3 men, from around 12.30 until 11pm. They admitted that my editing was one of their hardest as I steered away from romantic music and went for a more edgier theme so their editing had to go with that. It was 5 mths before I received my dvds.

I think these guys were hugely underpaid, yet they were still starting out. I often think to myself that it is a harder game for videographers, only about 50% of my weddings have a videographer. Many couples say they couldnt be bothered spending the money on a dvd that they will watch a couple of times but I always recommend a videographer. I think the difference is that pictures will hang on the walls for years, the dvd comes out once in a while so thats why people put more attention towards the photos. I would never argue the job being easier, I have edited films myself, a couple of hours of wedding footage and christenings. I have to say though, I did spend less time with the editing than you would I'd say, but the hardest part of it was setting the editing to the theme of the music and fitting it all in properly.

What I love now is watching the face on my 2yr old when she watches my dvd, she often takes it out to watch it as her daddy is singing in the dvd and she loves it, when she sees mammy and daddy dancing she gets so excited and I have to say it is unfortunate that so many people do not go for it.

As was said before though, a chunk of the cost for these expensive guys are the albums, one my sister viewed for 5k had an album included worth over 1k. Ok so I still see it as being steep but there is that huge bit coming out of the money too, along with taxes etc.

As mentioned before though the photographer is the one who people give out most about and as eas says I think it is due to the photographer taking the brunt of responsibility. When something goes wrong it is the photographer that is blamed, if the driver takes a wrong turn and gets the couple to the reception 30 mns late, they dont think they were late for dinner because of the driver, they think they were late because the photographer spent so long photographing.

Great points Rachel. In all the years I have had a great rapport with the stills photographers, and would always make a point of telling the couple to look at the stills - not me. They are a great bunch and I suppose I can, hand on heart, only say that a couple were nasty or arrogant. An interesting point raised earlier was the one about which shots the videographer arranges. I did have one wedding where I had spotted several casual shots, and, while composing them, the stills guy would just stand in front of the Camera and snap away. He seemed to make a point of it. But he was the exception rather than the rule.:)