Weddings

[WeddingShooter]

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.

Gouging people badly. Hmm. That is an interesting position for a 'professional' photographer. You're actually going to have to define gouging in far more specific terms before I will even be willing to consider whether there is any truth to it.

First of all, have you considered the overhead that it takes to run a studio? Lights, equipment, employees, etc. etc. There is a LOT more overhead than most people stop to think about.

Let's think about it differently. Let's pretend that we are talking about a restaurant rather than a photography studio. They have to pay for employees, electricity, gas, not to mention actual cost of food, condiments, and supplies. Now this restaurant is in business to make a profit, not to be 'fair'. However, they have several low cost meals for those who cannot or will not spend money on the more expensive ones. Often those meals only garnish about 10% more than it cost in food and prep time to prepare, not counting any other overhead, and definitely not counting profit. So the restauant attempts to make up for what is, in reality, an income deficiet when someone cheaps out and purchases the cheapo meal. The way they do so is to charge $2.00 for a Pepsi which actually has a real-life cost of about $0.10 per glass. They also make up for it by attempting to sell liquer and other consumables that are low cost and high profit. This isn't price gouging, it is simply the only way that they can afford to offer the cheaper options on their menu.

The same goes for photographers. They have a lot of overhead to account for. If they would charge what you call a 'fair' rate, they'd go out of business!

You seem like you may be somewhat new to business so I would definitely recommend examining what it really takes to be successful in it. You cannot be successful if you do not make a profit.

[bfitzgerald]

Gouging badly is asking for €500 for 3 not that big prints in a frame that cost next to nothing to make!

Up to folks if they pay it. I don't have any overheads, so I don't need to cover those costs. I'm not trying to be the cheapest out there, but I'm not trying to be the most expensive either. Many studio photographers want to fill their books with full day weddings and the like, I don't need to..so we don't really compete. And in any case, your average established shooter..could be said to be cheap compared to the top end guys, who court celebs and the like.

One man's cheap is another's expensive.

I know what a profit is, working for in excess of €150 per hour is what I call a decent rate, hard to argue that's bad wages, however you want to call it! I have previously run a business, an agree it's a mistake to price yourself too cheaply, that does hurt you. But you have to make a distinction between the weekend warrior, and those who are part time..and willing to take smaller, but fairly well paid work.

[David Kilpatrick]

My business involves, mainly, producing a magazine for wedding photographers. What I earn from a month's work - actually about 60 hours spread across the month, mainly concentrated into one week - is about the same as the fee for one upper end wedding. I could, I think, do two magazines a month and at one time I did 26 a year in total but had a staff editor and secretary to help.

Similarly, a good high end wedding photographer might be able to survive on a dozen weddings a year plus some commercial and general work, working solo (as I do in my business today) but the moment you go beyond a couple of serious weddings a month premises, marketing, and staff help must be factored in.

Having said this, I would find it almost impossible even as a Fellow of two professional bodies and a well-published photographer to secure $1500 (£1000) as a day rate from a magazine or newspaper, or a commercial client. So I find it a source of great fascination that private individuals can find £1500 to £3000 (typically) for their wedding photography, and that's just a small proportion of their day's expenses.

I also know that to take that money, I would have to offer everything that goes with it. That means the premises, ambience, even the looks and dress sense and reception skills of staff - the carpet, the seating, the brand of coffee you offer them when showing off albums. Anyone who walks into my office or studio would just think 'how the hell can anyone work like this?' - and I would quickly discover that I do not actually own a suit which fits. No, if I was to trade as a wedding photographer, I would need to distance myself from my house, office, 'editor' persona, dress differently, acquire premises in the right place of the right kind.

And then pay for it all.

I do know some top level wedding photographers who work from home but most have had to create a show-house situation which I would find intrusive. And, often with a daily cleaner employed, annual redecoration and carpeting, hire of shop windows and showcases or attendance at wedding fairs to get seen their costs are still high enough.

But even in my position, I've done a few weddings, and much on the same terms as Dusty. Only for friends, and only for people trusted to understand what they are getting. I simply don't even consider doing the £1500 booking for a stranger because I would then be competing with my readers, and failing to offer the package which is expected at that level.

David

[WeddingShooter]

Gouging badly is asking for €500 for 3 not that big prints in a frame that cost next to nothing to make!

This is what so many people fail to grasp, especially as it pertains to photography. You are NOT paying for an image, you are paying for the experience, knowledge, and artistic talent that it took to capture that image.

I'll leave you with a famous exchange portion of The St. Louis and the Canadian Photographer...

"Remember that your prices should never be wholly controlled by present and local conditions, though they are always to be taken into consideration. Back of them there is always a vista of years of effort and study, for which there was seldom, if ever, a present reward, though hope tinged the future with all sorts of rainbow beauties. And this is that future. Now, If ever, is the time for those hopes to be realized. But that realization rests with you, and by cutting prices you ensure the surest of all possible means of never attaining it.

When Whistler, the famous artist, exhibited a series of color sketches some years ago at the Grosvenor gallery in Londun, John Ruskin declared that it was disgraceful to call such daubs pictures, and accused him of "Flinging a paint pot in the face of the public." Whistler sued him for libel. On a purely technical point he gained his case, but the justice of lluskin's criticism was approved by the verdict of one farthing (that is, half a cent) damages.

But, in the course of that famous trial. Whistler made a reply that is especially to the point in this connection. He was being cross-examined and had stated that these "Nocturnes" and "Symphonies," as he fancifully named them, took him about two hours to paint, and he charged $1,000 apiece for them. The counsel asked him: "And do you really contend, Mr. Whistler, that a picture which only took you two hours to paint can be honestly worth $1,000?"

And Whistler said: "You forget the years of study that made it possible for me to paint that picture in two hours." Now, that reply was a good one, and, when fixing your charges, you want to remember the years of study that have brought whatever powers you possess to their fruition of performance."

[bfitzgerald]

This is what so many people fail to grasp, especially as it pertains to photography. You are NOT paying for an image, you are paying for the experience, knowledge, and artistic talent that it took to capture that image.

Well I saw the small proof prints, the shots were pretty decent studio ones, nothing wrong there. What they were not was multi award winning ones. I think some photographers have their head in the clouds a bit...I don't really call standard studio shots "art". I know one guy who openly admits his prices are so high, because he has to pay a specialist pp guru for many many hours work. Not everyone wants that either..I just cut out the fluff.

The reason photographers charge a good hourly rate, is for their experience, and ability..but as the blog post said..$500 an hour, brain surgeon rates! Have to admit whilst I don't care for her CD only desires..she has got a point there! Photography is a time based job, for me at least..thus I work out rates based on that..and allowing for expenses etc. I see nothing wrong there. You might buy an album for $60 and sell it to a couple for $300.., some kinda work out that this isn't really a good deal!

I don't see why other folks prices would bother full time well established shooters..I don't see Dusty's couple walking into a studio..and paying that price, if they want a $500 job, they won't pay $2000+. I honestly think the casual shooters have next to no impact on the pro wedding crowd, they simply would not get their business, nor want it anyway! I won't work for that for a full day, so I don't mind at all if someone does!

[KevinBarrett]

Personally, I'm small-time, or not anywhere close to small-time, but I wouldn't do a wedding for a friend for less than $750. I'd inflate my print prices just to discourage them from bothering--buy the darn DVD instead. They're just so much work for a guy with a day job. I can easily imagine a pro wedding photographer inflating his prices out of what was "reasonable" or "fair" just to make price meet demand.

If you know you'd book every weekend in a year by charging $1500, that's $78,000 gross. Maybe you want some time off though, and due to your quality of work you can accurately estimate that 10-12 of your clients would back out if you charged $2000 instead. Now you're at $80,000-84,000 with less work. You've got to consider what's reasonable and fair to yourself, also. If your time is valuable, charge like it's valuable.

I personally do not like shooting weddings. I dislike the pace, the lack of control over light, and the strict formality of it all. But I love to do engagement pictures, couples, family portraits, and children. I love it so much I have a standing offer to my coworkers, $50 for a half-day of shooting and they get all full-res files. If it ever gets me more volume than I can handle, I'll raise the prices, but in the mean time I'm assembling a portfolio and having fun with my camera and my friends.

[Dusty]

I see I've sparked some controversy here! Let me start off by addressing some of WeddingShotter's remarks.

I DO know what I'm doing. I shot weddings for many years for a local studio. No, it was not full time work, only the biggest studios here have full time people, and they are usually the owners or their family. However, I got paid to shoot good, quality wedding photos on medium format film and shoot the reception (except for cutting the cake, the toast, flower and garter throw, etc) on 35mm.

My clients DO understand the value of good photography, that's why they seek me out. These are the people who CANNOT afford a studio photographer to do their weddings. They're having their weddings and the local Church (often for free if they're members) and the reception at the local VFW hall. Their Aunts are providing the lasagna, sheet cakes and other foods, bringing it from home. Sometimes they also do the wedding cake. They may also be sewing the wedding dress. Their cousins go to the hall early to set up the chairs and tables, then come to the wedding. They use silk flowers except for the small bouquets for the Bride and her attendants. There is no band, and the DJ is often a friend's stereo set pumping out his Itunes. They will have a 3 day honeymoon at a vacation resort at the Lake of the Ozarks, or a nearby Bed and Breakfast. They would never contact a regular wedding photographer, or, if they did, quickly look for a friend or cousin with a P&S to ask for a favor.

I offer a reasonable alternative to that with professional quality photos without cut off heads, too dark shots, burned out highlights, etc. My fee will often be 20% or more of their total costs.

I have only one DSLR, (so far), but MF and 35mm film cameras as backup. I don't want to use them, of course, as film and developing add to my costs and time, and digital is one of the reasons I can be so cheap. I have 6 or 8 flash units. I also have a standard contract that, like everyone else in the industry, says that in case of equipment failure I only owe you a refund. I've never had one YET, at a shoot, but had one of my MF cameras go bad right before a wedding. Luckily I have 2. If someone trips over my equipment and breaks a leg, his negligence will be a matter for the venue to arbitrate. That's also in the contract. However I only use lightstands at the post wedding staged shots, not the reception where people may get drunk, if they bring their own booze. And I do have a backup man that will shoot the whole thing (no PP) for $350.

Since I am a good wedding shooter, used to doing it on film (get it right, printing can only give you a stop or so), I won't have tons of PP time. A bit of cropping, maybe a bit of straightening, and burn to DVD. My time is minimal. I'll invest 10 hours, shooting and PPing, and come out with $450 profit in my pocket. Now, I'm an IT professional these days, and I can consult at $60 - $90/hr, but that consulting work is very scarce. That's why I'm tied to a desk all day working for a lot less than $45/hr. So making that kind of money of a day's work makes me and the wife both happy.

You're right in that I have no control over the printing, but have you seen the prints that the local Sam's club put out? They do great work, and going down to the local camera store and getting their 'pro' prints at a slight premium means that someone like Pako will make sure they're right.

Can they lose, scratch of break the DVD. Sure. And a fire could wipe out your customer's wedding album. There are also plenty of studios that are out of business, and the negatives lost forever, not to mention those that have had disaster strike their business and wipe out people's memories. If you value them, make a backup DVD, and burn them to a USB stick, and place them on-line. I think you just gave me and idea for an informational flyer to include with the DVD!

I did my sister's wedding 20 years ago on MF and 4x5. She proudly displayed the album I gave her on her coffee table for 2 years until she moved, then put it away until last Sept. for their anniversary. I paid for it all as my wedding gift, but, like most weddings albums, they are really a waste of money as they are under used. Of course, 20 years ago there was no digital, so they had to have prints to keep their memories, but most couples would be better served with a 4x6 print album and a 11x14 framed (I gave sis a 16x20, but made her frame it herself).

In short, I'm not taking anyone else's business, I'm getting the people who's only other alternative is free. And I'm making good money for it, by my standards.

I understand that wedding studios do most of their work during the spring and summer months, and yet want to make a full year's wage. Great if you can do it! But, like the Union Worker who wonders why everything he used to make is now made in China, you have to look at pricing yourself out of the market of the average guy. At the wedding show this year, you can see the $$$ flowing out of Daddy's pockets by to thousands, but many people don't have Daddy's with that kind of money. Limo rental prices are what some of my customers pay for a car! My in-laws spent nearly $50K on their daughter's wedding 3 years ago. Now they're in divorce court. What's the value of that $6K wedding shoot now? My customers can get an annulment the week after the wedding and not think that they wasted a fortune on my work.

Again, I'm NOT against you making all you can in your market. My strategy is to market myself as the econ-leader in wedding shoots. I'm the VW Beetle, not the Mercedes. There's room for both in the market.

Dusty

[bossel]

<...> $75-$100K.....so who is going to argue about spending 8-10K on a high end "quality" photographer? Foolish people, thats who<...>

Who's the fool here? You're treating probably 99% of this forum as fools! If you have nothing than disgust and disdain for those not being able to pay 100k on a wedding, then please use your experience and creativity elsewhere. Thanks.

[bossel]

<...>People like you are the most dangerous individuals to pick up a camera, at least as it concerns wedding photography.

Are you scared I am happy there is some competition and something in different price ranges. You can afford a highly regarded artist - well go for it, but don't forget the majority can't, yet they have weddings and want pictures. You talk like the Mercedes dealer looking down on people buying Toyotas

[DavidConn]

<...> $75-$100K.....so who is going to argue about spending 8-10K on a high end "quality" photographer? Foolish people, thats who<...>

Who's the fool here? You're treating probably 99% of this forum as fools! If you have nothing than disgust and disdain for those not being able to pay 100k on a wedding, then please use your experience and creativity elsewhere. Thanks.

Hi there, i think you mistook my comment.....i was aiming the comment at the foolish client who spends obscenely for a wedding and then hires a cheap substandard photographer, as opposed to the membership here. I respect all people......you must also understand that i operate in a very unusual marketplace in the NYC and surrounding area. We deal with a very upscale type of client, who is well educated and sophisticated. They want the best they can afford. Im not at all saying that there is not a need for a more budget friendly shooter, merely that we at the higher end of things have a right to charge a fair price and make a profit. Sorry if my post seemed offensive to any, it was not my intent. Best, David

[WeddingShooter]

<...>People like you are the most dangerous individuals to pick up a camera, at least as it concerns wedding photography.

Are you scared I am happy there is some competition and something in different price ranges. You can afford a highly regarded artist - well go for it, but don't forget the majority can't, yet they have weddings and want pictures. You talk like the Mercedes dealer looking down on people buying Toyotas

Absolutely not, to both your question and your assertion. My average wedding is $2100 or so in total, that certainly is not the Mercedes of wedding photography.

I am perfectly okay with, and understand entirely, the couple that simply cannot afford anything at all in the hypothetical situation Dusty described above. However, I also know from experience that those weddings are fewer and farther between many people claim. The majority of America will spend at least $8-10,000 on their wedding, so undervaluing professional wedding photography by offering it for dirt cheap hurts the industry as a whole. So if EVERY one of Dusty's clients are in the situation he described, great, he's making money and the couple gets something decent back in return. But sorry, I simply don't buy it. I'm betting rather strongly that he's had maybe one, maximum two weddings as exetremely budget conscious as the one he described. Most couples who 'cannot afford photography' are simply couples who either aren't educated enough about how important it is or are too cheap to pay the price for it. The latter couple you all can have, the former couple is being done a disservice though.

[pakodominguez]

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.

"
Wedding packages that START at $2,500 – and go up to $7,500 or more? Are you serious? Now, let my be clear: I’m not trying to undervalue the skills that a very good photographer must have and the extreme importance of having a very good photographer (as, after all, there are no ‘do-overs’ on the moments they are capturing!). I also understand that their equipment is expensive, they are sacrificing their Saturday night, and it is a job that requires a high level of mental focus and intensity. So I could understand paying them a couple hundred dollars an hour for this job.

But something like $500 an hour, or more? Hey guys, my job requires a lot of mental work and precision and sometimes I work on Saturday nights too. So I’m just saying."

Your girlfriend just forgot that, after the wedding, while she's going to her honey-moon, the photographer (or somebody else) have to take care of the editing, post-processing, printing, etc...

In other hand, a photographer is not a broker from the photo lab, but make part of his income selling prints. Your girlfriend want "Photographers, listen: I want you to come to my wedding, take a lot of really good pictures, and then give them to me on a CD with a personal use copyright release." for "a couple of thousand dollars an hour". Does she want me to serve as a a sexual toy too?

Once, a lady call me for an event - a sweet sixteen or something "easy" like that. before anything, she asked for a quote. I told her that my price for an event like hers was 1600 US$. She was horrified and ask me for a better price. So I told her that, if she was ok with a web gallery for select her pics for the fine prints and the album instead of the 4x6 proofs, and lowering other parts of the package, I could do it for 1200 US$.
She told me that it was still too expensive, that she was thinking about 600 US$ for the whole thing (prints included!!!)

My recommendation was: "take that money and go to the nearest Best Buy, but a camera and give your nephew, I'm sure he will be surely happy taking pictures. Then, you can keep the camera or taking it back to the store for a refund". Because she didn't need a photographer, but somebody taking pictures -and that's not the same.

In my case I'm only interested in working with people who likes photography -we can figure out a price (or a payment method) for everybody.

Regards

[bossel]

Sorry if my post seemed offensive to any, it was not my intent. Best, David

In that case: Welcome!

My clients DO understand the value of good photography, that's why they seek me out.

Go, Dusty, gooo !

so undervaluing professional wedding photography by offering it for dirt cheap hurts the industry as a whole.

Imagine all coiffeurs asked $150 for a simple mans hair cut, because they're artists and because they can use scissors, which, lets assume, 50 years was only done by a few selected ones. They needed years of experience. They work on your head, something rather important! They have to respect hygiene, and anyway, it was always $150.

Suddenly a guy comes along and charges $25 for a correct cut. His shop is a bit smaller, no fancy pictures on the wall and he doesn't offer you a coffee when you come in. But it's clean and he cuts well.
All tradional coiffeurs will be shocked. I say bravo!

And those who doubt about the quality or hygiene of a $25 haircut still have the choice to pay the $150 artist. And it's also understood, to pick up DavidConn's point, that the guy whos spends $10k per year on his looks will not choose the $25 coiffeur!

So where's the issue?

[bfitzgerald]

That was a pretty good post from bossel.

Only thing to add, is you'll also get a haircut for $75 in a nicer place, but not top tier!
I think photography is like many industries..a variety of prices, and services. Some are good, some poor, some expensive, some dirt cheap, and some that are mid point.

I see some photographers courting the very high end of the market, and that's just fine. So is what everyone else does. I'd say your high end client is def not interested in a cd only job..just as much as your value client isn't into the fab studio and leather chairs..shooter. If an outstanding photographer charges top tier, and can get it..how does the weekend warrior hurt their business? I don't think it does at all.

[WeddingShooter]

Imagine all coiffeurs asked $150 for a simple mans hair cut, because they're artists and because they can use scissors, which, lets assume, 50 years was only done by a few selected ones. They needed years of experience. They work on your head, something rather important! They have to respect hygiene, and anyway, it was always $150.

Suddenly a guy comes along and charges $25 for a correct cut. His shop is a bit smaller, no fancy pictures on the wall and he doesn't offer you a coffee when you come in. But it's clean and he cuts well.
All tradional coiffeurs will be shocked. I say bravo!

And those who doubt about the quality or hygiene of a $25 haircut still have the choice to pay the $150 artist. And it's also understood, to pick up DavidConn's point, that the guy whos spends $10k per year on his looks will not choose the $25 coiffeur!

So where's the issue?

Sorry, but that simply isn't an accurate comparison. My argument isn't about the service itself, it's about the spreading of bad information concerning professional wedding photographers and the lack of service that brides actually get in the long run. Photographers who shoot mediocre photos, turn over a DVD, and then are smoke in the wind do a great disservice to the bride and the industry. The bride suffers (whether she realizes it immediately or not until later) because she really has nothing left to look back on from her wedding. Yes, she has digital images on a DVD gathering dust, but in reality she's unlikely to make more than a few Wal-Mart quality photos. No good prints, no album, no canvases, nothing of any real and lasting quality. That person has also done the industry a disservice by telling yet another bride that such service (or lack thereof, actually) is a-okay.

It's not a haircut scenario where the value of even the best service dissolves in weeks, it's a scenario where the service and products are meant to last for a lifetime.