Weddings

[bfitzgerald]

I don't support the CD only route, that's why I don't do it, and always go for a print service..and never budge from that. They can have the disc as well..no problems, I just have to "ok" the prints because erm, well I want to be happy with them.

On the other hand, bad service can be had regardless of price. I know one photographer who charged the best part of $1900, took 12 month to hand over half a dozen small prints, and then wanted extra on top for the disc..and all his proofs were watermarked. I'd not be bothered watermarking small tiny prints, as I agree the deal before hand, so I'm not looking to gouge for prints, I charge extra for additional ones.

Bad service happens at the top and bottom, 12 months is not acceptable IMO..

[Dusty]

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.

I know people who spend 8-10K on a wedding, but very few of them. Most weddings I attend are in the small churches where the people attend, and receptions in the church Fellowship Hall or at the local VFW hall. I got back into doing weddings because a friend's daughter was getting married. In a county park, as it was cheap, and he has no money. The local guy in his town (he's 50 miles from St. Louis) would do it for $2500 "as a favor". That's more than his whole wedding budget. He turned to me, as he knows I used to do them. It was my wedding gift to his daughter. This fall I'll do the same for his son.

However, even IF ALL my customers can afford better packages, why does it make me a bad guy to do it cheaper? Does the Mercedes dealer complain every time a millionaire buys a Kia? I doubt it. He realizes that there are also middle income people who will take out long-term loans to buy his product. I know a millionaire who's daughter got married at their Florida vacation home with family only in attendance, and no official photographer. That's what he wanted. That's their choice, and just because you didn't get to dip into his pocket that doesn't make him a bad guy.

I'm sure there will be those who want me to shoot their wedding because they know me, and they will want prints and albums. I'll do it (and charge accordingly) because I want to keep them happy, but that's not what I want to do. I want to do the "Shoot and Scoot" weddings with minimal post-wedding hassle. Therefore I'm marketing myself to the people who can only afford that. If I market myself to those who want studios and formal engagement photos and big albums, I have to spend more to make more. Like DK said, you have to have studios, assistants, coffee, etc. I don't want to. Making it as a full time wedding photographer is not where I want to be. If, however, I can do a service to someone who cannot otherwise afford it at a mutually agreeable price, we both win.

Dusty

[Dusty]

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.

I agree that bad photographers give the industry a bad name, but I'm not bad. If a guy gets his car fixed at the local dealer where the labor rate is $90 per hour, fine. But if he wants to go to the mechanic's home on a Saturday to have the same guy do the same repair for $40/hour, what's your beef? Have you never had any service performed by a cheaper guy who doesn't have all the overhead that the big guys do? My heating and AC guy works out of his house, and his wife fields the calls for him. He's accordingly cheaper than the guys with 72 trucks and a large warehouse full of stock and employees. Sure, I may have to wait for him to run downtown for a part, but I'll sweat for a few more hours to save the $$.

If I shoot great wedding photos and turn over a DVD to the bride, she may follow my advise and go to the camera store for their premium prints that someone like Pako will make sure comes out looking good. If she doesn't that's on her. If her choices are good photos on DVD or cousin Earl's cut off heads, I've done her a service, not a disservice. If her budget allowed her to pay more, AND she wants more, she can go to a guy like you. I have no problem with that. I'll send her to my old boss's studio. Maybe he'll even slip me a finders fee, or better yet, send me the brides who say "I can't afford that".

In short I'm telling the bride that there is an affordable, professional alternative that fits her budget. It doesn't have all the amenities that you offer, but it gets her quality pics that will bring back good memories at least as long the marriage last.

Dusty

[WeddingShooter]

I agree that bad photographers give the industry a bad name, but I'm not bad.

Actually, bad photographers do very little to give the industry a bad name, at least from what I've seen. Bad photographers give couples bad photos which then make couples realize that cheap is not always good. Bad photographers promote professional wedding photographers everytime a bride shows her friends her 'bargain' wedding photos. They will generally see the lack of quality and realize that they want a professional when their wedding time roles around.

I've done her a service, not a disservice.

This statement shows the fundamental misunderstanding that you and I have. First of all, it's not the individual bride that I am speaking about, it is the industry as a whole. Your bride gets something she wants, which is turns causes her to tell her friends and others how much she paid but what a bargain she got. This message is received by her friends and undermines the ability of the working professional to be paid a fair wage for his services. Some of those friends might very well turn to you for their photography, which is great for you but then continues the cycle of undermining the industry.

Second, you are doing a service to an individual bride, but not nearly as big of a service as you think you are. Yes, you are giving them good photographs for less than they would normally pay, but you are discouraging them, at least passively, from getting albums, canvases, and other products that would truly show their wedding as it should be shown. You are forgoing education about what's lasting and what isn't because you don't want to or are too lazy to offer those services. Yes, it's what YOU want to do and want YOU are shooting for (shooting and scooting to quote you) but it isn't necessarily what brides and couples want. Sure, you may think that it is, but unless they truly know about the other options that should be available to them (such as full albums, framed prints, canvases, and other professional products) they don't actually know what they have an interest in and what they don't. Do you at least show every bride all of those options? Do you at least mention that they should at least consider them? Sure, it's not what you're in it for, as you've said repeatedly, but it's NOT about you! It's about your clients!

[bossel]

Yes, you are giving them good photographs for less than they would normally pay

Why pay more if you can get it for less To ensure your fare wage?

..and undermines the ability of the working professional to be paid a fair wage for his services...yada...but then continues the cycle of undermining the industry...

Ok, come on, you gotta face the competition. You're worth 5 times of someone else, ok, prove it and customers will run to you like crazy, no worries. You don't have to fear anything. Real artists are going to be paid premium prices for the next millenium to come.

So I don't get it why some fair-value photographers threaten the industry. If their customers start bitching and moaning about the bad pictures they got, what better publicity the real pros could get?

But maybe there are too many out there who do plain standard wedding jobs, day in day out, but want to charge artist prices? Of course, those are scared (I don't want to say you're one of them)

[DavidConn]

What really upsets me is when a competitor will undercut the price just to get the job, and then makes up the difference on the Bride and Groom, by using inferior labs, album company's, and staff. I recently came up against someone who undercut my 2nd photographer (B&W Photojournalist) by 80% and i found out by reading the competitions contract that the 2nd photographer was the main photographers 15 year old son. Does anyone think that the results of this individual can really compete with a gifted artist who has honed their craft for 20+ years? I think not...... sadly all the Bride and Groom saw was a great price for 2 teams of photographers, and not really understanding what they were getting because the salesperson failed to disclose the age of the young kid who would be snapping pictures. This is the kind of thing i regularly encounter. There are no standards and practices, no "official" regulating or governing body to oversee what people do. So i state once again, i sell by the idea, that you are not buying photos or albums from me.....you are buying a complete concept from planning to delivery. I personally handle every couple who walks through my doors, and invest nearly 40 man hours from a first meeting through the delivery of the finished product, with many steps and meetings built in. That all has intrinsic value, and is totally intangible at the same time. So price is a relative thing, and i think its all based upon what people are spending for all the various things for the wedding day. I find in my market, people will spend roughly 10-15% of their total wedding budget on photographs and video coverage. If i broke down the associated costs that i incur on a $10,000 wedding package, after my studio, overhead, labor and expenses, insurance, etc...there is little "profit" in the total number. Could i cut staff and take 4-6 months longer to produce my work? Sure, but who is that serving besides my wallet.... I dont have any easy answers to the debate that has been going back and forth, but i can assure you from a 25 year working pro, that is getting harder and harder to make ends meet, even in a high end market. People expect the world and want to cut corners and still get what they want. Its all for show here, in that "if i have crazy expensive decor, a 12 piece band in a fancy hotel, then my guests will oooh and ahhh over everything", but the photos are a personal take away for the couple and family. Our job becomes important after the plane lands from the honeymoon and then reality sets in......"I hope my photos came out nice". In parting, i think that this next example illustrates how frustrating it can be to deal with a certain mindset.....imagine a client who spends 12-15K on room decorations for their reception, and then debates with me as to putting a $35 print in the finished album to showcase it! I dont understand this at all, and i have been at this for a long time. In any case i love my work, i love the people, and it never gets old to me......so to everyone here, keep on shooting, and loving your craft, and the clients will love what you do. Cheers! David

[WeddingShooter]

So I don't get it why some fair-value photographers threaten the industry. If their customers start bitching and moaning about the bad pictures they got, what better publicity the real pros could get?

But maybe there are too many out there who do plain standard wedding jobs, day in day out, but want to charge artist prices? Of course, those are scared (I don't want to say you're one of them)

You fail to grasp, whether because you're unable or unwilling I don't know, my argument in any way, shape, or form. Please re-read what I typed, don't yada yada through it, and come back with a reasonable retort.

This is not about someone providing the same services for cheaper, and therefore a bride getting a great deal. That scenario is the capitialistic equivalent of choosing Wal-Mart over Target because they have a better price on milk. Instead, this is about a qualified photographer purposefully devaluing his service (his prerogative) while also purposefully downplaying the importance of wedding products just because it's more convienient for him. Sorry if you are unable to understand that.

REGARDLESS, this thread has taken a turn that was not intended at all. I wanted to discuss the merits and drawbacks of the Alpha system, not the merits of cheapo wedding photographers. This conversation is helping no one and serves no purpose other than to make me frustrated about people being purposefully dense.

[stevecim]

This is not about someone providing the same services for cheaper, and therefore a bride getting a great deal. That scenario is the capitialistic equivalent of choosing Wal-Mart over Target because they have a better price on milk. Instead, this is about a qualified photographer purposefully devaluing his service (his prerogative) while also purposefully downplaying the importance of wedding products just because it's more convienient for him. Sorry if you are unable to understand that.

Which is also just has bad has purposefully up playing the importance of wedding products. (personally I hate the way the whole wedding industries rip young couples off with " your wedding day is the most important day of your life" CR@P which get pounding into our heads from the day we are old enough to watch TV

The real bottom line is that in a country has big has the USA there is more than enough market for the dustys and weddingshooters.
I think things like the economy falling apart will have a bigger impact on the high end wedding shooters then the dustys


REGARDLESS, this thread has taken a turn that was not intended at all. I wanted to discuss the merits and drawbacks of the Alpha system,

Yes, that would have been good.

not the merits of cheapo wedding photographers. This conversation is helping no one and serves no purpose other than to make me frustrated about people being purposefully dense.

[pakodominguez]

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2010/02/th ... ent=McLamb

[KevinBarrett]

I want to echo a concern of the original poster here, that this thread has veered very far off path. I hate to see a much-needed and bravely fielded equipment thread turn into a discussion on professionalism and the state of the industry. Equipment threads are delicious, and make a forum useful. As one who likes to find answers for many things, photography included, through Google and forum searches, when I run across an equipment thread that discusses anything but equipment, I close the tab and keep looking.

[bfitzgerald]

I dunno I found it a rather interesting discussion, it was not my intention to divert the thread to prices.

But it's been a frank and useful exchange. Gear wise, is there much to talk about? DSLR + Flashgun + a few lenses + a fast one.

[WeddingShooter]

I dunno I found it a rather interesting discussion, it was not my intention to divert the thread to prices.

But it's been a frank and useful exchange. Gear wise, is there much to talk about? DSLR + Flashgun + a few lenses + a fast one.

There is much to talk about, including what bodies have been used successfully (or even successfully as backups), which lenses have been the best or at least passable, etc.

Not to mention what may be another great part of a such a thread... real life examples of wedding photography produced with the A system!

[bakubo]

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.

Who cares if he "steals" business from some studio or other photographers? In fact, isn't that part of the point of being in business, trying to get customers even if they come from your competitors? Shouldn't you also be concerned that the studios and other photographers might steal business from Dusty? If they are good then they will do fine proving to potential clients that their higher price is justified. Competition is usually a good thing. Makes everyone improve. By the way, I realize that no matter how much most people might like competition in everything else they wish for a monopoly in their own endeavors.

I don't shoot weddings so I am not writing with any sort of self interest in the subject.

[WeddingShooter]

Who cares if he "steals" business from some studio or other photographers? In fact, isn't that part of the point of being in business, trying to get customers even if they come from your competitors? Shouldn't you also be concerned that the studios and other photographers might steal business from Dusty? If they are good then they will do fine proving to potential clients that their higher price is justified. Competition is usually a good thing. Makes everyone improve. By the way, I realize that no matter how much most people might like competition in everything else they wish for a monopoly in their own endeavors.

I don't shoot weddings so I am not writing with any sort of self interest in the subject.

No, you're right, to some extent we are all 'stealing' business from someone else. I didn't mean to imply that 'stealing' from other businesses was wrong, just that whether he called it that or not he likely was doing it.

[DavidConn]

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.

So it would seem i too am guilty of going "off topic" in this thread, so lets try to get this back on topic. I recently had a camera package on loan to me for over 2 months from Sony, through their "Artisan" program. My kit consisted of a A900 body, the CZ 16-35 and the CZ 24-70 and the HVL-58 Flash. I really wanted the 70-200 2.8 but beggars can't be choosers as they say.
1. A900 body
I found the body with vertical grip to be well laid out, controls were simple and within easy reach. Image quality was excellent. I shot in RAW and Craw as well. Large beautiful files were the result. Amazing and large bright viewfinder. The built in Image stabilizer will quickly grow into one of those "can't live without features". I shot using 200-1600 ASA settings and found that as long as there was decent quality of light the images looked excellent even at 1600. At higher ASA, i would not dream of using.....too much noise as you all know too well.
I particularly liked the hand position for vertical shooting with this grip. I took a few attempts to master it, but then it really grew on me. I could not figure out a fast shortcut for formatting the CF card either, maybe reading the manual would have helped me! LOL
2. Lenses
Amazing pieces of glass. I have not held optics in my hands that smacked of the same build quality as my old Zeiss CF Hasselblad lenses. They are built tough and to last, and i think the extra cost is justified for them.
Excellent sharpness, color and handling.
3.Flash HVL-58
What a brilliant piece of engineering, perhaps my favorite part of the package. Simple controls, love the 180 degree strobe rotation to the side for vertical shooting. All of my wedding colleagues were amazed, and frankly im shocked that its taken this many years for this design to emerge from anyone.

Conclusion:
LOVE, LOVE LOVE the system. Recommended to all, and i will be making an investment soon, as i am waiting for some financing to come through. I will try and post some images taken with the camera soon.