Wedding Photography Prices - Thread #7859

jpb1974

Here's one for all the people who love talking about photography prices -

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/26/why-wedding-photographers-prices-are-wack/

I'd never hire a photographer that was so money-conscious about everything. Fair enough, it's your income and all, but the guy that wrote that sounds like a cnut. You'd be almost afraid to ask him to take a photo of someone in fear of getting a lecture about wearing down his shutter.

I suppose it's hard to find a balance though. Photography is a saturated market and every new entrant to that market seems intent on finanically undermining the industry until it reaches a level where photography isn't valued.

The typical clueless amateur also hurts pros both ways though. Not only does he devalue their work by undercutting to extreme levels, but by providing a sub-par service, he makes professional photographers in general not look like they're worth hiring (I know a lady who had a bad experience with a photographer once, when he clearly wasn't up to the job of taking her birthday party photos. Her friends had better photos than the "pro"; ever since, she's blanketed all photographers as a waste of money due to this amateur proclaiming to be a pro and delivering crappy photos).


(of course, all of that is said whilst acknowledging that there are amateurs out there who could put even the most experience professionals to shame. I'm just referring to those who really get in over their head by being deceitful)..

mrboswell

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd never hire a photographer that was so money-conscious about everything. Fair enough, it's your income and all, but the guy that wrote that sounds like a cnut. You'd be almost afraid to ask him to take a photo of someone in fear of getting a lecture about wearing down his shutter.

I suppose it's hard to find a balance though. Photography is a saturated market and every new entrant to that market seems intent on finanically undermining the industry until it reaches a level where photography isn't valued.

The typical clueless amateur also hurts pros both ways though. Not only does he devalue their work by undercutting to extreme levels, but by providing a sub-par service, he makes professional photographers in general not look like they're worth hiring (I know a lady who had a bad experience with a photographer once, when he clearly wasn't up to the job of taking her birthday party photos. Her friends had better photos than the "pro"; ever since, she's blanketed all photographers as a waste of money due to this amateur proclaiming to be a pro and delivering crappy photos).


(of course, all of that is said whilst acknowledging that there are amateurs out there who could put even the most experience professionals to shame. I'm just referring to those who really get in over their head by being deceitful)..

Thats happening in all industries at the moment so photography is not unique.
Its a sign of the times and something that all business have to worry about.

I think its a bit harsh to call someone deceitful for getting themselves in over their heads. At some point all "pros" had to take a bet on themselves when starting out and for some it is a way of pushing themselves. You can't blame people for that, even if it occasionally goes wrong.

It is a risk though.
For the photographer: they should have indemnity insurance to cover
themselves in case of an expensive balls up.
For the client: do your homework and pick someone with a proven track record with good recommendations and one that suits your budget. No point in whining about the cost. If its beyond your budget move on and look for someone else.
Its the only way to give yourself the best chance of getting a good job done.

mrboswell

mrboswell wrote: »

I think its a bit harsh to call someone deceitful for getting themselves in over their heads. At some point all "pros" had to take a bet on themselves when starting out and for some it is a way of pushing themselves. You can't blame people for that, even if it occasionally goes wrong.

Well, there's a difference between 'taking a bet' on yourself and being deceitful, in my opinion.

I know of more than one photographer with photographs on their site that looked fantastic (and were lifted from a Google search).

I'm doing my first wedding this year. I'm being straight up and honest with the bride/groom about it being my first wedding. I've been to the church four times so far, once with someone to practice on (and will practice again before the wedding).

I've sold and bought different gear, I've made notes of flash power settings for different areas of the church for the procession, etc. I've practically got a walkthrough guide of the day written down and a great idea of exactly where I'll be to take different photos throughout the day (except during the actual ceremony, which I'm still iffy on but will figure out closer to the time).

That's taking an educated 'bet' on myself.

What I'm referring to, are guys and girls that actually own business cards, and have nothing but an entry level DSLR with two kits lenses that came with it, proclaiming themselves as professionals, kitting out their "Joe Soap Photography" facebook pages with images from Google searches and throwing up price lists and packages every now and again.

This is a nonsense approach and it hurts the profession, in my eyes.


That said, I'm well aware that we all start somewhere, but there's never an excuse to get in over your head with photography. You could take photographs for years without getting a paid job (or trying to). So there's plenty of time to learn. Some people just live up to the stereotype that's often portrayed of the guy that rushes out to buy his DSLR and business cards in the same go, and makes a mess of people's photos.


Photography is unique in that the start up costs are practically non-existant. €500 and you've everything you need to take photographs and market yourself.

jpb1974

The one thing that struck me -

That would technically leave me with about $7,000/year to feed myself, buy groceries, pay for my heat and electricity, clothe myself, etc. But, usually I end up reinvesting whatever I have left on upgrades and new equipment

That's $134 a week for food, heat, clothing and electricity (assuming they are single)... but they usually end up spending it on camera equipment

Borderfox

jpb1974 wrote: »

The one thing that struck me -



That's $134 a week for food, heat, clothing and electricity (assuming they are single)... but they usually end up spending it on camera equipment

That amount was just for weddings, they do other work also

jpb1974

That amount was just for weddings, they do other work also

Wonder why they didn't state their total income then?

If you're going to start talking about rent, food, clothing and other personal/living expenses then it'd probably be best put in the context of overall income especially given the fact that a lot of the costs that are mentioned could also be spread across the entire business and not just the wedding business.

It's not an entirely accurate picture.. it has been slightly skewered to suit the arguement.

magicbastarder

$2,500 a year for high speed internet?

jpb1974

$200/month in car insurance? (I mean it's possible... but you'd have to be a fully certified boy racer with at least a few penalty points to your name)

jpb1974

$250/month for my own health insurance

And I thought the VHI was bad...

jpb1974

I also need to have a new pair of shoes ($100) every season

4 month wedding season... 20 weddings... must have lead blocks for feet.

mrboswell

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, there's a difference between 'taking a bet' on yourself and being deceitful, in my opinion.

I know of more than one photographer with photographs on their site that looked fantastic (and were lifted from a Google search).

I'm doing my first wedding this year. I'm being straight up and honest with the bride/groom about it being my first wedding. I've been to the church four times so far, once with someone to practice on (and will practice again before the wedding).

I've sold and bought different gear, I've made notes of flash power settings for different areas of the church for the procession, etc. I've practically got a walkthrough guide of the day written down and a great idea of exactly where I'll be to take different photos throughout the day (except during the actual ceremony, which I'm still iffy on but will figure out closer to the time).

That's taking an educated 'bet' on myself.

What I'm referring to, are guys and girls that actually own business cards, and have nothing but an entry level DSLR with two kits lenses that came with it, proclaiming themselves as professionals, kitting out their "Joe Soap Photography" facebook pages with images from Google searches and throwing up price lists and packages every now and again.

This is a nonsense approach and it hurts the profession, in my eyes.


That said, I'm well aware that we all start somewhere, but there's never an excuse to get in over your head with photography. You could take photographs for years without getting a paid job (or trying to). So there's plenty of time to learn. Some people just live up to the stereotype that's often portrayed of the guy that rushes out to buy his DSLR and business cards in the same go, and makes a mess of people's photos.


Photography is unique in that the start up costs are practically non-existant. €500 and you've everything you need to take photographs and market yourself.

Just 2 things.

Every industry has cowboys, that chance their arm, and usually mess things up. Every industry had to deal with it. Like the good professionals is those other industries photographers that are good will always get work.

Photography is not that unique in terms of start up costs, but thats not the issue.
I think what you really mean is that it costs nothing to have a neck like a jockey's ball*x.