Opinion time! If you had a potential client who was getting married 2 hours away in an LDS temple in the morning, and then having a big reception back in town in the evening, would you...
a) make the 4 hour round trip drive to only take an hour's worth of family photos outside the temple and then photograph the bride and groom back around town and move on to the reception, OR...
b) would you just meet up with the couple after they got back into town and photograph them and then move on to the reception, and maybe some family photos in town as well?
if you chose option A, would you consider that 4 hours driving and hour of family photos part of your "continuous photography coverage" that you (aka "I") have as part of my packages i.e. "9 hours continuous day of coverage", or would you price that part of the day differently/separately because it's 4 hours of driving and only 1 actual hour of photography?
Any chance you can travel 'with' them? It would save the driving (which is going to be tiresome, and cost money!) and mean you can also maybe grab some shots along the way. What you would miss is the leaving / arriving but we all know you can work around that....
An hour's worth of photos can be significant - to the couple & family at least.
It would certainly be part of any continuous day for me.... but I'd be willing to discuss this with them at least.
If it's important to them to have photographs around the temple grounds after the ceremony then I'd say price the travel into your package. Make sure the amount you charge fairly compensates you for that time as well as the split schedule. Depending on their budget they may just opt to meet up with you upon their return, which would be my preference if it were me
As an LDS person and having photographed many LDS weddings, they WILL want you at the temple. Just price it as a normal wedding, you just get a nice long break in the middle, have less shooting to do and are generally less picky.
At the temple, the only thing to really photograph is them exiting the temple to greet friends & family. Then its family pictures, bridal party, and b&g portraits. Then take a break, and go back and photograph the reception. Trust me, it is MUCH less work, and although there is driving, it's not that big of a deal. Then again I don't really price my weddings around an amount of time...
sboerup wrote:
As an LDS person and having photographed many LDS weddings, they WILL want you at the temple. Just price it as a normal wedding, you just get a nice long break in the middle, have less shooting to do and are generally less picky.
At the temple, the only thing to really photograph is them exiting the temple to greet friends & family. Then its family pictures, bridal party, and b&g portraits. Then take a break, and go back and photograph the reception. Trust me, it is MUCH less work, and although there is driving, it's not that big of a deal. Then again I don't really price my weddings around an amount of time......Show more →
THIS. I'm in the same boat as Spencer.
I'm photographing one at the Oakland LDS Temple next month. Its about a 45min drive (with traffic 1 1/2 hrs) from where I live. Normally I'll spend about 2 hours there shooting, then I'll have my assistant/2nd shooter drive me back to where the reception will be. While he's driving I'm busying culling through the photos. I also can get some stuff edited on the drive back and have a nice little slideshow playing at the reception.
Yeah, it's kind of a no-brainer. Just price it like your normal work, just because your time is going to be spent driving doesn't make it any less valuable (after all, they're the ones who chose to have a ceremony and reception two-hours apart).
I would absolutly go to the temple as it is a huge part of their wedding, even if you can't go in. I would charge traveling fee, enough to cover gas and wear and tear on your car. They should understand.
