1. I think there already are photographers that give them the CD at the end of the day. I know there are photographers that give a slideshow of the wedding during the reception.
2. To do it the way you described, you'd have to have a computer that could continuously download wirelessly while you're editing rapidly. Like you said, I don't think we're there yet.
Sam, you're correct, and I won't be quite as nice, but I'll leave the meanness to others.
Brian, Brian Rice wrote:
I personally think that any photographer that charges more than 2K for a typical wedding is ripping off the client and a bit heartless, no matter how good their work is.
I'm certain that many of you will rip on this. So I encourage you to come up with good reasons why your work is worth sending the typical young couple, that on average make $45K/ year combined, directly into debt at the very beginning of their life together.
I don't know if you're a full time photographer or not, but it seems a bit short-sighted of you to make the 2K comment. Let's take the 'art' completely out of it for a second and pretend all wedding photogs are the same quality.
Think about it this way... even if a photographer charged 2K and shot 30 weddings (more than almost all of us shoot in a year), that's 60K. However, when you subtract the cost for albums, gas and other expenses, not to mention upkeep and business expenses (well into the thousands per year for most people) and things like insurance and health care that most normal businesses provide, you're probably talking about 35-45K, before taxes.
In my area, most couples right out of college are making at least 60-80K combined. Most 30 year old couples are probably around 80-100K combined. Even if we charged just 2K for every wedding, that means that we're making the same or less money than the people we're working for. Don't you think that a great photographer has the right to earn the same as their clients? What about a photographer that serves high-end clients, who make a few hundred thousand? Don't they have a right to do the same if they're great?
Brian Rice wrote:
So I encourage you to come up with good reasons why your work is worth sending the typical young couple, that on average make $45K/ year combined, directly into debt at the very beginning of their life together.
Mate, it's their choice. The venue, food and often the flowers will be a bigger chunk of the budget, not to mention the engagement ring and dress. If they want to spend money they can spend it, if not they can get Uncle Bob to do it.
Brian Rice wrote:
I hear this general argument time and time again. How much should a photographer charge, don't undersell yourself or the industry, and low budgets are for losers.
I personally think that any photographer that charges more than 2K for a typical wedding is ripping off the client and a bit heartless, no matter how good their work is. Why would anyone want a wedding that puts them directly into the poorhouse as their first act together as a family, and what kind of person encourages that behavior.
I personally think that the bride and groom should be price shopping, we all do it as you'll notice in the buy/sell forums. Everyone wants quality, but everyone wants quality at the best price possible. What upsets me at times is reading about how many photogs out there are upset that they feel they're being lowballed and don't feel there's much room to negotiate on price. And I bet you that virtually all of us do.
I'm certain that many of you will rip on this. So I encourage you to come up with good reasons why your work is worth sending the typical young couple, that on average make $45K/ year combined, directly into debt at the very beginning of their life together....Show more →
Nowhere did i read that low budget weddings were for losers. In any business , the customer is free to spend whatever they want. No one puts a gun to their head to spend more than what they can afford.
To label photographers who charge more than 2000.00 "heartless and cheats" is insulting.
No one has to justify anything. FREE WILL and FREEDOM of choice to purchase whatever they want to purchase is part of any economic society.
You make it seem as if WE are to blame for newlyweds getting into debt ? What about DJ's, Bakers, Florists, Caters, Dress Makers, Jewelers, they have NO blame in any of this either ?
NO ONE is to blame at all......blame is a non issue.
WE ALL purchase what we can afford according to our income and socio economic position in society.
To try to lay blame on a business for selling a product is ridiculous.
Tony Hoffer wrote:
Think about it this way... even if a photographer charged 2K and shot 30 weddings (more than almost all of us shoot in a year), that's 60K. However, when you subtract the cost for albums, gas and other expenses, not to mention upkeep and business expenses (well into the thousands per year for most people) and things like insurance and health care that most normal businesses provide, you're probably talking about 35-45K, before taxes.
In my area, most couples right out of college are making at least 60-80K combined. Most 30 year old couples are probably around 80-100K combined. Even if we charged just 2K for every wedding, that means that we're making the same or less money than the people we're working for. Don't you think that a great photographer has the right to earn the same as their clients? What about a photographer that serves high-end clients, who make a few hundred thousand? Don't they have a right to do the same if they're great?...Show more →
Tony, your comment actually makes my point. When I speak of "typical wedding" and the "typical couple" there should be a "typical price". And since roughly half of kids aren't even graduating high school nowadays we should also be assuming that the "typical couple" are not college grads making 60-80K. If I were to crunch the numbers and you worked 30 weekend weddings in or around town each year. 30 x 12 hours (sometimes longer) + 30 x 24 hours (post processing) = 360 + 720 = 1080. 1080 hours would classify as part-time work right smack in the middle. Since the average 40/wk joe working the typical full-time job puts in 2080 hours each year. A photographer working full-time and charging 2K per wedding should be making roughly 60K-70K per year, which would put the photographer in the exact same pay scale as the college grads you are speaking of. And since to become a photographer costs far less than 4 years of college, you're not in the same "debt boat" as the college grad, so becoming a photographer is a pretty awesome deal!
So yes, making 35K per year as a part-time photographer, not to mention all the captial you have in equipment, is way more than fair.
When it comes to the great photographer, they can make their money thru seminars, showing up at events, luxurious travel shoots and having their pictures published in magazines and books. But even the great photographer will loose my respect buy charging too much for their great work. If they're charging 10K+ for a wedding event they should be putting in more time, more equipment, and more skill into the effort to justify the more cost. For 10K+ I'd be expecting a cast and crew as well as the star photographer.
But honestly, how many of us are trying to charge 5K+ per wedding and show up with 10-20K worth of equipment? Let's say that you spend 10K per year on equipment upgrades and divide that by 30 weddings, that's $333 per wedding! The other 36 hours you spend taking pictures and post processing is worth $138/hr?! That works out to $276K per year if this were a full time job!
When I think of doctors that spend half their salary on insurance and spend even more time sleeping at the hospital during long unanticipated surges in people needing help. I can't even see a high end photographer justifying their outrageous prices at times. It just makes me want to pull my hair out.
Anyhow, if you're in the photrography business. You're a business and should know exactly how equipment costs are each year, how many hours you work, and how much is spent in studio ownership costs. And I suppose if you're working more than full-time you could figure in the costs for employees. But please spare me about complaining about how little the photographer gets paid. Because I think we get paid just fine to more than fine. And we all are loving our work at the same time to boot!
hassy501 wrote:
Nowhere did i read that low budget weddings were for losers. In any business , the customer is free to spend whatever they want. No one puts a gun to their head to spend more than what they can afford.
To label photographers who charge more than 2000.00 "heartless and cheats" is insulting.
No one has to justify anything. FREE WILL and FREEDOM of choice to purchase whatever they want to purchase is part of any economic society.
You make it seem as if WE are to blame for newlyweds getting into debt ? What about DJ's, Bakers, Florists, Caters, Dress Makers, Jewelers, they have NO blame in any of this either ?
NO ONE is to blame at all......blame is a non issue.
WE ALL purchase what we can afford according to our income and socio economic position in society.
To try to lay blame on a business for selling a product is ridiculous. ...Show more →
First when I speak about the general tone that I see is that "low budget weddings are for loosers" and I read time and time on how many photographers are somewhat insulted by haggling over price. I come to the conclusion that the average photographer doesn't want to deal with the low budget weddings. And I always hear the reason why "Is that my photography work is superior than others". So I'll stand by my original opinion.
And to be insulted when I claim that charging more than 2K is borderline heartless and borderline cheating a customer. I'm not suprised, since I hear this "insulted" claim all the time. Rather than being insulted, tell me why your work is worth more. Do you spend more time than other professionals? Do you have more schooling than other professionals? Is your work far superior to other professionals?
Why should the typical photographer, when compared to the typical college grad that Tony speaks of in his post, get paid the same or more when far less schooling is required and less startup costs in equipment is required as well?
Then saying that you don't have to justify anything?! That's just silly talk! If you can't justify your price then how do you expect to sell it. When Apple comes out with the new iPhone they certainly have "price justification" in mind. Why is it that the new iPhone carries a price tag of $199 while the first iPhone came out with a $599 price tag? Price Justification maybe?
I think that the wedding industry is to blame, and it includes all the DJs, Cake decorators, and so on that you speak of. There's plenty of blame to go around. I just happen to be ranting on our very own profession and am fully aware that what I'm saying is going to be a hard pill to swallow.
Doug Box recommends charging $5,500 per wedding and he jokes about photographers being notoriously cheap. Then he says, "How someone else spends their money is none of your business."
I also think it's outrageous when I read articles saying that the average wedding in the US costs around $30k-$40k. Where I live, you could buy a small house for that. Then, I hear about 1/4 million $ weddings! The best wedding I ever attended as a guest was one where the couple rented the YMCA camp for the weekend (contributions toward cost accepted), the food was potluck, the dance music was sitting by the stereo for anyone to play, we stayed in the bunkrooms or camped out and went on day hikes and sat around in groups talking or listening and singing along as musician friends played acoustic guitars. Great company, great fun, sweet couple, heart warming. No one hired for anything. No debt.
It's a lifestyle choice. Anyone who goes over their heads into debt for entertainment only has themselves to blame.
In a recent survey by the PPA, the average full time photographer made about $10k a year after expenses. One of those photographers told me that she grosses $80k but her net is $10k after expenses.
Regarding work hours, you need to consider that a professional photographer spends more hours doing paperwork, running the business and marketing, etc, than they spend shooting and processing photos.
Photography is part of the arts and entertainment industry. Why does one actor or athlete command millions more per movie or per contract than another? Because they can. Amateurs work and play for free and they're glad they can. Pros play in the best league they can and go after the best living they can.
Brian Rice wrote:
Tony, your comment actually makes my point. When I speak of "typical wedding" and the "typical couple" there should be a "typical price". And since roughly half of kids aren't even graduating high school nowadays we should also be assuming that the "typical couple" are not college grads making 60-80K. If I were to crunch the numbers and you worked 30 weekend weddings in or around town each year. 30 x 12 hours (sometimes longer) + 30 x 24 hours (post processing) = 360 + 720 = 1080. 1080 hours would classify as part-time work right smack in the middle. Since the average 40/wk joe working the typical full-time job puts in 2080 hours each year. A photographer working full-time and charging 2K per wedding should be making roughly 60K-70K per year, which would put the photographer in the exact same pay scale as the college grads you are speaking of. And since to become a photographer costs far less than 4 years of college, you're not in the same "debt boat" as the college grad, so becoming a photographer is a pretty awesome deal!
So yes, making 35K per year as a part-time photographer, not to mention all the captial you have in equipment, is way more than fair.
When it comes to the great photographer, they can make their money thru seminars, showing up at events, luxurious travel shoots and having their pictures published in magazines and books. But even the great photographer will loose my respect buy charging too much for their great work. If they're charging 10K+ for a wedding event they should be putting in more time, more equipment, and more skill into the effort to justify the more cost. For 10K+ I'd be expecting a cast and crew as well as the star photographer.
But honestly, how many of us are trying to charge 5K+ per wedding and show up with 10-20K worth of equipment? Let's say that you spend 10K per year on equipment upgrades and divide that by 30 weddings, that's $333 per wedding! The other 36 hours you spend taking pictures and post processing is worth $138/hr?! That works out to $276K per year if this were a full time job!
When I think of doctors that spend half their salary on insurance and spend even more time sleeping at the hospital during long unanticipated surges in people needing help. I can't even see a high end photographer justifying their outrageous prices at times. It just makes me want to pull my hair out.
Anyhow, if you're in the photrography business. You're a business and should know exactly how equipment costs are each year, how many hours you work, and how much is spent in studio ownership costs. And I suppose if you're working more than full-time you could figure in the costs for employees. But please spare me about complaining about how little the photographer gets paid. Because I think we get paid just fine to more than fine. And we all are loving our work at the same time to boot!...Show more →
You assume waaaaaay too much without any hard facts.
Interesting...
First, OP, I think there willbe changes as technology advances. One of the things that concern me is the "instant" everything. The couple has barely said "i do" and already there are images of the kiss being sent via cell phone. People are looking at the wedding images on a laptop during the reception.To me it creates a photo "fatigue", devaluing the images the pro provides a few weeks later. Yes, they are more beautiful, but some of the magic has been stolen, to my way of thinking. It's possible some pros will provide the kind of setup you describe to counteract that.
Greg, great points all.
Brian, I hate posts like yours, and also posts where those who shoot for the low budget couples are called names. There is room for all levels of couples and their budgets. And this forum functions best when everybody is respecful and helpful no matter where they are on the ladder. I've personally watched people go from newbies to seriously talented sucesses in a few years right here on FM. That wouldn't happen if there were more name calling and judging. So shush
No matter how technology changes, there will always be magic happeing during a wedding, and there will still be we crazy shooters who live for the chance to capture it.
I agree with most of what you said Brian Lingle, especially the part where everyone is free to choose. And that those that spend themselves into debt have only themselves to blame. However, I find it beyond belief that the full-time photographer only makes 10K after expenses, in fact, this is so beyond belief that I'm certain that we can throw away the findings of this survey and dismiss it all entirely. Heck, I'd like to know what their expenses are, because they are definitely out of wack. I also have a feeling that although Doug Box may be a great photographer. He's a bit more in touch with the photographer and a bit out of touch with the typical wedding couple. He's likely old school and is forgetting there no longer a need to outlay $400 for film each and every wedding day, not to mention spending another $400 to get that professional film processed at a professional developer house or go the route of spending hours in time and hundreds in materials developing the film yourself in your very own darkroom. Man! When I think about it, it's dirt cheap getting into the photo business now vs. just one short decade ago! If you're relying on Doug, Doug needs to update his material with the new milenium!
I'd also like to add that I feel that having a good photographer document your wedding is the best decision that anyone could make. The importance is proven everytime a fire or flood has barreled into someone's house. I always hear how that after the family is all safe that the first thing that they always retrieve from the house are their precious photographs and memories.
As for assuming way too much without any hard facts hassy501, I'd like to know what the hard facts are. I'm trying to be as factual as I can be on my end of the posts and would love to be proven wrong. In fact, I'm begging to be wrong about my assumptions as this will allow me to come to couples with some ammo as to why they should be spending a small fortune that compares to a nice used car.
BTW, I'm having a bit of fun with this topic and feel free to pummel me with some facts to combat my assumptions. I'm not against learning anything and I know that I'm stirring up the hornet's nest. So feel free to let me have it.
I'm not name calling individuals, I'm name calling the industry. If that upsets you then I won't discourage you from feeling upset. What I've been trying to point out in my posts is that there's a change in the air and you'd better get on the fact that cameras are better, cheaper, and that the industry will loose out to the "Uncle Bobs" if the industry fails to compete with Uncle Bob.
It's all of your "typical" references....there are no "typical".......assuming that everyone is within those parameters is not a good reference.
I seriously doubt that "professional" wedding photographers will lose out to uncle bob. If you think that uncle bob can compete with you, then there is a serious issue with your work.
I don't worry about uncle bob for one second. There is so much more that goes into wedding photography besides providing photos.
As was posted earlier, it all depends on what market you are in. Low end, yes you will compete with uncle bob. Higher end brides, they demand more, and better.....capture, albums, quality, service.....they don't go for the "meet you at jack in the box, give me your money" consults.........
I'm finding it hard to believe that you really think that we will lose out to uncle bob......do you really feel that way ?
Brian Rice wrote:
I'm certain that many of you will rip on this. So I encourage you to come up with good reasons why your work is worth sending the typical young couple, that on average make $45K/ year combined, directly into debt at the very beginning of their life together.
Haven't been to a lot of weddings have you?
On the day of $1,000 limo rentals, $4,000 dresses, & $6,000 catering food bills the photographers bill is the best value, by miles.
As for the debt thing, they probably owe close to a quarter million already on their home, cars, furniture, etc. So give their real estate agent some grief, not the photographer.
OK. Let me put it this way. And this is why you should be afraid of Uncle Bob.
In 1970 Uncle Bob relied on the non-slr 110 film, while the PRO relied on the SLR and medium format. Huge advantage Pro.
In 1980 Uncle Bob relied on a 35mm point-n-shoot, while the PRO relied on the SLR and medium format. Big advantage Pro.
In 1990 Uncle Bob relied on the 35mm low-end SLR, while the PRO relied on the high-end SLR and medium format. Advantage Pro.
In 2000 Uncle Bob relied on the low-end Digital SLR, while the PRO relied on the high-end Digital SLR. Smaller advantage Pro.
In 2008 Uncle Bob relies on the mid-end Digital SLR, while the PRO relies on the high-end Digtal SLR. Advantage shrinking yet again.
I've seen cameras coming out with "face-recognition" technology, "backrgound recognition" technology and so on. I have a tendency to think that these technologies will have an impact on closing the quality-gap too.
See where I'm going with this?
Remember that I'm still talking about Wedding Photography. I still think that there's still a huge advantage for "Portrait Photographers" that make use of lots of expensive props and a studio with expensive lighting. "Sports Photographers" still retain a major advantage too in that they rely on lenses that cost a small fortune as well as "press pass" that allow them to get in closer and obtain the unique angles that the thousands of others can't.
Stockholders, Experts, and the Average Joe all agree that they're getting better photos than ever with the newest camera releases. And It appears that if you don't see that the quality-gap is shrinking then you're one of the few with your head in the sand.
There's been plenty of Digital SLRs sold. In fact, there are more Uncle Bobs with an SLR than ever before. And since they're mostly digital SLRs they're more enthused to experiment and hone in a few skills without spending a small fortune on film. Some fine examples of increasing competition is when I view some of the "1st Wedding" portfolios of fellow FM posters on here. Some of their work is simply awesome, and they were all yesterday's Uncle Bob!
I know that I'm a good photographer and I'm sure that you know that you're one too. But at the same time, thinking that Uncle Bob isn't closing the gap, with the aid of technology, is something that hasn't flown over my head unnoticed.
Brian Rice wrote:
I'm certain that many of you will rip on this. So I encourage you to come up with good reasons why your work is worth sending the typical young couple, that on average make $45K/ year combined, directly into debt at the very beginning of their life together.
Brian, I used to think this way too, and sometimes still do when I see a young couple that, IMHO, is wonderful and (to be judgemental for sure) more deserving in a karma type sense of beautiful wedding pictures than the silver spoon blue bloods that can afford the really expensive stuff.
I got over it by realizing that nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. You can rationalize all you want, but the only logical conclusion on pricing is to draw your price point at the balance of cost/work that you wish to have and you quality can support. I think you would be better off complaining about morality in pricing to oil companies, milk distributors, and grain distributors before you complain about photgraphers charging too much. While you ideas might be noble, they have become almost irrelevant in today's society. Especially for a luxury items like expensive wedding photography.
And in a completely irrelevant point, if the couple can't plan ahead enough to afford the wedding that they are planning, (i.e. they will go into debt to cover it) then maybe they shouldn't be getting married in the first place...sorry for that moral posturing...I hope I didn't offend anyone...I just don't believe in buying something that really isn't necessary unless 1) you can pay cash or 2) your investments/savings are getting a higher return than the interest you would have to pay on a loan.
I just noticed something when I was looking at the various websites. Including those that were ripping on my thoughts on the 2K wedding. I was shocked to see that everyone is priced right smack in the 2K "resonably priced" mark for what I'd think of as the typical wedding (6 hours of coverage). In fact, prices are ranging from $1250-$2200.
So now, I have a new question. Why are you all ripping on my post when you're all already practicing what I've been preaching?! I was expecting that all of you would be in the $5000 and beyond market. I'm now officially confused.
Brian Rice wrote:
OK. Let me put it this way. And this is why you should be afraid of Uncle Bob.
In 1970 Uncle Bob relied on the non-slr 110 film, while the PRO relied on the SLR and medium format. Huge advantage Pro.
In 1980 Uncle Bob relied on a 35mm point-n-shoot, while the PRO relied on the SLR and medium format. Big advantage Pro.
In 1990 Uncle Bob relied on the 35mm low-end SLR, while the PRO relied on the high-end SLR and medium format. Advantage Pro.
In 2000 Uncle Bob relied on the low-end Digital SLR, while the PRO relied on the high-end Digital SLR. Smaller advantage Pro.
In 2008 Uncle Bob relies on the mid-end Digital SLR, while the PRO relies on the high-end Digtal SLR. Advantage shrinking yet again.
I've seen cameras coming out with "face-recognition" technology, "backrgound recognition" technology and so on. I have a tendency to think that these technologies will have an impact on closing the quality-gap too.
See where I'm going with this?
Remember that I'm still talking about Wedding Photography. I still think that there's still a huge advantage for "Portrait Photographers" that make use of lots of expensive props and a studio with expensive lighting. "Sports Photographers" still retain a major advantage too in that they rely on lenses that cost a small fortune as well as "press pass" that allow them to get in closer and obtain the unique angles that the thousands of others can't.
Stockholders, Experts, and the Average Joe all agree that they're getting better photos than ever with the newest camera releases. And It appears that if you don't see that the quality-gap is shrinking then you're one of the few with your head in the sand.
There's been plenty of Digital SLRs sold. In fact, there are more Uncle Bobs with an SLR than ever before. And since they're mostly digital SLRs they're more enthused to experiment and hone in a few skills without spending a small fortune on film. Some fine examples of increasing competition is when I view some of the "1st Wedding" portfolios of fellow FM posters on here. Some of their work is simply awesome, and they were all yesterday's Uncle Bob!
I know that I'm a good photographer and I'm sure that you know that you're one too. But at the same time, thinking that Uncle Bob isn't closing the gap, with the aid of technology, is something that hasn't flown over my head unnoticed....Show more →
Hmmm....when will the camera come out that has built in "artistic eye, training and experience" built into it that translates into images that can't be duplicated ? When that comes out, then I will trade in my cameras.......but until then ( and that day will never come), uncle bob ain't got shit on us........
For those who think that your work is threatened by uncle bob, time to get into a new profession.
Brian Rice wrote:
I just noticed something when I was looking at the various websites. Including those that were ripping on my thoughts on the 2K wedding. I was shocked to see that everyone is priced right smack in the 2K "resonably priced" mark for what I'd think of as the typical wedding (6 hours of coverage). In fact, prices are ranging from $1250-$2200.
So now, I have a new question. Why are you all ripping on my post when you're all already practicing what I've been preaching?! I was expecting that all of you would be in the $5000 and beyond market. I'm now officially confused....Show more →
Way too much time worrying....spend more time marketing.
Brian Rice wrote:
I just noticed something when I was looking at the various websites. Including those that were ripping on my thoughts on the 2K wedding. I was shocked to see that everyone is priced right smack in the 2K "resonably priced" mark for what I'd think of as the typical wedding (6 hours of coverage). In fact, prices are ranging from $1250-$2200.
So now, I have a new question. Why are you all ripping on my post when you're all already practicing what I've been preaching?! I was expecting that all of you would be in the $5000 and beyond market. I'm now officially confused....Show more →
Well, I guess all of those photographers are cheats and rip offs...shame on them.
