Would this work....

Moderated by: Steve Tinetti, guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Wedding Resource List

FM Forums | Wedding Photographer | Join Image Upload
1

end

Brian Rice
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #1 · Would this work....

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?

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!

Jul 03, 2008 at 03:58 PM

Brian Rice
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #2 · Would this work....

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.

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.

Jul 03, 2008 at 04:21 PM

Brian Lingle
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · Would this work....

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.

Jul 03, 2008 at 05:47 PM

hassy501
Offline
[ X ]

p.2 #4 · Would this work....

Brian Rice wrote:
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?

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!

You assume waaaaaay too much without any hard facts.

Jul 03, 2008 at 07:57 PM

57suzi
Online
Image Upload: On

p.2 #5 · Would this work....

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.

Jul 03, 2008 at 08:14 PM

Brian Rice
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #6 · Would this work....

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.

Edited on Jul 03, 2008 at 08:56 PM

Jul 03, 2008 at 08:54 PM

Brian Rice
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #7 · Would this work....

Dear 57suzi,

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.

Jul 03, 2008 at 08:59 PM

hassy501
Offline
[ X ]

p.2 #8 · Would this work....

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 ?

Edited on Jul 03, 2008 at 09:25 PM

Jul 03, 2008 at 09:23 PM

Mike Mahoney
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #9 · Would this work....

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.

Jul 03, 2008 at 10:53 PM

Brian Rice
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #10 · Would this work....

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.

Jul 03, 2008 at 11:53 PM

runner301
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #11 · Would this work....

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.

Jul 04, 2008 at 12:17 AM

Brian Rice
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #12 · Would this work....

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.

Edited on Jul 04, 2008 at 01:58 AM

Jul 04, 2008 at 01:58 AM

hassy501
Offline
[ X ]

p.2 #13 · Would this work....

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.

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.

Jul 04, 2008 at 02:54 AM

hassy501
Offline
[ X ]

p.2 #14 · Would this work....

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.

Way too much time worrying....spend more time marketing.

Jul 04, 2008 at 02:55 AM

hassy501
Offline
[ X ]

p.2 #15 · Would this work....

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.

Well, I guess all of those photographers are cheats and rip offs...shame on them.

Jul 04, 2008 at 02:58 AM

koenrutten
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #16 · Would this work....

As for the debt thing, they probably owe close to a quarter million already on their home, cars, furniture, etc.
Totally offtopic, but for me as an european it's hard to believe why anyone would want to get into debt for a car or some furniture

Edited on Jul 04, 2008 at 09:50 AM

Jul 04, 2008 at 09:49 AM

Bill Zaspel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #17 · Would this work....

Brian Rice wrote:
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.

Ok, here's my facts. I'm new at this only having been working at this for two years. I feel that makes me the new kid on the block. I've been studying everything I can find and working out all aspects of my business with the goal of being full time, some day, maybe. Until then, I will continue to study and work to learn my art. That's two years of education so far. That might equate to a two year degree, maybe not.

So far I have spent lots of money that has come out of pocket. Kinda like books and tuition for my two years of education. So far, I have shot about eight weddings. During the entire time I have been working towards my goal I have been actively seeking to shoot as a second to enhance my skill and add to my education. No luck yet, but I will keep trying.

I have a business plan that is laid out for five years. That has been discussed in detail with my wife as my only partner, in this business as a silent participant (her choice) and in life as my mate. All expenses have been cleared through her as a joint decision since those purchases have impacted OUR bottom line. Of the eight weddings that I have shot, I have charged for only four. The others have been free because of my lack of experience as a "student" or "on the job training" with the full knowledge of my clients. I have attempted to deliver the same level of product to every client that I would deliver to anyone, paying or not, regardless of the price/package they select.

I have bought:
computer: $1,200 macbook
software: $1,000 photoshop, lightroom, MS outlook, etc
cameras: $2,000 nikon D50 & D70 with three different base lenses
website: $50 month
lighting equipment: $600 nikon speedlights with umbrella, etc.
lab fees & samples: $2,000

That's just the basic stuff and I'm sure that I have left out hundreds of dollars in misc expenses that my wife would remember because they cost us more than the dollar value on the receipt.

Right now I'm sitting in a budget hotel charing batteries for a wedding that I am going to cover tomorrow. I have the gas to get here, the lodging to stay for two nights, and the food that I consume that is more expensive that what I would eat if I were at home.

I have calculated that I spend 30 to produce the final product for each wedding that I shoot. That includes the meetings, shooting, post-processing, and delivery of the products. The other ten hours I spend working my ass off studying and looking for my next gig. And I have digging and working and trying to be the best. I am committed to making this my full time job and I am doing everything that I possibly can to be successful.

Your calculations are absurb and I am working with the absolute minimum equipment that I can afford and still produce a good product. I dream of someday having the equipment that most of you guys chat about as if it were laying on the picnic table outside the motel that I am sitting in as I write this. D200? D3? D700? Someday, with nice new lenses that will make my job easier and a web site that I can brag about because it is flash based and wows my potential clients.

The costs associated with managing a full time business including filling taxes and advertising and production are all part of it and your statements that we are overcharging have dismissed those things as if they didn't exist or aren't part of business. And we haven't even discussed the costs in setting up a studio with rent and utilities and staffing. I will be remodeling a part of my home to use as a studio in advance of that part of my dream that someday I might be blessed enough to need a real studio and be able to hire staff to assist me.

Please don't insult those people here that are trying to provide a service at a fair price in response to the needs of brides/grooms that need and want the service.

Can it be done more cheaply? Yah. Can uncle bob handle the job? Sure. Should we just ignore the fact that there are people who want to hire us to satisfy a specific market segment? I believe in what I am doing and I am sure that many of those reading this do as well.

I have calculated what I think I need to pay my bills and build my business into a successful venture that will contribute to the household income of my family. Some of those expenses are unknown and I would like to believe that there should be a small amount of profit to improve my quality of life personally.

Are there people out there overcharging? Probably, but I can't fix that. I can do my best to be my best and provide the best service I know how to provide. I have learned a lot from many of those contributing to this forum and I will continue to read. I hope that I will someday be able to contribute and help those who are new and looking to learn, as I am today. I won't come along and just rain on their parade. I plan that the success that is m goal will provide me with the experience and opportunity to share that success with others.

I've said enough, and I've offered a look into some very personal information about my business with the hope that you might understand and maybe be a little more flexible in your review. I have to go change the batteries in my charger...

Jul 04, 2008 at 05:41 PM

Bill Zaspel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #18 · Would this work....

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.
Because you have attacked my dream that I have as a goal. We all want to improve and be better, at everything. In our art as well as in life. We hope that the "payoff" may include a better standard of living as well as the "wow, look at that one..." expression from our clients.

Edited on Jul 04, 2008 at 05:49 PM

Jul 04, 2008 at 05:44 PM

liza
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #19 · Would this work....

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. 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

One who does this to make a living. I'm not a charitable organization, and I'm in it to make a buck, just like the florists, the caterers, and the videographers. I also run a legal business and probably net about 50% of what I charge after I pay taxes and expenses. And while I don't charge 2K for a basic package, it amounts to that after they add on the a la carte items.

Jul 04, 2008 at 08:47 PM

Lord Fluff
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #20 · Would this work....

Brian Rice wrote:

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.

So what you're saying is that Wedding Photographers used to just 'win' by having better gear - now our advantage rests with our skill in light, composition, timing, inventiveness etc etc

Seems like things have improved.

Jul 05, 2008 at 07:14 AM

Brian Rice
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #21 · Would this work....

Lord Fluff wrote:

So what you're saying is that Wedding Photographers used to just 'win' by having better gear - now our advantage rests with our skill in light, composition, timing, inventiveness etc

Seems like things have improved.

Yep... Superior Gear and Superior skill. But to be more exact, I'm saying is that Pros used to "win" by having much more exclusivity to high end gear which also allowed them much more exclusivity to the knowledge required to make those cameras work. It was much harder to be a Pro back then since to be a Pro you needed to make a huge investment in gear, a huge investment with Dark Rooms and processing, and a huge investment in time, on top of knowing what you're doing.

Now, the playing field is drastically more level. Not only will Uncle Bobs be able to compete with their gear, they'll be able to compete with their knowledge as well, and we all know they don't compete anymore when it comes to Dark Rooms and the skills required for processing. There simply not as much to worry about with "auto everything" vs. the olden days when everything was manual including the flash, the quality of film used, and who processed the film.

So if you're carrying around a Digital camera setup, you're competing with a Digital camera setup. You don't compete on quality of film, and you don't compete very much when it comes to quality of processing. So how do you retain your edge when it comes to equipment that's likely to be more unique? Stick with the "old school" stuff that still has great advantages.

That's why I still rely on my film camera and use my Digital when it comes to color photographs of less importance. Why? My resolution, when using film, is determined by my film. My 35mm B&W film is equivalent to a 30 megapixel Digital. 35mm color film, on the other hand, is roughly equivalent to an 8 megapixel Digital and that's where I loose my advantage. When taking posed formals a Medium Format Camera retains a huge edge since it is roughly equivalent to a 50 megapixel Digital. And when it comes to the Large Format, it's about the same as a 200 megapixel Digital! By sticking with "old school" technology (B&W 35mm and Medium-Large format) I can outperfrom the newer Pro that lugs around their $6,000 overpriced Digital "pile of rubble".

Other than my added expenses of processing and film, the only thing separating us is skill, and since I'm going "old-school" on them which inherently requires knowledge of the fundamentals, I more likely than not, hold my own in that department too.

Edited on Jul 05, 2008 at 05:43 PM

Jul 05, 2008 at 05:41 PM

Brian Rice
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #22 · Would this work....

I agree with you Bill that I may be attacking "The Dream" of some. But for some, "The Dream" is weird and unrealistic. Everyone dreams of having hordes of money, but in my dreams as well as the dreams of many, I never dream about how much work and skill it takes to get me there, I simply focus in on the green and that it magically appears.

When I wake up, I realize that it is nearly impossible to become filthy rich without having a repeatable and successful formula that I can pass on to employees. My realistic plan is to create money without my direct presence being necessary. The hard truth is that, there is only a certain amount of money that a typical someone will be willing to pay for me. And the only way to break through the typical earnings ceiling is to create more of "me" and charge a reasonable price.

To accomplish this in the wedding photo industry, I feel that hiring on some aspiring 2nd shooters, eventually allowing them to handle a few weddings on weekends when you've been successful enough to book more than one wedding, is the way to go. The idea that I have is sort of "Franchising" on an indivual level. The newer photographer benefits from your marketing and tutelage, maybe someday becoming a partner. You benefit by adding a "mini-me" to your business that you can feel good charging reasonable money for.

I think the problem nowadays is that the newbie is much too eager to branch out on their own and think that as soon as they have learned enough to take respectable photos that they have learned enough to run a successful buinsess.

From the sound of your post and the fact that you've created a business plan, I have a feeling that you'll end up being much more successful than the one that starts their business on the fly without much of a plan or many goals. Especially when their dreams rely on themselves becoming some sort of "Photographer to the Stars", that doesn't sound like much of a business plan to me.

Anyhow, since you have a business plan, it may be a good idea to support your plan with a market reaseach study in your area. You can pay $15K for a third party study or probably get away with doing one on your own. What I've done in the past is create a database of all the local couples of the newly weds. I often have to research a bit to obtain an addresses through whitepages.com or sometimes I'll see what I can get out of Dunns and Bradstreet. I then create a questionairee of roughly 30 questions about their experience with their photographer at their wedding. You'll need to offer an incentive such as $20 for filling out the survey. I also like to include something in the letter itself such as a pack of gum with a nifty tie in slogan such as "Something to chew on...". I also provide them with a link to fill out the survey online, or give them an option to call me so that I can interview them on the survey. At the same time I also provide them with a coupon for a "Pregnancy Shoot" or "Family Photos" since I'm capable of taking pictures and why waste a perfect marketing opportunity. Anyhow, I find that after I receive 30 responses I have some information I can analyze with some good feelings that the results will be reliable. And BTW, you'll always have a few assumptions that you felt strongly about that will completely change with the results you get.

Then re-write your business plan accordingly and take note of the changes from your original.

Jul 05, 2008 at 06:45 PM

Bill Zaspel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #23 · Would this work....

Brian Rice wrote:

Then re-write your business plan accordingly and take note of the changes from your original.
The dynamic nature of the outline for your plan reflects your interests in evolving and improving your business presentation. I admire your willingness to refine who/what you offer to adapt to the client's requirements. Being tuned to the client's needs will keep everyone of us in front of the curve in terms of responding to the changing that you began this conversation, based upon the changing nature of technology combined with the desires of our clients.

I didn't say that I wouldn't want to add people to my plan. Only that I will find it difficult to trust someone with the pain/blood that I have progressed through when that time comes. However, I am ready for those types of changes to enable the give/take exchange of giving back while developing a better business model that responds to what the client needs/wants.

I plan to be involved in the process of the changes before us. However, to return to your initial question. I don't agree that charging the going rate in a competitive market makes me/us bad or neglectful or menacing. Sure, some photographers are bottom feeders. There's nothing we can do about that and we surely don't want to just quit, close up shop, and give it over to them.

I believe what we have shown is that there is a place in the market for everyone. The client will decide what they want to pay for, from whom, and why. Let's each provide the best products and services we can deliver.

And I choose to give back, when my turn comes.

Jul 06, 2008 at 04:45 AM

S Peckham
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #24 · Would this work....

Interesting thread. Please humor the comments from an amateur who spends most of the time lurking.

Way back in time when the wife and I were planning on getting married we visited with a variety of photographers. We did not have a lot of money (attending college), or an "uncle Bob" to shoot photos. We did some looking around and saw what the bottom feeders were doing and thought it was o.k. And then we visited with one or two of the high quality pros in the area. After seeing the difference we were sold on hiring a real pro. The image quality was apparent (to college kids without an eye for composition or the desire at the time to study photography) and professionalism refreshing. The additional cost was extracted from the budget and we skimped on other items (no wedding debt!! We saved and planned instead). In the end, we were most pleased with our decision. In fact, showing our wedding photographs to some other parents that are helping their kid plan his/her wedding this past weekend was a pleasure (trying to suggest not using uncle Bob).

All of this is to say: Don't underestimate the ability of your customer to recognize quality workmanship, or their ability to pay for the product. If you provide great service and a quality product you will have customers that will seek you out.

S

Edited on Jul 07, 2008 at 03:17 AM

Jul 07, 2008 at 03:13 AM

RemNS
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #25 · Would this work....

I believe that we should all beware of the new technology that raises it's ugly head.
Everyone has great points on this thread but I will throw out there that chips are maxxed out at this point and computers are not going to get any faster in the next few years.
I have read that the programming and architecture on making computers faster will not be around for another 15 years.
Take note of APPLE, they are putting more emphasis on the indirect computing and mobility of devices rather than saying here is the faster mac!
Also, how long has it been since we jumped up the pixel barrier? I know it went from 3.2 to 14. whatever in less than 2 or 3 years and has since hit a barrier in climbing in size.
I do believe we are at maximum technology at least for another 4 years.

A good time to buy or update!

To answer your question, Go to a horse show and see how they do it. It's already being done!
Not as a giving you the best picture type business but people are happy when they leave with something in their hand.

I would not do it for a wedding though! That's usually a once in a lifetime capture and I hope all are giving their best quality.

Rick

Jul 07, 2008 at 04:31 AM


FM Forums \| Wedding Photographer \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end