Photoclubalpha

Hi all, I'm new here! I'm pretty active on other forums but hadn't quite made it to this one until now.

With all the buzz about new cameras, accessories, and lenses, I think many of us get distracted and forget why we bought cameras in the first place. That being said, I'd love to see a thread discussing the merits, drawbacks, pieces of advice, and experiences with using the Alpha system to shoot weddings. I have been shooting weddings exclusively with Sony now for almost two years, so I feel like I've been in the Sony-only wedding photography game for longer than most.

Anyone else here use only Sony for wedding photography? If so, what does you kit include? What were/are your biggest problems with the system? What else do you have to comment on concerning the subject?

I'm not looking for 'what's the cheapest Sony wedding kit option' or anything such thing, just good information from people with experience (preferably professional experience at that). I think an information thread on the matter would be of great interest to many.

Not being in the wedding photography business, so can't help much (some of the forumers would for sure) so allow me to welcome you to the forum.

take a look here:
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =32&t=3749

pakodominguez wrote:take a look here:
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =32&t=3749

Have seen that article before (and it is a pretty decent read) but that particular thread isn't particulary lively and certainly doesn't contain much in the way of discussion concerning the Alpha system as a wedding kit. I'd love to see a thread with an informative, lively, and up-to-date information regarding the system for weddings. Perhaps even being updated as new lenses, accessories, and camera bodies are announced and become available.

I'll start.

I shoot with an A850 and A700, neither of which is the primary per se, but rather used in concert for their individual merits. I make good use of a pair of f58's, as well as an f42 for backup. My lenses are the CZ1635, a KM 28-75D, a CZ85, a Tamron 90mm macro for ring shots, and a 70-200G. All work very well for my purposes. I'll be adding a 50mm f/1.4 sometime this season for easier and improved reception photos in the lower light venues. I'd also LOVE a CZ135, but I highly doubt that gets added to the arsenal anytime soon.

The Sony colors are my favorite part of the system, in addition to the brillance that is the f58 flash. I sometimes find myself longing for better 1600+ ISO performance, but I generally get very good results at 1600 and below so it's not a major concern for me.

I use a very slim kit for weddings, but I don't go very far beyond friends, acquaintances, and family. To be honest I don't very much like doing weddings, but when your rule is that your hobby has to pay for itself, shooting a wedding is about the only way to get new lenses. Most of the time, however, I shoot a wedding to cover another expense, such as car repairs or a vacation.

I use a Sony a700+VG, HVL-F56AM, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Minolta 24/2.8, 50/1.7, and 70-210/4. The Tamron sees most of the use, the 24mm does the controlled group shots, and the 50mm does tighter head shots, couples, and dramatic focus control. The beercan actually sees little use unless I'm shooting outdoors, but that's due more to the lack of speed. I need a 70-200/2.8 quite desperately, more likely a Sigma than a Sony due to the cost. More often than weddings I do portraiture including engagement pictures. For that I shoot with the primes and the flash firing through a white umbrella, expanding the set-up with a 5200i flashgun.

The biggest hurdle in using the Alpha system for weddings: extremely limited availability of rental equipment. The second biggest hurdle for me: work-arounds for studio-lighting.

KevinBarrett wrote:The biggest hurdle in using the Alpha system for weddings: extremely limited availability of rental equipment. The second biggest hurdle for me: work-arounds for studio-lighting.

I definitely agree with the limited availability of rental options! As for studio lighting work-arounds... what do you mean? I always use CyberSyncs to fire flashes for formals, so I guess I've never had issues using them for more normal studio lighting as well.

I can't really add much to this one..
Gear wise, well again..I'm not a holder of top end stuff..

The most interesting point I can make, is that since I've re-adjusted my prices, and mostly based on a rate per hour, including obviously costs/travelling, and starting with a basic print package on all (for weddings), things have def improved, aka I've actually got bookings! lol

I've split it into 3.

A 3 hour basic one, no extras..just some prints
A half day booking, as above, no dvd and album..but basic prints included
A full day's rate, which is a bit below the established studio guys local to me, but not daft rates either.

I've also rejected over pumping print prices, and now seek an "out the door" fee, for any jobs, even non print ones (websites, the charity shots I've done etc)

Wandering a bit off the OP's topic, but just thought I would share that, does seem to be working. Any thoughts fire away!

bfitzgerald wrote:I've split it into 3.

A 3 hour basic one, no extras..just some prints
A half day booking, as above, no dvd and album..but basic prints included
A full day's rate, which is a bit below the established studio guys local to me, but not daft rates either.

I've also rejected over pumping print prices, and now seek an "out the door" fee, for any jobs, even non print ones (websites, the charity shots I've done etc)

Wandering a bit off the OP's topic, but just thought I would share that, does seem to be working. Any thoughts fire away!

Very interesting. I've pretty much gone the opposite direction on several of those issues, minus the inflated print cost. In the last year I've raised all my prices and all my coverage times and added many additional album and DVD options. The result has been fantastic, and I've got about 14 weddings on the books already with about 4-5 brides that are likely-to-book. I've way ahead of where I expected to be. I'm aiming for and at this point expecting 20 weddings this year with literally ZERO extra marketing besides website and word-of-mouth.

No matter how you slice it though, the Alpha system IS capable of professional wedding photography; as many have said before, it's the person behind the camera that matters, not the camera itself.

I would say region plays a big part in it. My location is currently over subscribed with photographers, a decent number of well established studios, no shortages finding someone.
Thus the challenge is to establish yourself in the market, whilst I would consider myself experienced overall, I am less in this category. I also have no studio to pay for..which removes an overhead (but also obviously it reduces potential walk in clients)
Most of the top guys won't be offering partial services, or shorter bookings. Thus there is potential to exploit that. What I wanted to avoid is the "weekend warrior" rates, in other words work all day, throw a CD out with jpegs on it, and charge a silly low rate. I'm also turning down, please turn up take a few shots for a few hundred euro, not worth the bother for me (esp with travelling)

My solution was to offer that 3 way choice, with extras of course added on. Obviously I will monitor the situation, but previously, offering no reduced time services..resulted in erm, well nothing happening at all! At this moment, it's simply not possible to compete with the main studio folks, they have extensive portfolios, studios, and advertising. Costs which are not easy to outlay for myself. This way I maintain a good hourly rate (with costs for travel on top of course), and actually get work!
Not an easy situation, I'll monitor how things go, and possibly chop out the 3 hour one..but even with that, I still command well over €100 per hour, and have none of the costs of albums etc.

But your region might be better, mine is heavily over subscribed with photographers, and wedding photographers!
I think all the systems are capable of doing this kind of work, would be nice to get to FF digital, but we'll see how that pans out. APS-C is ok, and capable enough though.

bfitzgerald wrote:I would say region plays a big part in it. My location is currently over subscribed with photographers, a decent number of well established studios, no shortages finding someone.

Ha!
tell me about NYC...

Yeah NYC!

I think there are a lot of photographers in NYC, but also a lot of people live there. Something along the lines of "photographers per 100 people" Hard to work these things out, but I know competition is intense where I am, and digital has only made that even more so. Go back 15 years or so..and things would be a bit different.

I went to the annual Bridal Show here about 6 weeks ago to scope things out. There are a plethora of big studios offering expensive packages, but none giving all digital options.

Print prices were ridiculous, some as high as $25 for an 8x10! People are being priced out of a chance to get good, quality photos of their weddings.

My solution to that is to offer the all-digital wedding for $500. I enjoy weddings, so they're not a chore for me. People should be able to afford quality work, and since it's not to make a living at - just pick up extra money to feed the photo habit (and others, hobby money is always short around here) I think that I can pay for quite a bit with a few weekends a month. No advertising yet, but I've just picked up my second assignment for the year. I plant to create flyers later on, to post at grocery stores and the like.

Too many people are forced to use Cousin Earl and his P&S, or an in-law with a disposal camera, because weddings are just way too expensive. I've also made initial contact with a lady who teaches you how to save money on your wedding. She likes the idea of an inexpensive pro shoot because she's seen the results of the others.

I know many will shrink in horror at the price I'm doing it at, but I'm not out to steal the high-dollar studio's customers, just provide an affordable service to those who couldn't afford it otherwise. Expenses are minimal, flash batteries, minimal travel - I live in a large metro area that precludes the need to travel much to get a large clientele base, and a DVD to burn to. I'll be giving everyone a print release, so all they have to do is go to the photo-finisher of their choice and get prints made. I'll not be keeping long-term backups for anyone, unless I have some really fantastic shots, so there's no long term storage costs.

I'll offer extended packages with prints, of course, or digital photo frames, at additional cost, but must of my target audience won't have funds for that.

I HOPE that the income generated will get me the funds I need to buy an a850 and super-wide FF zoom so that I can finally start on a photo book I've been wanting to do for 20 years, looking at some unique architecture that we have here in the St. Louis area.

Dusty

Dusty wrote:My solution to that is to offer the all-digital wedding for $500...

I know many will shrink in horror at the price I'm doing it at, but I'm not out to steal the high-dollar studio's customers, just provide an affordable service to those who couldn't afford it otherwise.

I don't really think you understand what you are actually doing, whether you think you do or not.

You may not be aiming to 'steal' customers, but that certainly doesn't mean that you aren't. And even if you don't steal a single customer from a large studio, that certainly doesn't mean that you aren't taking customers away from legitimate medium sized studios and other professionals who work in home studios.

Part of being a professional wedding photographer is helping clients to truly understand the value of quality photography, in both the short and long term. What you are doing is undermining the value of good photography. Let me elaborate.

Let's assume that you do actually give your 'clients' professional quality photos. Maybe you do, maybe you don't, but let's proceed on the assumption that you do. However, quality photography is more than just images on the computer, more than just images on a DVD. Quality photography is meant to be displayed and showed to others. It is, after all, a visual record of what is supposed to be the biggest day of two people's lives. So here you go providing professional quality photos, on DVD, for dirt cheap. Let's go on to surmise that your bride loves her photos and is thrilled with the price she paid you for them. So that bride ends up with a DVD that she's very happy with and goes on to tell many of her friends how good of a deal she got and shows them these great photos. That experience undermines the value of a true professional photographer to all these other future brides as well, further increasing the damage that someone like you can actually cause.

Five years down the road this bride has printed a few mediocre photos at Wal-Mart but never got around or had the opportunity to get a quality album or other quality printed products made. She doesn't have anything to really look back on but a few images on a DVD (Does she still have it? Did it get lost during move? What about scratched?) and a couple crappy quality prints. Maybe not even that.

It's people like you who are the MOST dangerous to the industry. The crappy CL photographers who have little talent and less ambition won't be providing quality work and thus those photos won't convince other potential brides that they don't need a professional. Your work, hypothetically, definitely can.

None of this even touches on what happens to the poor brides who happen to be having their wedding on the day your camera or flash or both fail. (You have double backups, right?) Or the bride who happens to have a wedding on the day after you accidentally break your leg. (You have a network of photographers who you can turn to, last minute, to backup for you, right?) Or the bride who happens to have a wedding where some drunk guest falls over and break a limb on your lightstand. (You have insurance, right?)

See what I mean Dusty? Do the professionals a favor and either charge a reasonable price and in turn provide a complete product, or just knock it off entirely. I doubt you'll do either and I'm sure I just wasted 15 minutes of my life typing out a response you'll ignore, but at least I tried. People like you are the most dangerous individuals to pick up a camera, at least as it concerns wedding photography.

This is turning into a very interesting thread......i have worked my way up professionally for over 27 years from a studio "gofer" to a 1st assistant and finally photographer. I have 3 words for how i can justify why i charge $35 for a 8x10 print. "Knowledge, creativity, and experience". Period! I deal in the realm of weddings in the six figure range as a regular part of my trade....lets look at cost in these terms.....Flower's and decor can range from 10-25K, music...a good band with 10 pieces commands 8-10k, a fine hotel or catering venue, $75-$100K.....so who is going to argue about spending 8-10K on a high end "quality" photographer? Foolish people, thats who..... think in these terms...95% percent of the cost of the wedding is invested into the consumption and enjoyment of the wedding guest, as well it should. Makes an impression on the people, for certain. But what does the Bride and Groom take away from the entire experience? I head full of memories, and their photographs. So i think its all about proportion, for example, if someone is making a wedding under much more humble circumstances, as many people do, you could have a DJ as opposed to band, and save big....you could cater at your home or a friends to save money, you could do the flowers yourself, but a lousy photographers work will linger long after the benefit of savings has passed... i can understand why someone would want to photograph weddings out of enjoyment, or fun or to make some extra cash. All well and good, but i think a line gets crossed when someone implies that working pro's should not charge for their work. I will not sit here and break down my operating cost, but i assure you they are substancial, and i need to charge $35 a print just to stay in business. If you do 10 weddings a year from home and want to "give away" your work, thats fine, just don't judge those who can and do get fair prices for the work they have struggled for so long to achieve. My client's spend big, and say thank you after......thats how it should be. Respectfully, David

Well I appreciate Dusty's response..
I'll just add this blog post I ran across! I'm not suggesting I agree with it BTW.
http://www.jessreamy.com/wedding/?p=11

She makes some interesting points, and there are some comments that are worth reading. Moving on now.
The old saying goes, "there is a market for everything", discount stores to high end classy dept stores. Customers can simply pick where they go. No question in the current economy, which is still very poor, some folks are watching their budget.
On a personal level, whilst I have gone with a more value based time attendance pricing, I would not attend a wedding for $500, I'd start off with 3 hours coverage for $750, that's the lowest currently I'd consider, for local work..add some more to travel, up that to $1000 for half day (5/6 hours), and for a full day I'd be looking for $1500 ish. That's my prices currently, or near that, in USA currency. What I have done is strip out albums, and DVD slideshows (I'll include that in the top package), and I have a basic print package, aka prints for the album (they provide it, not me), a few selected enlargements..but anything on top, they pay extra for, ditto on the DVD etc.
I'm not offering a cd only service, I know print output can vary so much, I insist I see the prints, and OK them, has to be that way for me, the print is everything.
I'll include the cd after the job is done, but with prints..the cost is minimal for prints really, in the overall scheme, anything extra is "on top" of that. It's really just cutting out the "flab" as you might say.

I know most of the established studio folks won't take half day bookings, but I've no problem with that. I've worked out a good hourly rate, included expenses etc, so the figures can vary a bit. I'm not doing 40 hours of pp either, never been that kind of shooter, I know some of the top dogs do that..and I think that adds a lot to the final price (which I understand)

I'm around mid point, the established folks are more expensive, the buy a lens crowd cheaper, they'll do the whole day for less than my 3 hours. I've no interest in being "the cheapest", but I am aware I'm not established enough to get the top rates either. It's a compromise situation, but acceptable to me. If I attend a service for 3 hours, I've less work on the job, and I've less work at home, it's just offering an "affordable" package to some, those who want it. I won't be getting the top clients, simply because I don't have the long term been around for long enough to get a name, so no point me making up nice big packages, I'll be waiting to get the work!

I honestly don't have a problem with Dusty, or what he does. I know some people local to me that do the same, I've turned down some work, where people asked me to do a whole day for $700 odd, I've turned down jobs where I've to drive for 45 mins each way, and to "take a few shots afterwards" for a few hundred euro, I can't really make a lot on that, nor offer a decent end product. But the real rub is..I don't really take business away from the well established guys, they won't do short bookings (and if you have plenty of work, I can see why), and the ultra cheap folks, well I don't want their jobs..I can't make a decent profit on it, so that does not effect me either. And if they don't effect me (I simply don't want these jobs), they def don't really impact on well established shooters, they don't want them either! So I am not sure I see the harm in all of it, each to his own..

On both ends of the scale, it's a bit scary! I know some places that charge very very high prices, nice work, but it's PP overkill to my eyes (hence the price probably), at the other we have people who will do a full days work..and get a fairly poor hourly rate. I'm just doing back to basics.and offering to fill a gap in the market, and I see it there..decent service, and it's affordable to "some", some folks want as cheap as they can get, I'm offering less fluff..back to basics packages, add on the stuff you want. It's all fair game..whatever part you are in.

I do think there is overpricing, and underpricing in the market, I've seen a studio charge over $700 for a 3 frame portrait, which isn't that big..it's absurd pricing in that respect, print prices can also be on the ridiculous side..I agree with Dusty on that, I always seek an out the door fee..I don't play games, some studios say their sitting is free, but screw clients on the prints...hugely. If I'm working, you're mostly paying for my "time", that's how I prefer to price things, and obviously you included time at home working on shots too. It's about being fair, competitive..but making a decent wage. I'm not greedy, some studios are gouging people badly..if they can get away with it..well great, but it's not very moral to say the least.