[Closed] Wedding Photographers

Ridiculous prices are what you should expect.
I was going to go into business doing it, but I wouldn't have made any money, as I had some morals, and would not have charged £1000 for a wedding.
I've done 3 weddings in the last few years for friends, all were extremely pleased with the results. I charged a set fee of £100 for the day, plus materials, plus 20% on top of the price of the prints.Whole package at less than £200. I also had them order their first set of extra prints through me (again at cost + 20%), mainly to safeguard the quality of the prints. After 2 months or so, I let them have the negs.

General wedding photographers will charge 500% more than cost. I'm not joking. A 7x5 re-print from a good quality processor will be £2.50 max. They'll charge you £10-20 for that photo.And they will not let you keep the negatives. 10 years down the line, when they have gone bust/moved/retired, you want a few reprints, and you have got no negs to print from.

So, get a good amateur, who is comfortable doing it, to do it. Pay them a good daily rate - I'd be happy with £100/half day.Try to get them done on film. It is better. If you want digital copies, then the negs can be scanned during processing.

If you do go the 'professional' route, make sure you get to keep the negs, and the copyright is passed to you. If they wont agree to this, go elsewhere - you are paying for the service, and you dont want them to charge you each time you want some more pics.
Alan.

What he said

I'll add, that a good photographer earns their money when things go wrong. Most people can probably take a reasonable picture when it's nice and sunny and everyone is happy but if it starts chucking it down, that's when your good pro chap shows his true colours.

Ask to examples of the photographers work from days when it wasn't clear blue skies or the wedding was in an inner city hovel.

What's all this talk about negatives?? When was the last time you looked at wedding photographers-none I know have used film for some years now!
VERY few still do, but that is rare & tends to be medium format stuff & they do charge a premium for it.
I disagree with the OP (I would though wouldn't I) I'm a big believer in you get what you pay for.
Go & talk to some professional photographers & see thier work & compare it to amature photo's you can get for a fraction of the price-there is a difference.

I'm getting married in Feb & haven't got a huge budget, but we are having a decent photographer, who's Yorkshire based actually.

No photographer in their right mind will pass the copyright to you, but most will grant an unlimited licence to reproduce the images. Very different things.

Get it done on fil, it is better?? Twaddle. Professional digital has a higher dynamic range than film & much more adjustability in camera to get it right when it counts-on the day.
Give this man a call if you want to have a chat with him & tell him Dave said to ring.
http://www.jumpingjimflash.com/

We went for a girl that was a professional photographer but not a wedding photographer and paid £400 for her services. She was shooting with a D300, nikkor 17-55 f/2.8, nikkor 70-200 f/2.8, nikkor 12-24mm and a couple of primes, which was enough for me to know she was serious about photography.

She processed the ones she thought were best and gave us the jpegs, then 3 DVDs full of the nef files for me to reprocess as i saw fit. The shots were as good as the ones friends of ours paid £1500 for, albeit that they got a fancy album + prints thrown into the deal. They [i]didn't[/i] get the digital negs though.

albeit they got a fancy album?

alanl - Member

Ridiculous prices are what you should expect.
I was going to go into business doing it, but I wouldn't have made any money, as I had some morals, and would not have charged £1000 for a wedding.
I've done 3 weddings in the last few years for friends, all were extremely pleased with the results. I charged a set fee of £100 for the day,

I see what you're doing there, but it's not really £100 for a day is it? it's not only the wedding day - a proper pro will spend time with you before hand to get to know what you want and plan out the specific photos, then will spend a lot more time afterwards post processing the photos and touching up. Add on a couple of days for these two things alone and you're earning maybe £35 per day. Not that much really, is it? Now as a pro factor in things like insurance, saving money for days when you're not "working" and suddenly you see why pro photographers charge so much for the small amoutn of time they actually spend taking photos. I haven't even mentioned the cost of the kit...

Back on track, to the OP, I can recommend Chris @ [url= http://www.enjoyphotography.co.uk/ ]Enjoy Photography[/url], aka Marsdenman

She was shooting with a D300, nikkor 17-55 f/2.8, nikkor 70-200 f/2.8, nikkor 12-24mm and a couple of primes, which was enough for me to know she was serious about photography.

I have all that kit and I wouldn't dream of shooting anyone's wedding.

There have been a few threads on this subject and some good advice given.

Seeing as the OP asked

I am a wedding photographer and cover that area

[url= http://www.kevinlindequephotography.co.uk/ ]my website[/url]

[url= http://kevinlindequephotography.blogspot.com/ ]My blog[/url]

To the OP - If you would like to get in touch i can give you a fair bit of insider advice

I have all that kit and I wouldn't dream of shooting anyone's wedding.

So do I and neither would I; far too much responsibility.

There was a piece in a photography magazine about this recently where they said that in this day where any bloke on the street could cobble together the kit and call himself a "wedding photographer", by spending the extra on a professional wedding photographer you got experience, insurance and piece of mind. They also pointed out that the amateur wedding photographers were giving the industry bad name with lacklustre results and were being shut down by reporting them to HMRC.

The choice is either pay for a pro and get guaranteed results or save some cash by going amateur/semi-pro and take a risk that they might be shite.

I think my school friend does wedding photos and is in that area
[url= http://www.leannebolger.com/ ]http://www.leannebolger.com/[/url]

Yeah tough one, I like rondo101's approach, ultimately you can just negotiate. I think 1500 is mental but 500 is ok..

Thanks everyone.

Yeti Guy, Liked your site & galleries. MOre importantly my girlfriend liked it. I'll be in touch in the next few days.

cheers

Shysters the lot of em, use yer moby or get a mate to do it, dead easy with a digital camera on auto
Charge you a fortune and then expect to get fed and watered too

Or being a tad more serious, find one or two that sound ok or have been recommended and have a look at their previous work
Just because they have all the gear doesn't mean they are any good, I too have most of what was mentioned above and would never attempt a wedding

Find a family friend who's nifty with a camera.
That's what we did and have a lovely set of natural shots.
No-one got pissed off having to wait 3 hours to eat while the bloody photographer posed groups of guests.

We used a girl called Karen Turner from over your way.
Fancy webby here [url= http://www.karenturner.co.uk ]www.karenturner.co.uk[/url]

She was very very good, spent a little time getting to know us beforehand, blended in at the wedding (everyone though she was a guest) which means she caught some great shots and the album is great.

Me and my new wife used [url= http://www.tompaice.co.uk ]Tom Paice[/url] He was just amazing and a really top bloke too. He is from bristol but travels. I can't recommend him enough, plus when we went to meet him in bristol he suggested we meet in a cafe above a bike shop! I think he charged us about £1000 but compared to loads we had seen for that price his work is leagues above IMO.

Lol@custom made photo albums.

Your married life is going to be SO much better now that you have a custom made photo album from the wedding!

Lol!

Just been through this (married in august) I actually got pretty irate about the fees some of them we're asking, some were talking £2k and basically using bribery type tactics...'you only do it once you want it to be perfect' etc...

In the end we went with a local girl recommended to us by friends who had done 2 people's weddings we knew, looked at their albums etc. We got her and an assistant (to capture 'candid' photos), got all the jpegs - £800. Still a bit much in my opinion but compared to others it was ok. We are really happy, the heavens opened and she still got plenty of really good pics. We're going to make our own album mixing in friends photos as quite a few people had slrs and took decent shots.

Just be prepared for people to fleece you. Depending how far you are through your planning you'll know this already. I would have got a friend to do it, but even though a couple have done weddings they didn't want the pressure which was fair enough.

Wedding 'suppliers' are a scam, basically.

I just look at my lovely wife every time I want a reminder of my wedding. And she's even 3d 🙂

Sorry Alanl but you have no idea what you are talking about. Film? How old are you?

If you look at the time, expertise and effort a decent pro wedding photographer puts into a wedding it's very easy to understand why it can cost 1k +.

Rule 1 - Spend more money on photos than food. Food is pretty hard to get wrong and even if it's dull nobody will remember the next day. When do you ever hear anyone reminiscing about how good the food was at their wedding?

Photos last a lifetime and if you really want something decent it's worth hiring a decent pro.

A decent Pro will have -

Insurance (to cover equipment failure, public liability of someone trips over a lightstand or something)

Multiple bodies/lenses for equipment redundancy.

Experience on working in low/poor lighitng situations. This is what messes up most 'hobby' photographers - put them in a candlelit church and they will have no clue how to deal with it.

Creativity - depending on who you hire!

Albums - Generally albums are where a lot of the cost of a pro comes from - they aren't cheap because there is a lot of time in design etc. Plus the actual albums are expejnsive if you want something half decent.

Basically - don't rely on a cousin/uncle - generally it doesn't turn out well.

oh, this guy [url= http://www.alexbeckett.co.uk/ ]Alex Beckett[/url] is good.

trouble with wives is that they get more 3D as the years pass!!!

bum-tiss....ill get me coat

all that stuff plus check how long the photographer needs to do their work. If they can do a lot during the day rather than having to take you away to that special location then great. Nothing ruins a wedding more that everyone having to hang around for hours while the main attraction disappear (free booze does compensate though!)

Alani
What are you talking about don’t give the guy rubbish advice I was recently married and was provided all images on DVD in JPEG. What photographer uses film for a whole days shooting, certainly not a professional.

Just use a professional you really will see the benefit we used this guy www.shootinghip.com - He also came with a colleague initially I was moaning about price but after seeing pictures I would of paid double. Don’t take the risk with some amateur you only get one chance at this day.

When do you ever hear anyone reminiscing about how good the food was at their wedding?

When do you ever hear people reminiscing about how great their photographs are?

If your photo of your loving family and friends lacks a little depth and intensity, do you really give a F? Seriously? Don't the photos just serve to remind you of the day?

Who has looked at the photo album of their wedding after a bit of time has passed? Hobnestly - those of you that are married and spent good money on a pro how many times have you looked at the photos?

Honestly - those of you that are married and spent good money on a pro how many times have you looked at the photos

Well so far 4 times. But then again we only got the disk in the post yesterday 🙂

wheres Ti29er when you need him eh? A thread made just for him! 😆

When we got married 16 years ago, it was pretty much pre-digital for professional photogs.

We used a local photographer who was also a cyclist, and had the full monty of leather bound album etc. He still shot on medium format film at the time, and when we went to see the proofs he looked ill - pale, sweaty, nervous, just really off & agitated - he's normally quite a laid back funny guy.

Turned out that the developer he'd used had cocked up (problem with the temperature of one of the chemical apparently) that meant the colour saturation on the prints wasn't good - fortunately the day had been quite dull anyway, and none of the guests had gone for vivid outfits, even the bridesmaids dresses were quite a muted dark red.

Same guy did my bro - in - law wedding a couple of years ago, and he's gone digital, and says he would never go back to film as he can get the digital "proofs" seen much faster and turned around quicker, as well as creating montage type images.

Film vs Digital, being a rank amateur and based on my own wedding experiences, digital has some advantages!

All this talk of expense is shite - wedding photographers charge similar amounts to good commercial photographers and there is naff all wrong in someone earning a fair rate - the work they do isn't just a few hours on the day - there is also planning meeting, image selection, retouching, admin etc.

Or pay a mate to take a few snaps.

Bestside photography recommended. But £1000 for a wedding WTF!!!
http://www.bestside.co.uk/

Jim Varney malton
http://www.jimvarney.co.uk/home.html

and he is a biker too

FWIW we used http://www.morgan-photography.co.uk/

Harrogate-based and a pretty nice couple.

I used Morgan Photography too, in May this year. Very good.

Professional digital has a higher dynamic range than film

A Hassleblad maybe, but nowhere near with my 5D2 or colleague's D700. DX size sensors liuke the D300s - not a chance.

However, unless everything else is perfect, i'd rather sacrifice 2 stops of DR and have the ability to rectify a shot easier. Plus, unless you're using medium format, digital is generally much higher resolution.

My mate is an excelent wedding photogrpher, we are going to use him for ours next year...

[url= http://violetphoto.co.uk/ ]http://violetphoto.co.uk/[/url]

Marsdenman ( Chris) on here is a top bloke, and this is his line of work...

We used Nicola Grimshaw-Mitchell (based in Ramsbottom so I guess she should cover that area) http://www.ngmphotographic.co.uk/

Not cheap (but certainly not as expensive as most of the photographers recommended by the venue) but very good if you like quite natural informal shots (we barely noticed her on the day - probably only 10 mins of staged group shots and another 10 mins of just us, then the rest were all informal).

The albums/prints etc are where a lot of the costs add up - you can save a lot if you buy the digital negatives and sort your own albums and prints out (having said that, we did get one album done and it was very high quality - far superior to anything we can get done ourselves).

It's OK using a friend but it's also a lot of pressure on them!

mrs rex is a wedding photographer...this link pretty much hits the mark 😀 :

TBH, it's the choosing to get married bit where you've all gone wrong....

http://www.mirrorboxphotography.com/

If you're after something with a little flair! Very nice people too.

IMO just go for someone half sensible and mid-range. Things like this that seem so important at the time have very little relevance 20 years into your marriage, you don't really care whether the photographer got the light balance spot-on.

And if you don't last 20 years - it'll end up in the bin with all the other photos when you clear out after the divorce!

With wedding photography, what you're paying for is not just the time that someone spends at your venue firing off pictures...it's everything else that a good photographer offers;
[list]
Meeting you to see what you want (traditional/reportage, group shots etc)
Going to venue the week before (usually close to the day so that the weather is similar) to check out good shooting locations, the lighting etc
Professional photographers will shoot in RAW, these need significant post-processing to give you the good pictures you want. This takes significant time, if you go the cheaper route you'll most likely get someone shooting direct to jpg and they'll give you the images straight off the card. You might be lucky and get some good pictures, but chances are a large percentage will be cr@p.
Professional level gear - although you can shoot good photographs with any old camera if you're skilled enough, what you need for weddings are fast lenses (f2.8), these mean you can get well exposed pictures even in low light conditions. A cheaper photographer will need to use a flash pretty much all day, so you could get blown out highlights (a problem with a big white dress), plus they'll be stood right next to you while you say your vows which could be a little irritating!
A good wedding album printed and delivered to your door - most have various packages depending on the price. Most will also give you a DVD/CD of all the images - some might not do this or you might have to pay extra.
A back up, most good wedding photographers will have a back up photographer who will step in should they be unable to do your wedding (through illness or accident for example). You won't need to pay extra for this, they'll just pass on the business (whilst probably shaving a finders fee off what you pay).
A second photographer, usually the pro will come with a second who'll take candid/reportage photographs while the main guy is working his way through the enormous list of family shots you've requested (seriously if you value your guests sanity, try to keep this list`sensible!).
A pro might also provide an online gallery so your friends and family can see the pictures (especially helpful if you've got family abroad who couldn't make it).[/list]

One thing you should not expect is that they will hand over copyright, no self respecting professional will do this, nor should you expect them to.

If you've found someone who will do it for £100 you'll quite likely be disappointed. If you go this route, my advice would be to never look at anyone elses wedding photographs, especially if they went with a pro...you'll only end up kicking yourself for being a tight a$$ on what most people feel is the most important day of their life. Although you might be lucky...but why take the gamble?

Although if money's tight and you don't have a choice, you could look for an new photographer trying to build up their wedding photography business. They'll probably offer you a good deal, although possibly not £100, that will only just cover petrol for driving to and from the venue!

You could try asking on [url= http://www.photographers.co.uk/html/photography-jobs.cfm?VacantWanted=V ]photographers.co.uk[/url], or GumTree. But make sure you meet them before the big day.

Regarding the price, £1000 for pro is average, although I live in London so it might be a litte cheaper up North. The best thing to do is search for local wedding photographers online and check out their galleries, some might even let you speak to previous customers.

You don't need a guy like this;

[img] [/img]

But you certainly don't want to end up with this;

[img] [/img]

I've done a couple of weddings and it's bloody hard work and a lot of stress as you only get one chance for a lot of the shots. I think £1k is fair for a skilled photographer.

What a load of cr** how often do you lot look at your £2000 a piece pictures? Wonder what you do with them when you get divorced?? Getting friends to take snaps you will end up with far nicer photos than cheesy professional pics and guests will be happy they don't have to hang around for hours posing and starving. Sorry but IMO they are a horrific rip off, but each to their own.

Think its got a lot to do with not being the odd one out and an element of showing off.

People are very worried what others think and wouldn't want to be seen as having a cut price wedding. Too much pressure with all the social networking sites, soon as they get the pics they are on Facebook to show/show off to their friends
The whole wedding business has got out of hand, more about what friends and family will think than enjoying the day because its what the couple want. Pure hypocrisy to get married in church when you never step foot in the place, church themselves are just as bad by taking the money.

Did you enjoy a holiday any less because the pics were crap, of course not because its the memories that matters.

Can't blame the wedding photographers for charging what they do if they can get it, but a competent amateur can take photos that are more than adequate to keep as a reminder of the happy day

Everything to do with weddings is a rip off

Try getting a quote for a birthday party at a hotel & then try a quote for a wedding with the same food etc.

Uplink yup I agree! that's probably why I'm too pi**y to get married plus what is going to change? (agree possibly different if kids are in the picture)

I wouldn't waste money on a wedding photographer. Your mates must be able to take enough decent photos between them.Anyway most marriages don't last anyway so spend the money you save on a new bike!!

but a competent amateur can take photos that are more than adequate to keep as a reminder of the happy day

a cake from greggs will be more than adequate as a wedding cake.
cans of that cheap lager from aldi and some asti-spumante will be more than adequate to get people pissed on the wedding day.
a people carrier from the local taxi firm will be more than adequate as a wedding car (and you fit more people in)
the scout hut will be more than adequate as a venue on your happy day.
a word doc printed out at work will be more than adequate as an invitation to your wedding.
an ipod and your stereo is more than adequate to dance to in the evening.
frozen sausage rolls from iceland and a catering tub of houmous and some pitta bread is more than adequate to feed your wedding guests.

a cake from greggs will be more than adequate as a wedding cake.
cans of that cheap lager from aldi and some asti-spumante will be more than adequate to get people pissed on the wedding day.
a people carrier from the local taxi firm will be more than adequate as a wedding car (and you fit more people in)
the scout hut will be more than adequate as a venue on your happy day.
a word doc printed out at work will be more than adequate as an invitation to your wedding.
an ipod and your stereo is more than adequate to dance to in the evening.
frozen sausage rolls from iceland and a catering tub of houmous and some pitta bread is more than adequate to feed your wedding guests.

The only important thing is that you are in love with each other. The rest is just window dressing.

a cake from greggs will be more than adequate as a wedding cake.
cans of that cheap lager from aldi and some asti-spumante will be more than adequate to get people pissed on the wedding day.
a people carrier from the local taxi firm will be more than adequate as a wedding car (and you fit more people in)
the scout hut will be more than adequate as a venue on your happy day.
a word doc printed out at work will be more than adequate as an invitation to your wedding.
an ipod and your stereo is more than adequate to dance to in the evening.
frozen sausage rolls from iceland and a catering tub of houmous and some pitta bread is more than adequate to feed your wedding guests.

🙂

To all those who think £1000 is a rip off for a [i]good[/i] wedding photographer...wake up and don't be so chuffin tight.

As has already been said, there is way more to it than turning up on the day, taking a load of shots and then uploading them onto a CD. Anyone who thinks that's what a decent pro photographer does is a complete plum. It's usually about 3 days work, has a fair few costs involved and is very high risk/stressful.

If you don't care about the pictures from the day and would honestly be happy with shots taken by relatives etc then fine, £1000 is going to seem like a lot so don't bother. If you want some good pro quality shots then don't ever think that an amateur could do a good job unless you know for sure they have done plenty of weddings before and their work is top notch. Wedding photography is not like shooting in a controlled environment and this is where an inexperienced amateur will fall (very) short.

Always go for a photographer based on recommendation, that way you know what you'll get in terms of the whole package/experience. Don't go on website pics alone, they would have put their best pics up which could be 10 out of a 1000 absolute shockers.

The only important thing is that you are in love with each other. The rest is just window dressing.

don't bother with getting married then.

I've shot a few weddings for friends, as they've liked my style. Its amazing how those who dont want group photos suddenly do on the day (pressure from parents and family being the reason), and how difficult it is to round up a group for a picture (there are ways and means around this).

If you want candid shots, then any decent amateur can make a good go of these. More formal, well lit, posed portraits that are well composed and executed are where a pro will earn their money.

And the fee is not just for what you see on the day. I meet my clients before hand, discuss their wants and get across how I do things to see if we will work together. I also stay well into the evening do to get pics of the party atmosphere, and then there is the post processing which can take from hours to days.

Pictures I take of my clients are always given to them, they can then print as many as they like, or use them as they will. Copywrite will remain mine though.

So for you Mr Smith, a wedding is about cake, booze, cars, paperwork, music and food. Fair enough.

So for you Mr Smith, a wedding is about cake, booze, cars, paperwork, music and food. Fair enough.

No. people/wine/food in that order. couldn't give a toss about the other stuff.