Excuse me, Hugo, but how does someone acquire those years of experience if they are never allowed to start? I do think it is important to work as a second shooter for a while before trying to do one on your own, but you have to start somewhere.
kansashoops wrote:
Excuse me, Hugo, but how does someone acquire those years of experience if they are never allowed to start? I do think it is important to work as a second shooter for a while before trying to do one on your own, but you have to start somewhere.
You aquire them by being a second shooter getting good experience doing this+some basic education and then you go on to your first paid client, but atleast you will offer a first client discount + woo them with a good work history+portfolio from your previous work as a second shooter.
Then you build up from there. But to just go buy a DSLR body and decide to be a wedding photographer with no experience and offer clients buisness is a sure way to make a negative name for yourself professionally.
In most areas, very experienced + inexpensive = not very good. Generally, wedding photographers are inexpensive only when they are just starting out, or the quality of their work prevents them from charging more. The exceptions are poor businesspeople who do not how to price their work so as to maximize their income.
>>But to just go buy a DSLR body and decide to be a wedding photographer with no experience and offer clients buisness is a sure way to make a negative name for yourself professionally.
Agreed. But I've never known anyone to do that. Have you?
BTW the good names in wedding photography should be getting rich.
With electronic distribution so cheap, the whole reception is their market. Everyone at the wedding should be told how to view the wedding images (with the option of purchasing some)...
kansashoops wrote:
Our replies crossed in the mail.
In most areas, very experienced + inexpensive = not very good. Generally, wedding photographers are inexpensive only when they are just starting out, or the quality of their work prevents them from charging more. The exceptions are poor businesspeople who do not how to price their work so as to maximize their income.
inexpensive and reasonably priced, two different things.
but remember that is why the portfolio and customer references+history review is important so you can weed out the stinkers. but bad wedding photographers do not stay in buisness long enough. There are too many good photographers who offer attractive product/packages at reasonable prices.
BTW you would be surprised at the fools who go out and buy DSLRs and want to jump in the Wedding Photography market thinking it is an easy buck full head on only to get hit with lawsuits and chased out of town. and in the end the Bride/Groom end up with no memories and a bad taste in the mouth.
If a couple chooses a good but inexperienced wedding photographer vs. a good but experienced photographer at the same price point, they are indeed fools. But if they choose an inexperienced one over an experienced one because they can afford the one but not the other, they are simply doing the best they can with what they have to work with. Prices can be "reasonable" relative to the overall market, and still be out of reach for certain customers, or be more than they are willing to spend for that aspect of their wedding.
I doubt I would be surprised. I've read enough messages on this board and on the wedding photographer's forum I frequent that little would surprise me. Some people do indeed leap before they look, which is precisely why I advised the person who started this thread to put his ideas about wedding photography on hold for now. Most people who are not in the business have some very erroneous ideas about it. I know I did until I joined the wedding photographer's forum and had my eyes opened.
