Wedding photography

karen_newcastle

Thanks o_t_e I think you provided an excellent response! I certainly do spend all week preparing by visiting venues, having pre wedding meetings (usually driving long distances to both), editing photos, designing albums, ordering re-prints, waiting in PO queues, ordering stock, looking after equipment, emailing quotes, meeting with future customers, attending training events.

I might have £500 costs through all the things mentioned in o_t_e's post. Albums, insurance, travelling costs, prints, frames, tax and NI need to be deducted to get to a net profit figure.

I too think there is a market for all types of budget but I do get really peeved with the attitude that photographers are earning £1000 for a days work. That's just ridiculous.

And you are wrong because the 'ordinary person in the street' WILL pay £1k plus for wedding photography because many can see the difference between a cheap £250 photograher and a photographer who knows how to capture the day in the best possible way, knows how to handle the light and their kit, knows how you make you (and your guests) look your very best, knows how to create a stunning album that will last the whole of your life.

svjenni

I think maybe the issue is that most of us brides on here are either on a very tight budget or don't want to spend that much, after all we are all moneysavers!

personally, photos are not something i'm spending a lot on. I got quoted £500 by a v good photographer friend and that was too much for me. I'm spending £250

Dr_DiNg_DoNg

andygb wrote: »

So, does the wedding photographer only work one day a week? What is your point? Why do you only make £500 profit out of £1000, are you flying from the US to the UK to do every wedding? Nothing you have said makes sense, because I was trying to explain that the ordinary person in the street will not pay a grand for wedding photos.

I think your attitude is bad andy, and you will fail to succeed , if you only aspire to be part of the £500 dross, then you will ever only achieve mediocrity.

sexki11en

My photogrpher is charging £1200. This is for coverage from me getting ready in the morning to the first dance and all our images on CD so we can print them off ourselves.

We originally booked the £850 package which covered until we sat down to eat, but extended it for an extra few hours this week for £250 to cover up to the first dance, so we could make sure we got some pics of evening guests too.

He is top quality, very experienced (20 years in wedding photography) and 3 times master photographer of the year.

Reasons we chose him:
1) He has worked at our venue before
2) We get the CD to print from (this was our number 1 priority)
3) His experience
4) 3 times master photographer
5) He is part of some type of "guild" where should he fall ill or any of his equipment is stolen, other local professional photographers will step in to help out.
6) We really got on well with him
7) The photos on his website are exactly what we were looking for - a mix of formal shots and reportage

It IS more than we were hoping to spend but we had a lot of "must haves" and werent willing to compromise. These photos are all we will have in our old age once the memories start fading.

SK x

Hope that helps.

aimee21j

I don't think Andy has a bad attitude. I think he is talking about a starting point and I think by going straight in to the £1k upwards market would not reflect his experience. It is certainly true that more and more people are having to down scale their weddings in this economic climate (just visit the wedding forums) and more often than not the photography is high up on the that list. There is a huge market for more affordable photgraphy. I wouldn't appreciate anyone telling me that the photo's I will have will be poor quality because I have paid £500. I have already had a pre wedding shoot and am very pleased with the results.

Good luck Andy.

andygb

Dr_DiNg_DoNg wrote: »

I think your attitude is bad andy, and you will fail to succeed , if you only aspire to be part of the £500 dross, then you will ever only achieve mediocrity.

Having looked at some of your latest replies to posts, I can only assume you are a troll.

andygb

sexki11en wrote: »

My photogrpher is charging £1200. This is for coverage from me getting ready in the morning to the first dance and all our images on CD so we can print them off ourselves.

We originally booked the £850 package which covered until we sat down to eat, but extended it for an extra few hours this week for £250 to cover up to the first dance, so we could make sure we got some pics of evening guests too.

He is top quality, very experienced (20 years in wedding photography) and 3 times master photographer of the year.

Reasons we chose him:
1) He has worked at our venue before
2) We get the CD to print from (this was our number 1 priority)
3) His experience
4) 3 times master photographer
5) He is part of some type of "guild" where should he fall ill or any of his equipment is stolen, other local professional photographers will step in to help out.
6) We really got on well with him
7) The photos on his website are exactly what we were looking for - a mix of formal shots and reportage

It IS more than we were hoping to spend but we had a lot of "must haves" and werent willing to compromise. These photos are all we will have in our old age once the memories start fading.

SK x

Hope that helps.

Thanks for that breakdown, it was just the thing that I am after. Certain people on here have got totally the wrong idea, and think that I am ridiculing wedding packages which cost in excess of £500, £1000 or whatever, I am not. What I am trying to point out, is that the majority of people do not spend above £500 on their wedding photos.
I wonder how some brides feel about the comments which have described £500 shoots as "dross", not very happy I should think, and rightly so.
I would like to know what Karen charged when she first started - £1000, I think not.

andygb

aimee21j wrote: »

I don't think Andy has a bad attitude. I think he is talking about a starting point and I think by going straight in to the £1k upwards market would not reflect his experience. It is certainly true that more and more people are having to down scale their weddings in this economic climate (just visit the wedding forums) and more often than not the photography is high up on the that list. There is a huge market for more affordable photgraphy. I wouldn't appreciate anyone telling me that the photo's I will have will be poor quality because I have paid £500. I have already had a pre wedding shoot and am very pleased with the results.

Good luck Andy.

Thanks Aimee, I hope that your wedding photos turn out great, and as you have had a pre wedding shoot (an essential in my opinion), I see no reason why they shouldn't.

Dr_DiNg_DoNg

andygb wrote: »

Having looked at some of your latest replies to posts, I can only assume you are a troll.

Why because you dont like the message? does not make it any less factual.

When you look at some of the things you have posted on this thread, its obvious that you need to go back to the drawing board and do some serious research.

Dr_DiNg_DoNg

aimee21j wrote: »

I don't think Andy has a bad attitude. I think he is talking about a starting point and I think by going straight in to the £1k upwards market would not reflect his experience. It is certainly true that more and more people are having to down scale their weddings in this economic climate (just visit the wedding forums) and more often than not the photography is high up on the that list. There is a huge market for more affordable photgraphy. I wouldn't appreciate anyone telling me that the photo's I will have will be poor quality because I have paid £500. I have already had a pre wedding shoot and am very pleased with the results.

Good luck Andy.

They probably wont be poor quality as such, they will be correctly exposed, and in focus.

But what you do generally get with a £500 photographer is a record and documentary set, just a simple record of your day.

Providing a service like that is a very straight forward exercise, and I could teach the majority of people to do it in 4 or 5 sessions, thats why there are so many £500 photographers about, its a good Saturday job for somebody who probably works in an office all week.

The talented wedding togs who charge £1000+ (or £2000+ in London) operate on another level , the lighting and composition skills take years to master.

Its like the difference between a mont blonc pen and a bic biro , both will write you a letter, but one has quality and class.