Wedding photography

andygb

karen_newcastle wrote: »

The wedding photographer has to make a living too in these tough times. For example if I quote £1000 for photography my profit might be £500. So to earn that average wage you quoted I need to be doing at least 50 weddings a year and that is pretty difficult to acheive.

Could you please cost out your £1000 for me, detailing hours worked (both on the day, and afterwards detailing individual images), number of images taken, cost of album if included?

andygb

Dr_DiNg_DoNg wrote: »

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.

"quality and class", quite agree, but the Montblanc pen will not improve your handwriting, and most importantly it will not improve your spelling. There is also a matter of "buyer perceived value", where certain affluent people expect to pay a certain amount for any given service.
As a matter of interest, what do you do for a living?

andygb

Dr_DiNg_DoNg wrote: »

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.

This is part of my research, and it has shown that some people can be very helpful, giving relevant advice, and most importantly details of real costs and services. Some on the other hand, have just gone out of their way to be very negative, which looking at some of their previous posts, is a very common theme.

Dr_DiNg_DoNg

andygb wrote: »

This is part of my research, and it has shown that some people can be very helpful, giving relevant advice, and most importantly details of real costs and services. Some on the other hand, have just gone out of their way to be very negative, which looking at some of their previous posts, is a very common theme.

You could go on amazon and buy one of 3 or 4 books which would give you (quality) answers and real costing breakdowns to all the questions you have asked, plus others you have not even thought of, but you seem to want it all handed to you on a plate.

I am not being negative towards you, just realistic. Snap shot weekend warriors are 10 a penny in wedding photography.

aimee21j

Dr_DiNg_DoNg wrote: »

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.

I'm not after lighting effects and bells on the photo's. The arty farty shots are not a true reflection of the day IMO. I am getting a little offended that you are comparing my wedding photo's to a bic biro though. We have saved for 6 years to get married and I believe that every element of the wedding will be classy and good quality without spending the earth. I looked at many photographers before making my decision. I still believe that I preferred the work of my chosen photographer to others that were double the price. My photographer (since I booked a year ago) now charges £300 more for the same package.

Dr_DiNg_DoNg

aimee21j wrote: »

I'm not after lighting effects and bells on the photo's. The arty farty shots are not a true reflection of the day IMO. I am getting a little offended that you are comparing my wedding photo's to a bic biro though. We have saved for 6 years to get married and I believe that every element of the wedding will be classy and good quality without spending the earth. I looked at many photographers before making my decision. I still believe that I preferred the work of my chosen photographer to others that were double the price. My photographer (since I booked a year ago) now charges £300 more for the same package.

Dont be offended.

There is nothing wrong with your taste, many people are happy with a basic record & doc set, a few nice snaps to remember the day, and its easy to get that for £500 , much less in many areas.

However, there will always be people who want something with a bit more pazzaz (tried to use none offensive word like "quality"), and that's when you have to pay the extra. Its like going to a restaurant I guess, some people dont like Michelin star style food, and are happy with a decent pub meal, and even if money was not an issue would still go to the pub, because that is more to their taste.

I do think, with regards to photography, that it should be last on the brides list of things to cut back on, assuming the marriage lasts it should become part of a family history for generations to look at, and you should get the best you can afford.

aimee21j

I am put out as you say I must have cheap taste. I have seen some crap from higher priced photographers. Are you a professional protograper?

karen_newcastle

andygb wrote: »

Could you please cost out your £1000 for me, detailing hours worked (both on the day, and afterwards detailing individual images), number of images taken, cost of album if included?

Basically....and these are vague approximations....

Hours prior to ceremony - approx 4 hours (meeting clients, visiting venues etc)
Shooting wedding - approx 8 hours
Dowloading and editing - approx 20 hours
Designing album approx - 3 hours
total - 35 hours.

My costs vary depending on which package the Bride and Groom choose. Number of images vary but I would expect to show the B&G around 800 images.

This wont be a surprise to ANY photographer working in the wedding business.

karen_newcastle

I just wanted to say that there are some truly awful photographers out there and how they keep booking clients is beyond me. But they do. They don't know how to make the bride look her best (and slimmer), they dont know how to make the most of the light and they certainly dont know how to use flash correctly. I am sure some of them have no idea how to use their camera to be honest!

However not all cheap photographers are awful photographers. So dont worry - if you are happy and like their work then that's all that counts. Whatever is said on this thread shouldn't bother you at all.

My point was that photographers dont make a easy living. We dont earn £1000 a day. Most wedding photographer charging in that price bracket dont earn the national average wage unless they are doing more than about 50 weddings a year.

aimee21j

Thanks Karen. You're so right. Just because someone charges £1500 or £200 doesn't make them a fantastic/poor photographer.