List of photographers for less than £500!

isofa

StuartWalker wrote: »

Ten days for each wedding? I think you need to improve your workflow! So, I guess you are right.. I wouldn't charge less than £500 if it took me that long! I also agree that I could make more money per hour working in Tesco, but I don't equate job satisfaction simply with money. When a couple books me as their wedding photographer, I am there because I love what I do.. not because I see them as a 'cash cow'.

I've been working and training people in digital design and photography since the early 1990s, I've put on more Photoshop courses than I can remember, so I have a fair idea of workflow from RAW, working in LAB colour and so forth.

7 to 10 days is an average time, the weddings I normally cover are large weddings, some society weddings abroad too.

It depends on your level, all the professionals I work with, and many are award winning photographers, spend a lot of time on their images, and have a pricing structure to cover their time. The average fees of my colleagues (and most are fully booked for 12 to 18 months) is 1500 to 3000 for wedding packages. Clients with lower budgets aren't ever going to approach these photographers, but they all have plenty of work.

People use my services on recommendation, I've never advertised, and have been running two successful company's since I graduated with a first class honours degree many moons ago, I have a stack of professional qualifications, memberships and so forth, and plenty of work!

Each photographer will have a their own market sector there is room for everyone. It's akin to some clients on a tight budget and spending 2K on a wedding where others are happy spending 20 to 30K on their big day.

I guess, another comparison is with cars, some people wouldn't spend more than 5K on a car others are happy to spend 20K, 30K or more on a new car. Everyone has a different budget and different requirements.

StuartWalker wrote: »

While I agree that there is a large number of unskilled "photographers" flooding the budget wedding photography market, it simply is not true that you need to spend more than £500 in order to book a good professional. In fact, because so many couples are very budget minded nowadays it is even more important that they have the option of a qualified photographer instead of "Uncle Bob" with his shiny new camera.

Well knowing a lot of photographers, and having been on the client side when we were narrowing them down for our wedding (many were friends), I know just what is out there, I've seen horrific quality albums and prints at wedding fairs!

I still maintain you need to spend more than £500 to book a good professional photographer for a full wedding day of photography. But that is my professional opinion.

StuartWalker wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that all wedding photographers follow your business model. I saw a need for low cost professional wedding photography and am successfully catering for that market. Our most popular package is called "Essentials" and covers exactly that. It is three hours coverage and the standard price is well below £500. Read some of the recommendations for other photographers on this thread and you can see that it is possible to get a photographer you are happy with in that price range. Of course, the more coverage and products you want the more it will cost - but not everyone wants full day coverage or an expensive album (which can always be produced in the future anyway). We don't ask clients to choose an album until they are ready and our coffee-table books are a popular alternative to more expensive albums. We also offer special deals for 'off season' and 'short notice' bookings.

I don't assume this at all. Everyone has their own model, products and offers. None of my clients have ever wanted or suggested less than a full day, (this is up to the speeches), many more pay extra for coverage for the evening too. Most of my colleagues when we attend seminars follow similar models.

Unless my client wants to pay for an album package up-front, I usually offer a day of photography for a fee, then they are free to choose what albums and prints they would like afterwards.

Most professionals aren't keen to just offer a disc only package, because they don't like people to take their images into Boots, Jessops etc, and have them auto-levelled, printed and look awful with a bad colour balance, then passing these prints off as the photographers own work. This has been discussed to death in issues Professional Photographer magazine.

StuartWalker wrote: »

As for quality, that is for a client to judge based on a representative sample of the photographer's work. We advise potential clients to ensure they see at least one completed album from a whole wedding, rather than looking just at the photographer's chosen portfolio.

I totally agree, I'd always give free advice to clients and have often picked photographers for friends, especially those when I've been a key member of the wedding party, including when playing best man or usher!

Some people like cheesy effects, knocked out colour and tons of vignettes, others like more artistic shots with little or no discernible effects (which is my style).

Personally I don't advertise on here, and unless I'm mistaken, it's against the T+Cs of this site anyway, I use MSE mainly to discuss technical issues on the tech forum. People find me if they want me!

deecy

I still maintain you need to spend more than £500 to book a good professional photographer for a full wedding day of photography. But that is my professional opinion.

In my professional opinion a professional photographer charging £500 would NOT be offering an all day service. Part-time photographers on the other hand maydo.

For most brides it's a question of priorities, IF photography is a high priority they will be prepared to spend money on it. If photography isn't a priority couples maybe very happy with a college student, amateur or part-time photographer.

I didn't have a professional photographer at my wedding, I am very happy with that decision and have lots of photos to remind me of the day - not that I could ever forget it

I chose to spend my money on our honeymoon, that was my priority, a £500 trip to Whitby wasn't what I wanted, horses for courses.

StuartWalker

deecy wrote: »

In my professional opinion a professional photographer charging £500 would NOT be offering an all day service. Part-time photographers on the other hand maydo.

Yep, £500 is not realistic for all day coverage, unless off-season *and* the photographer had a non-photoshop determined workflow (how did we ever manage before photoshop )

isofa

StuartWalker wrote: »

Yep, £500 is not realistic for all day coverage, unless off-season *and* the photographer had a non-photoshop determined workflow (how did we ever manage before photoshop )

A late relative of mine was a relatively well know photographer in his part of the country, and obviously long before the digital era (he retired in the 1980s), he spent a long time in the darkroom and on finishing drums getting the output dead right for weddings, photoshop merely moves the process on from film to digital.

Plenty of bad film photographers had their images saved by good darkroom technicians able to move exposure by a stop or so too, just like RAW can do today. Still a good photographer can get the exposure right...

StuartWalker

isofa wrote: »

A late relative of mine was a relatively well know photographer in his part of the country, and obviously long before the digital era (he retired in the 1980s), he spent a long time in the darkroom and on finishing drums getting the output dead right for weddings, photoshop merely moves the process on from film to digital.

Plenty of bad film photographers had their images saved by good darkroom technicians able to move exposure by a stop or so too, just like RAW can do today. Still a good photographer can get the exposure right...

Horses for courses

Not everyone can (or will) spend £1000s for wedding photography. And many people here are more than happy with the quality of the photography they have had for less than £500.

While I repeat that price should never be the primary consideration in choosing a wedding photographer, I maintain that there is most definately a market for low cost wedding photography. The fact you are not in that area of the market does not make it any less true.

frannyann

StuartWalker wrote: »

Horses for courses

Not everyone can (or will) spend £1000s for wedding photography. And many people here are more than happy with the quality of the photography they have had for less than £500.

While I repeat that price should never be the primary consideration in choosing a wedding photographer, I maintain that there is most definately a market for low cost wedding photography. The fact you are not in that area of the market does not make it any less true.

Stuart, I wish I could thank you more than once for showing that you don't need to spend a fortune to get a good photographer! It is exactly that 'horses for courses'
Of course if money was no object I'd ask David Bailey to do my photos (only on mates rates of course as my mum was his PA ) And Jamie Oliver to cook my food (as long as he didn't speak, the twonk) And Jane Asher to make my cake!
However as money is an issue, the photographers I am using do lovely pictures I just have had to trim how long I have them, and have my wedding on a friday to afford them, the chef at the hotel makes decent grub that everyone will enjoy and my local cake maker make a mean cake!

Freddie_Snowbits

karen_newcastle wrote: »

They might be processing them in the evenings or at weekends?

I am a part time photographer.....what's your point? I can work up to 3 weddings a month and work in my day job 4 days a week and still manage to process all my weddings.....beautifully I might add

Reportage or Craportage.

I knew of a few that pump up about 800 pictures, in the vain hope that 1 is good!

I take 40 that are belters!

karen_newcastle

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Reportage or Craportage.

I knew of a few that pump up about 800 pictures, in the vain hope that 1 is good!

I take 40 that are belters!

Wonderful.

Shame you come across like a total idiot though.

Toothfairy4

karen_newcastle wrote: »

Wonderful.

Shame you come across like a total idiot though.

:rotfl: :T

rene2b

can any 1 rec 1 in the northwest???