Oh, to be a wedding photgrapher...

AnimalRights

smelltheglove wrote: »

Bla bla? how condescending can you be??? Yes I fly through all of this and yes I have a love for it.... but hello, the point is it COSTS money to do all of this....

Bla bla in my world is a shorthand type reply...
Mmmm maybe it's a lazy reply or maybe this convo has popped up a few times, think the Popcorn .jpg earlier was much correctos. :cool:

smelltheglove

I'm sorry animal I just wouldnt have expected a reply like that from you, my point there is for someone from outside the photography world to realise the costs, at 1k a wedding there is not that much profit considering the work to be honest. I do it because I love it, if I wanted to get rich quick I'd be in a different game.

AnimalRights

humberklog wrote: »

You see it here ocassionally or Joe Duffy or G. Ryan. Of all the services provided for a wedding day it's the photographer that pips all other complaints.

I will be phoning fat Gerry R tomorrow 'cos my large bottles of Cider in a certain pub have not been reduced in line with Bulmer's own policy of reducing their cost a fair few weeks back, fecking 6 Euro's a bottle!

AnimalRights

smelltheglove wrote: »

I'm sorry animal I just wouldnt have expected a reply like that from you,

I've never behaved so well on a forum in my life, at times my mask slips.

humberklog

AnimalRights wrote: »

I will be phoning fat Gerry R tomorrow 'cos my large bottles of Cider in a certain pub have not been reduced in line with Bulmer's own policy of reducing their cost a fair few weeks back, fecking 6 Euro's a bottle!

See, now if you pulled in a few wedding gigs you wouldn't give a monkey's how much it cost, you'd be minted!!


Are the chances of scoring at a wedding high?

Slidinginfinity

I think next time someone asks for information on wedding photographers my answer will be: "Invite everyone from boards, supply food and have an open bar. We might all show up for free." :rolleyes:

stcstc

man i always chuckle when these threads turn up

because the most replies come from people that dont seem to have a clue about whats involved or any form of business sense


yes there are some photogs who make lots of money out of doing weddings, generally they are ones who have been doing it forever, but like stepping up the rungs in the corporate ladder

Some of my clients are wedding photogs, and i can tell you some of them are really struggling. people are spending less on weddings in general, and so photogs are one of the things that are being cut

One client i can think of, would be one of the average. He shoots about 35 weddings a year.so on the average price quoted earlier, thats not even a decent wage!!!!!!!

there again another client ha 53 booked this year and he would be well above avarage price, BUT its him and his wife, he shoots she processes and designs, so even if he charges 3K a wedding

they will maybe only earn around 50K each. a decent computer programmer in one of the state agencies will earn well above that!!!

so not sure where people get the idea theres load of money in weddings!!!!

the people who make good money in weddings are the semi pro photogs, who dont bother having all the right kit, insurance etc. as they are generally working fulltime and not declaring tax etc on the cash in hand wedding jobs!!!!

and we know noone here would ever condone that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AnimalRights

I chuckle when I get the professionals views who after all "know"

chuckles

outspann

In typical stalker stylee, I was at a friends wedding earlier this summer where I made a point of shadowing their photographers. After a while of hiding behind trees and around gateposts, I ended up talking to (hassling?) Trish and Brian of We Are The Mastersons and I got to understand the whole other side of wedding photography which is the photographers relationship with the couple. ((David McClelland's website also seems good))

From watching them work, it wasn't just the shots they were getting but it was also having to do so by making people laugh instead of having to bark out orders all the time. I've been to a couple of friends weddings since, and (quirkily) I've set myself the task of pretending to be the "official" photographer. It's certainly not as easy as the shots I've taken in a studio where I've been able to control every miniscule detail of the shot from lighting to backgrounds to the way the model glances.

I believe people are happy to pay well for a photographer who does a good job. If the album you get back is rubbish, then regardless of whether you've spent 500 or 5000, it's a series of shots that you're never going to get back. It's the fact that there's no second chances that makes a good wedding photographer worth the money. So my advice to anyone even thinking of looking for a photographer is talk to as many of them as you can, look at their portfolio and see who you get on easiest with...

RCNPhotos

Never really got into the whole wedding thing. Did one, stress central and just wasn't really for me. But good to at least try it. But then found this fella the other day through a magazine. Love his wedding stuff, and his site too I think is great.

http://www.jeffnewsom.com/

Freddie59

smelltheglove wrote: »

Any money earned pays for this,

time spent with client to include phonecalls and travel costs during the booking procedure
Travel costs to venues to do a first check
Time spent on preperation for wedding, prep for all the gear etc
travel to the wedding and time spent there
time spent on edits
wedding album, cds etc
travel and time with the clients during the choosing process

Above are the obvious.

Now the hidden
costs of upgrading equipment, depreciation of equipment, my full set new would cost over 5k I'd say if I had to start out new.
insurances as mentioned before for public liability and professional indemnity
car insurance and tax
computers and hardrives, value of this I couldnt even count at this stage
programs for picture editing
advertising, business cards, business stationary
websites
printers and ink


time spent on having to explain yourself to people who assume you are making money for nothing.....

I've done a fair few wedding videos since around 1993 (mainly relations/friends as it's so time consuming) and I'm told I'm good at it. In that time I have seen many stills photographers in action.

At a niece's wedding a couple of ytears ago I had a few drinks with the stills guy after the event and he pointed out most of the stuff Rachel has pointed out above (all valid I add). But when I pointed out to him that the videographer has to do much the same (and about three times the work) he thought about it for a while and agreed it was a bit mad.

There are two photographers who (in the boom times - not now) would charge €5k; another €3.5k, and another 3k. Yes, the work was excellent, but, at the end of the day, they are photographs. Personally I think those level of charges are outragoeus. But, if people keep paying, they'll keep charging.

There is another chap that charges between €1200 and €1400 and his work is every bit as good as the others. Ultimately, both the stills and the wedding DVD end up in a press somewhere, gathering dust. But, given the wastage on other wedding stuff like flowers, dresses, hotel backdrops, etc is there any difference?

eas

Freddie59 wrote: »

At a niece's wedding a couple of ytears ago I had a few drinks with the stills guy after the event and he pointed out most of the stuff Rachel has pointed out above (all valid I add). But when I pointed out to him that the videographer has to do much the same (and about three times the work) he thought about it for a while and agreed it was a bit mad.

Hi Freddie -

When you're videoing a wedding, do you set up your own shots or do you just take footage of all the photographers set ups? Do you have a list with all the names of guests and gather them for the formals? Who's responsibility is it to get the BnG back to the reception with enough time to mingle? When something unexpected happens do the bride and groom turn to you for direction? Do you have to deal with Mother of the bride when she's not happy? The list goes on.

Don't get me wrong, videographers have their own things to worry about, but in my experiences (generally) it's the photographer who take the brunt of the responsibility on the day.

In any industry there will always be people who can ask a premium for their services, and these people will not always be the best at what they do.

thecommander

AnCatDubh wrote: »

That was probably my post #8 which was a repost of an old Fajitas! post.

Well that depends on your expectations in life but assuming all things are legitimate and your tax authority take perhaps up to half of it from you, then you've gotta make sure you're doing a few of them a week to make ends meet. And what then if you aren't. It is to be hoped that you are good at what you do and have many clients beating down your door for your skills.

I know. Im a designer and charge by the hour. People try to tell you "sure you can do that with Word", so I know where you're coming from.

If the taxman is taking half your income then you need to change accountant.

Freddie59

eas wrote: »

Hi Freddie -

When you're videoing a wedding, do you set up your own shots or do you just take footage of all the photographers set ups? Do you have a list with all the names of guests and gather them for the formals? Who's responsibility is it to get the BnG back to the reception with enough time to mingle? When something unexpected happens do the bride and groom turn to you for direction? Do you have to deal with Mother of the bride when she's not happy? The list goes on.

Don't get me wrong, videographers have their own things to worry about, but in my experiences (generally) it's the photographer who take the brunt of the responsibility on the day.

In any industry there will always be people who can ask a premium for their services, and these people will not always be the best at what they do.

I see where you're coming from eas. The only shots that I shoot which the photographer sets up are the post-wedding shoot and end of church. As you will appreciate, the church photographs are not 'set-up' per se and are covered by both stills and video.

I would cover the same ground as the stills person, meetings, priest, rehearsal, etc. I would cover far greater gound than the stills person over the day, and the post-editing is far more intense.

And, FWIW, I have often helped the stills photographer to gather people, etc.

I don't want this to develop into a stills v video issue (as I enjoy both immensely), but the fact is that some of the stills prices being charged are, as I've already said, outrageous.

The reality is that, in most instances, (let's say for a 2:00pm weddng) the stills photographer will attend from 1:00pm to 6:30pm at the latest (I agree some may stay later than this). Nice money if you can get it. Granted, there will be an amount of PP. But €5k's worth?

But the ones I've seen, in the main, attend at these times. Can you REALLY justify €5k for this? I couldn't.

But, at the end of the day, it's a personal choice. People pay above the odds for things like cars, TVs, etc, so photography's no different. You keep paying - they'll keep charging.:)

BTW - great website. Loved the portfolio.

eas

Freddie59 wrote: »

I don't want this to develop into a stills v video issue (as I enjoy both immensely),

amen to that.

smelltheglove

Freddie59 wrote: »

I would cover the same ground as the stills person, meetings, priest, rehearsal, etc. I would cover far greater gound than the stills person over the day, and the post-editing is far more intense.

I see where you are coming from Freddie, I have met many videographers, I have to say the best I have come across were the ones for my own wedding, a team of 3 men, from around 12.30 until 11pm. They admitted that my editing was one of their hardest as I steered away from romantic music and went for a more edgier theme so their editing had to go with that. It was 5 mths before I received my dvds.

I think these guys were hugely underpaid, yet they were still starting out. I often think to myself that it is a harder game for videographers, only about 50% of my weddings have a videographer. Many couples say they couldnt be bothered spending the money on a dvd that they will watch a couple of times but I always recommend a videographer. I think the difference is that pictures will hang on the walls for years, the dvd comes out once in a while so thats why people put more attention towards the photos. I would never argue the job being easier, I have edited films myself, a couple of hours of wedding footage and christenings. I have to say though, I did spend less time with the editing than you would I'd say, but the hardest part of it was setting the editing to the theme of the music and fitting it all in properly.

What I love now is watching the face on my 2yr old when she watches my dvd, she often takes it out to watch it as her daddy is singing in the dvd and she loves it, when she sees mammy and daddy dancing she gets so excited and I have to say it is unfortunate that so many people do not go for it.

As was said before though, a chunk of the cost for these expensive guys are the albums, one my sister viewed for 5k had an album included worth over 1k. Ok so I still see it as being steep but there is that huge bit coming out of the money too, along with taxes etc.

As mentioned before though the photographer is the one who people give out most about and as eas says I think it is due to the photographer taking the brunt of responsibility. When something goes wrong it is the photographer that is blamed, if the driver takes a wrong turn and gets the couple to the reception 30 mns late, they dont think they were late for dinner because of the driver, they think they were late because the photographer spent so long photographing.

stcstc

i am not sure the costs we are talking about are getting though in sensible conversation


if say a photog does a wedding for say 1K

now say their expenses, ie insurance album etc etc come to say 500

so then say it takes 50 hrs total for a wedding, well thats only 10 euro per HR

NOW i dont know about anyone else, but i dont work for that much.

If i did i could work in a takeaway and get paid that, without the stress and maybe even free food!!!!!!


now say a photog charges 2K, and costs are maybe 800

so 1200 is left, now say even the photog does the wedding is say 40 hrs

thats still only 30 euros an hr

now most skilled people earn at least that!!!!!


with video its slightly diff in that there are less materials costs and more manpower costs

bp_me

kjt wrote: »

- Own a car (insurance, tax, nct)

On this point, there is a very good chance your typical SDP insurance is not sufficient here if you are carrying camera equipment in your car (for commercial/professional purposes). Worth checking out.

Nisio

Duffy wrote:

"If I give you a violin, you will not be able to get a tune out of it. If I give you a camera, you run the possibility of taking a seminal snap."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8287779.stm

Freddie59

smelltheglove wrote: »

I see where you are coming from Freddie, I have met many videographers, I have to say the best I have come across were the ones for my own wedding, a team of 3 men, from around 12.30 until 11pm. They admitted that my editing was one of their hardest as I steered away from romantic music and went for a more edgier theme so their editing had to go with that. It was 5 mths before I received my dvds.

I think these guys were hugely underpaid, yet they were still starting out. I often think to myself that it is a harder game for videographers, only about 50% of my weddings have a videographer. Many couples say they couldnt be bothered spending the money on a dvd that they will watch a couple of times but I always recommend a videographer. I think the difference is that pictures will hang on the walls for years, the dvd comes out once in a while so thats why people put more attention towards the photos. I would never argue the job being easier, I have edited films myself, a couple of hours of wedding footage and christenings. I have to say though, I did spend less time with the editing than you would I'd say, but the hardest part of it was setting the editing to the theme of the music and fitting it all in properly.

What I love now is watching the face on my 2yr old when she watches my dvd, she often takes it out to watch it as her daddy is singing in the dvd and she loves it, when she sees mammy and daddy dancing she gets so excited and I have to say it is unfortunate that so many people do not go for it.

As was said before though, a chunk of the cost for these expensive guys are the albums, one my sister viewed for 5k had an album included worth over 1k. Ok so I still see it as being steep but there is that huge bit coming out of the money too, along with taxes etc.

As mentioned before though the photographer is the one who people give out most about and as eas says I think it is due to the photographer taking the brunt of responsibility. When something goes wrong it is the photographer that is blamed, if the driver takes a wrong turn and gets the couple to the reception 30 mns late, they dont think they were late for dinner because of the driver, they think they were late because the photographer spent so long photographing.

Great points Rachel. In all the years I have had a great rapport with the stills photographers, and would always make a point of telling the couple to look at the stills - not me. They are a great bunch and I suppose I can, hand on heart, only say that a couple were nasty or arrogant. An interesting point raised earlier was the one about which shots the videographer arranges. I did have one wedding where I had spotted several casual shots, and, while composing them, the stills guy would just stand in front of the Camera and snap away. He seemed to make a point of it. But he was the exception rather than the rule.:)

eas

RCNPhotos wrote: »

Love his wedding stuff, and his site too I think is great.

http://www.jeffnewsom.com/

yummy...great stuff alright.

DaireQuinlan

RCNPhotos wrote: »

Never really got into the whole wedding thing. Did one, stress central and just wasn't really for me. But good to at least try it. But then found this fella the other day through a magazine. Love his wedding stuff, and his site too I think is great.

http://www.jeffnewsom.com/

now THAT, folks, is a great example of how not to construct a website. First I sat there for a while staring at the dark red and blue things at the start waiting for a menu, or a picture, or ANYTHING to happen. Then fiddling around and clicking on the red half I sat there waiting for his stupid slow flash animation yoke to finish ... THEN I chased his stupid menu things around the screen until I hit the 'weddings' one, cue another unneccessary zoom and loads of, ohhh, I guess pictures or something, tumbling down ...

then I waited. I note that It was loading in all the thumbnails.
and I waited again.
and some more.

and then I closed the site after about 5 minutes without seeing a SINGLE one of his pictures.

FAIL. NEXT.

Eirebear

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

now THAT, folks, is a great example of how not to construct a website. First I sat there for a while staring at the dark red and blue things at the start waiting for a menu, or a picture, or ANYTHING to happen. Then fiddling around and clicking on the red half I sat there waiting for his stupid slow flash animation yoke to finish ... THEN I chased his stupid menu things around the screen until I hit the 'weddings' one, cue another unneccessary zoom and loads of, ohhh, I guess pictures or something, tumbling down ...

then I waited. I note that It was loading in all the thumbnails.
and I waited again.
and some more.

and then I closed the site after about 5 minutes without seeing a SINGLE one of his pictures.

FAIL. NEXT.

Yeah its pretty hard work alright, i'd certainly be put off by it if i was looking for a wedding photographer.

Mind you, there are some fantastic images if you can be arsed waiting around for them

DaireQuinlan

Eirebear wrote: »

Yeah its pretty hard work alright, i'd certainly be put off by it if i was looking for a wedding photographer.

Mind you, there are some fantastic images if you can be arsed waiting around for them

Yeah, the point being that if I was shortlisting photographers or something or browsing looking at recommendations or what have you, I'd have gotten irritated by that long before I'd gotten to his actual photographs and crossed him off the list. Probably with a decisive and annoyed swipe of the pen :mad:

Slidinginfinity

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

now THAT, folks, is a great example of how not to construct a website. First I sat there for a while staring at the dark red and blue things at the start waiting for a menu, or a picture, or ANYTHING to happen. Then fiddling around and clicking on the red half I sat there waiting for his stupid slow flash animation yoke to finish ... THEN I chased his stupid menu things around the screen until I hit the 'weddings' one, cue another unneccessary zoom and loads of, ohhh, I guess pictures or something, tumbling down ...

then I waited. I note that It was loading in all the thumbnails.
and I waited again.
and some more.

and then I closed the site after about 5 minutes without seeing a SINGLE one of his pictures.

FAIL. NEXT.

Oh dear god that is a case of design over function if I have ever seen it!
That has to be one of the single worst web sites I have ever seen. Not just a bad Photographer website site, but a horrid site full stop.

Borderfox

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

now THAT, folks, is a great example of how not to construct a website. First I sat there for a while staring at the dark red and blue things at the start waiting for a menu, or a picture, or ANYTHING to happen. Then fiddling around and clicking on the red half I sat there waiting for his stupid slow flash animation yoke to finish ... THEN I chased his stupid menu things around the screen until I hit the 'weddings' one, cue another unneccessary zoom and loads of, ohhh, I guess pictures or something, tumbling down ...

then I waited. I note that It was loading in all the thumbnails.
and I waited again.
and some more.

and then I closed the site after about 5 minutes without seeing a SINGLE one of his pictures.

FAIL. NEXT.

Must be a new trend but lots of Weddings shots appearing in magazines with couples posed as if they have just been married and then divorced, some might call it edgy but these shots of lots of separation between the bride and groom and usually dodgy expressions doesnt sit well with me.

Oh yeah and Jeff's site sucks, but some nice shots when you eventually get to them..

Back on thread, I find a Wedding quite relaxing but thats coming from event photograhy (the real event photography eg shooting and printing on site) compared to this Weddings roll along at a nice pace and everybody is happy and relaxed. Whats not to like..

Eirebear

Borderfox wrote: »

Back on thread, I find a Wedding quite relaxing but thats coming from event photograhy (the real event photography eg shooting and printing on site) compared to this Weddings roll along at a nice pace and everybody is happy and relaxed. Whats not to like..

Personally i really enjoy the actual day of the wedding, its the processing part that annoys me...although i think part of that is down to the fact that i havnt quite settled on a particular workflow that suits me yet. I'm slightly disorganised that way.

eas

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yeah, the point being that if I was shortlisting photographers or something or browsing looking at recommendations or what have you, I'd have gotten irritated by that long before I'd gotten to his actual photographs and crossed him off the list. Probably with a decisive and annoyed swipe of the pen :mad:

Maybe client filtration is one of the purposes of the site?

I had no trouble figuring it out. Here's a tip - when the pointy arrow thing turns into a hand with a pointed finger - click there.

Quackles

eas wrote: »

Maybe client filtration is one of the purposes of the site?

I had no trouble figuring it out. Here's a tip - when the pointy arrow thing turns into a hand with a pointed finger - click there.

It certainly weeded me out Also, if my photographer gave me photos with my head cut off by a bush and with apples in front of my face, I'd ask them what they were on He had some nice ones, but all in all, not my style.

Freddie59

stcstc wrote: »

i am not sure the costs we are talking about are getting though in sensible conversation


if say a photog does a wedding for say 1K

now say their expenses, ie insurance album etc etc come to say 500

so then say it takes 50 hrs total for a wedding, well thats only 10 euro per HR

NOW i dont know about anyone else, but i dont work for that much.

If i did i could work in a takeaway and get paid that, without the stress and maybe even free food!!!!!!


now say a photog charges 2K, and costs are maybe 800

so 1200 is left, now say even the photog does the wedding is say 40 hrs

thats still only 30 euros an hr

now most skilled people earn at least that!!!!!


with video its slightly diff in that there are less materials costs and more manpower costs

I see where you are coming from, but less materials cost. Apparently these 'storyboard' albums are being done in Italy at a cost some €500-€700. I recetly was a guest at a wedding where the photographers gear amounted to around €6k - and he was charging €2.5k for the wedding. In fairness, that amounts to a bit more than €10 per hour.

I know two professional photographers, and, having talked with them, I don't think that you could actually say it would take 50 hours. Any takers from the pros on here? Without spinning the company line?

Realistically, how much time does it take you for PP/selection, etc after the wedding itself? Would you do more than one wedding per week?