I'm newer to the business and wondering if I could solicit some help. I'm looking to establish firm pricing and was going to see if any one of you would be willing to take a look at my portfolio and give some suggestions on establishing my current rates? In terms of current situation... I shoot film which costs a good bit (1,200+ for a wedding, 200+ for portraits) so I am trying to balance my costs with profit potential there and hopefully find the right client. I know there are a ton of people here with a good bit of experience so I figured I would throw out some feelers and see what everyone thought.
With being new, getting my name out there is rather slow as well, thus inquiries are there... just difficult to find the right clients.
Second, if your right off the cost for film is $1200 a wedding, I would think you'd need to start packages at $5000ish to make any sort of money.
5000
-1200 (film)
- 400 (album)
- 40 (insurance per wedding if you shoot about 20 weddings)
- 300 (competent second shooter)
_____________
$3060
x 30 weddings
____________
$91,000 (before taxes)
I am NOT a business experts and as you know, there are other costs associated with being a wedding photographer.
I dont think its crazy to think that you'd need to start in the 5K range. However, if you went digital, you can most likely start at a lower price point.
But, none of this REALLY matters. Find people who love what you do and you'll be all set.
Solid work in the portfolio. Also kudos to looking for the right client rather than settling for anyone who comes along. Sounds like you are on the right track, you just have to decide how much you want to make and how strongly you want to shoot only your ideal. Film is just one of the costs involved of course.
I would agree with what everyone has said, but I feel that you'll have trouble establishing yourself given the price you'd need to charge to be profitable shooting film... I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think it will take longer and be more difficult.
Yikes, your fixed costs are going to be higher than many lower end photographers charge to shoot the whole wedding.
I agree with most of the people on here, you may have to target a 4-5k+ range and establish yourself there from the start to make it work. (I like your work and am a huge film fan, so I am rooting for you)
I also wonder if it may be harder to find good second shooters who only shoot film.
But how are you going to handle the inside low light no flash ceremony close ups with noisy film?
Also $1200 film expenses - wow
So now you've raised the ante and limited to outside
A good second shooter will cost at least $500 and how many seconds shooting film theses days?
It is a hard road digital learning curve and large investment but the advice I'd give is
At least 1 or 2 FF digital bodies and maybe a crop body and top glass
5dii + 7d
Or d700+ d7000
Shoot a couple thousand
Use photomechanic to cull 1-3 seconds per photo
Take 600-800 into Lightroom
Use Lightroom presets to automate the processing
You can even get film look with LR presets
You'll save the $1200 and give your clients a better product particularly indoors in low light without flash
Charge 3-5 K - perhaps more when albums
For a narrow audience offer the film option for $1200 more for clients who like film look and have outdoor weddings- my guess once you do digital right you'll not have many of these
You are at a serious advantage in that you are still building your clientele. Start high rather than try and work your way up, you'll save the headache in 1.5 years. There are far worse photographers charging $6k+, its just all how your brand and market yourself. The work is only a minor consideration.
If you had time to develop and scan yourself, it would be so much cheaper. 25 rolls of film (900 shots, still way too much IMO) can be as cheap as 50 if you can load your own cassettes. And the film used is what spawned Portra, and is even better. Development of the rolls should take a good two days, and it'll cost 20 bucks worth of chemicals. Just scanning sucks.
I have a friend who rather shoots film because he loves it and there is no post processing involved. He charges less for shooting film compared to his rate for shooting digital. I don't know for you guys, but for every hour I shoot, I have at least 30 minutes post processing.
Also, if he shoots 200 images, he will end up giving 200. While when he shoots digital, only a selection of the taken images are processed and passed on to the couple. For him it's two different worlds.
I also truly believe there is a market out there for film shooters. You just need to get your name out and it will spread like fire.
Very nice portfolio James. I wish I knew how to shoot film. Glad to see another Denver shooter here. Good luck with your pricing. I am sure there are tons of people who appreciate films.
RichardLavigne wrote:
I would disagree with this... I think the vast majority of potential clients could care less... the only people who care are other photographers.
i agree. i had more clients asking worried about if i still shoot film, then those who prefer to be shot at film. we offer both though.
to the OP, if you are not shooting 120 and better format, you are doing your self more pain then needed. todays digital fullframe bodies are way better then anything film had to offer and therefor all the look of film can be done in post. This comes from somebody who was dragged into pro digital world as late as in 2005 and first digital only shoot had in 2008!
RichardLavigne wrote:
I would disagree with this... I think the vast majority of potential clients could care less... the only people who care are other photographers.
agree, rich. i think its a niche market. with that said, i think the OP can capitalize on that. i just dont agree that 'tons' appreciate the subtle nuance of film v digital.
canerino wrote:
agree, rich. i think its a niche market. with that said, i think the OP can capitalize on that. i just dont agree that 'tons' appreciate the subtle nuance of film v digital.
Right... I read this thread to my wife... Obviously she's a knowledgeable photographer, but she tends not to get caught up in all the debates here online. As the person who meets with couples and does the sales part of our business, I stressed how hard it was for us, our first year in business, trying to get people to book with a small portfolio of work to show them. Granted, our work back then was not what it is today and not what the OP is presenting here to us, but out price point was also significantly lower. Her take was that the OP could have an advantage in that the market of film shooter is probably much, much smaller compared to digital.. so if a couple is looking for film specifically, he may have an edge, even with a small portfolio, if his work is good...
so then the question becomes about marketing and how does he find those couples that are specifically looking for film and lock them in.
canerino wrote:
agree, rich. i think its a niche market. with that said, i think the OP can capitalize on that. i just dont agree that 'tons' appreciate the subtle nuance of film v digital.
i did very extensive comparison and there is nothing what film can offer over digital. all the color and other differences can be (with more or less care) done in post. that doesn't mean that OP cannot sell it as advantage, i think he can, with such strong portfolio. i am even sure i could pull it off if i had to and i dont even try to market it as niche.
Our couples pay 290€ for that i take digital MF or 490€ for normal 120 on wedding, still get enough bookings for those options.
the experience of shooting is slower and more deliberate. when one chooses to shoot medium format film, it's mainly for stylistic reasons.
it's a catch 22 because those shooting mf film all seem to shoot in a similar way - clean, "pretty" vertical pastel-laden portraits of the couple in the shade and clean vertical details shots.
