HubbardJA wrote:
I don't understand why so many photographers will eagerly spend 8-10 hours second shooting for 300-400 bucks, yet balk at 2-6 hour primary jobs that couples are willing to pay much more for (1-2k).
I've taken a few 4-6 hour gigs this year (@ $300 / hr) and I walk away with half of my Saturday left over and an extra grand+ in my pocket.
I understand a full time wedding shooter needs more income to be sustainable, but if your part time why turn away easy money and keep part of your weekend to boot?
-Jayson
The guys eager to shoot 8-10 hours for 300-400 are NOT the same as the people who don't want a half day for 1-2k. It all really depends on the situation. Saturdays are valuable. Less so on the off season, and even lesser still the closer it is to the date. All of this would be a factor for me in taking on a half day gig.
HubbardJA wrote:
I don't understand why so many photographers will eagerly spend 8-10 hours second shooting for 300-400 bucks, yet balk at 2-6 hour primary jobs that couples are willing to pay much more for (1-2k).
I've taken a few 4-6 hour gigs this year (@ $300 / hr) and I walk away with half of my Saturday left over and an extra grand+ in my pocket.
I understand a full time wedding shooter needs more income to be sustainable, but if your part time why turn away easy money and keep part of your weekend to boot?
-Jayson
If I could make $300 p/a then yeah, that would be appealing for the odd shorter wedding hear and there. That is not the case in my market though. If I tell someone it'll be £200 p/h for such little time then they'd run away / become difficult & offensive / not be interested in the slightest.
ricardovaste wrote:
If I could make $300 p/a then yeah, that would be appealing for the odd shorter wedding hear and there. That is not the case in my market though. If I tell someone it'll be £200 p/h for such little time then they'd run away / become difficult & offensive / not be interested in the slightest.
HubbardJA wrote:
I don't understand why so many photographers will eagerly spend 8-10 hours second shooting for 300-400 bucks, yet balk at 2-6 hour primary jobs that couples are willing to pay much more for (1-2k).
I've taken a few 4-6 hour gigs this year (@ $300 / hr) and I walk away with half of my Saturday left over and an extra grand+ in my pocket.
I understand a full time wedding shooter needs more income to be sustainable, but if your part time why turn away easy money and keep part of your weekend to boot?
Not so sure about that. A primary job equals much more work, More time spent on Admin duties. Emails, contracts, phone calls, scheduling, all that jazz. That's all pre-wedding. Post wedding is the usual, culling, color correcting, backing up, uploading, creating deliverables and then finally delivering the product.
I'd take a second shooting job for $400 with no overhead or stress on my part over a $1k primary wedding any day of the week.
I do a wedding like this every couples months. Usually for me it's just a very small ceremony with little to no "reception". For someone who genuinely needs 3 hours of coverage, I'm glad to sell it to them. These couple almost always book late and they are a good way to fill my schedule where there was otherwise an open date.
That said, I would not book a 3 hour coverage wedding on a Saturday more than about 4 months out. The odds of that date taken by a higher paying job is just too high.
This. I don't care how many hours a wedding needs me, they book the whole day unless they're book very close to the wedding day. I get a ton of inquiries for people just price searching. The new norm for the past few months of inquiries has been people wanting 2-3 hours of coverage for weddings a year or two out. Nope.
Inku Yo wrote:
A wedding day is a wedding day, whether it's 4 hours of coverage or 10 hours of coverage. I'm devoting the whole day to their wedding, where I can't book another gig.
It took me a while to realize that a $2500 6hr shoot and burn makes a LOT more sense to me than second shooting for $500. Especially when those are typically 10-12 hour days once you factor in the driving. The time spent editing, meeting/phoning clients is worth the extra $2000. So now I take on those cheaper jobs and pretty much eliminated second shooting.
maxwell1295 wrote:
It took me a while to realize that a $2500 6hr shoot and burn makes a LOT more sense to me than second shooting for $500. Especially when those are typically 10-12 hour days once you factor in the driving. The time spent editing, meeting/phoning clients is worth the extra $2000. So now I take on those cheaper jobs and pretty much eliminated second shooting.
You know there are still times when there is nothing better than second shooting. I sometimes like the freedom to do what I want and not have the pressure of the day on me. As a second, I am only there to get a different take on the day and fill gaps the main cant get to.
With that said, I only second shoot 2-3 times a year.
Oddly enough I know more than 1 primary who dreams of being a full time 2nd (of course these statements are made out of semi-sarcasm) because as Maxwell states the money is worth it to be the primary.
cineski wrote:
I know more than 1 primary who dreams of being a full time 2nd
I know a famous photog who has his seconds shoot all the must-have shots including formals, table shots, posed shots, etc. and the famous photog shoots the things a second normally would. Most everyone at the wedding assumes that his second is actually the primary. Only the couple now the truth.
I had one of these enquiries a day or so back Rich. I wonder if you had the same couple enquire after you?
I generally say no out of hand, but often what they're after is the same sort of coverage as my entry level package, but for a different part of the day. For example, my entry level coverage is 1hr before ceremony through till end of day. Sometimes they want morning through till end of ceremony. I'll happily offer them the same price as my entry level package, seeing as their hours are similar, but I'm not doing 3-4hrs here and there unless there is a good reason to do it.
tonyhart wrote:
I had one of these enquiries a day or so back Rich. I wonder if you had the same couple enquire after you?
I generally say no out of hand, but often what they're after is the same sort of coverage as my entry level package, but for a different part of the day. For example, my entry level coverage is 1hr before ceremony through till end of day. Sometimes they want morning through till end of ceremony. I'll happily offer them the same price as my entry level package, seeing as their hours are similar, but I'm not doing 3-4hrs here and there unless there is a good reason to do it....Show more →
Unlikely, this was / is a Shropshire based wedding for what it's worth. I get what you mean, and can relate to what a lot of others are saying re: it being a full day commitment, a "peak" day, and relating to what you need. I think this is where I'll go from here on with this topic... To simply use my entry package (which is very generous with hours) and say you have "up to" this much time & not do any tiny hour count. Earlier in the year, I had someone ask for 'just the ceremony and a couple after', around 14 months before their wedding... Then we're 'displeased' with my 3 hour suggestion... Felt like I was bashing my head against the wall. I'm not sure they would have gone with me regardless, but I feel like I can tackle such inquiries with more confidence now at least.
D. Diggler wrote:
Because I have more work than I can handle so I have to work all the time.
How long have you been working more than you can handle? You will get burnt out sooner or later, and spiral to the ground. Start addressing it, if you haven't already. Certainly sounds like you need to work less... if you're working ALL the time. Unless this is all you want to do, work all the time, I know some people are like that.
