[Closed] Wedding photographers - how much!??!?

Photographers do not cater for all tastes, and woe-betide you if you believe otherwise.

fair enough, you pick someone for their style of photography but would it not make you a better photographer if you could cater for more tastes?
I'm sure if fashions changed and your style of photography wasn't popular anymore you'd have to change your style or find another career, so why not eliminate the risk and broaden your style?
or might this impinge on your commerical photography and your market reputation?

but would it not make you a better photographer if you could cater for more tastes?

professional photography is expensive - that's just the way it is. We have a book of photographers that we use for commercial shoots for work and they're all thereabouts £1000 day rate, that doesn't include any digital capture, processing, props or wardrobe needed for the shoot, location costs... the list goes on. But you get bloody good shots that make or break a high end brochure for the likes of Henri Lloyd/Brawn GP (just one example we did)

Wedding photography is quite hard. Best thing to do is make sure you like the person's pics and like them. An annoying photographer will taint the day.

What your cost limits are is up to you.

We spoke to a few photogs for ours including Joolze Dymond off here, (who we thought was great btw) but finally decided to go for [url= http://www.harwoodphotography.co.uk/ ]Barrie Harwood[/url] who took some excellent pics. Was about a grand.

And since then we have learnt to appreciate them more as we have done a few wedding photo gigs for friends. we discussed what they wanted, explained what we could do and they have all said they were happy with the results. My wife and I take around 1500-2000 photos of the whole day working in tag teams. By the time we have edited them into best shots and ditched the dross we gave each couple a cd of around 250 pics, and an album of prints as a pressie.

[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/judeyp/collections/72157613346902010/ ]collections here[/url]

One of the shots of Iain and Jess was used in The Times.

It's fun for friends and a great gift, but stressful on the day. We don't do a huge amount of post processing, try and get the pics right on the day and then it's only adding artistic (B&W, sepia, softening etc) extras.

My services are not for sale, but I think what I'm saying is don't rule out the option of a choosing a few friends who are good with the camera, they probably can get you what you want for a fraction of the price of the pros and will prob be as good as the cheaper end of the market.

And yes add wedding to the product and you double the price. It's your day. Choose what you want.

We paid a small fortune for ours and do not regret it. Personally, I don't think you should mess around with £500 types when you want to record the best day of your lives (and not have to worry about how they are going to come out). End of.

supersessions9-2's last comment made me think of this:

[url=

flowers"[/url]

Not being funny, but that smacks of not thinking it through to me. If people don't have a good time, you get kicked off and someone else has a go, next friday night it'll all happen again. A wedding's a one-off occurrence. You don't get the chance to get try again the next week, if you get it wrong you've just ruined the "happy couple"'s wedding album

As I read once, anyone can take pictures and cameras are cheap, so why pay a professional? Well, scissors are a couple of pounds in Asda, why not suggest you do the missus' hair next time instead of shelling out £80 at the hairdresser?

You what? 😕

If I'm not doing well, I get kicked off and someone else has a go?

ROFLMAO

People pay for their night out, ok not as much as for a wedding granted, but when people pay entry into somewhere they're expecting to be entertained. That's what the DJ is there to do. Photographer at a wedding is a very similar scenraio in my book, a professional who is getting paid for a service, hopefully one that leaves a lasting impression.

If I was a shit DJ, I wouldn't get asked back the following week! It's a case of you have to give your best every time, same as hopefully a wedding photographer does... There aren't any 2nd chances, so you have to be confident in your ability to deliver first time round, and if you're not (which is the point I was making about said prize winning friend) you're going to get shown up as an amateur that can't perform under pressure!

Besides, a good photographer is going to take enough kit with them to ensure that he's going to be able to take good enough photos whatever the eventuality...

Your comment about scissors being cheap? WTF? So is a digital camera these days... So is an iPod...

Does that mean I could turn up and take professional level photos with my £50 special from tescos, or rock any party with just my iPod? You're having a laugh!

The training and experience behind ANY professional person is what you're paying for basically, as it is this that ebables them to give the required level of service. Otherwise everybody would get their Mum/BF/GF/Brother/Sister/Partner to cut their hair, Wedding Couples would get their mates to take photos with their camera phones, and Nightclubs across the world would invite everyone to bring their iPod along so we can listen to some of their music...

GET REAL!!! 🙄

Your comment about scissors being cheap? WTF? So is a digital camera these days... So is an iPod...

Does that mean I could turn up and take professional level photos with my £50 special from tescos, or rock any party with just my iPod? You're having a laugh!

That's the point I was making? you pay for a professional

That's the point I was making? you pay for a professional

And so was I... 😕

So you obviously totally misuderstood my first post!

I've thought about it even more since my previous comments, I think it is a waste of money, depending on the size of the wedding, as long as you've got a couple of you and your groom/bride, plus one of everyone else there, in a simple, but protective album, then that should be plenty.

Spending hundreds on an album, and thousands on photos that we'll never look at, spending hours on the day being photographed looking over your shoulder or sitting on the stairs, or getting out of the hired car etc etc etc is a waste of money, I guess we're conditioned into believing that it's important so we hand over hard earned cash.

Note, I'm not decrying the skills of the photographer and the hours and hours they spend on the project, it's just I'm questioning why we throw the money away on something that I bet 99% of us rarely look at.

If anyone needs a Scotland based good one I can recommend a good friend of mine. Her portfolio etc is available online and she is very reasonable.

You/we may be comparing it to how much bike you can get for the money, but that won't be how the bride and her mum are looking at it ;o)

Best not to get caught skimping on [i][b]the wedding[/b][/i] photos of [i][b]their little girl's big day[/b][/i] and buying bike bits I'd reckon (Remember; these are the people you have the "how much for a push bike" discussion with)

I'd say there's an acceptable price band, below which are the "£800 for the lot" types and above which are the "we had <insert prestigious name here> shoot our big day, he was fabulous!"
Where most people sit in that acceptable band depends on budget, aspirations,demand etc.

From experience I'd say shooting a full wedding is [i]at least[/i] 3 days work. Multiply the daily(weekend working) rate of your nearest self-employed/contractor by 3 and see what sort of numbers you get.

See this link for a reasonable price guide I found recently:
[url= http://www.weddingphotographerindex.co.uk/calculator.php ]http://www.weddingphotographerindex.co.uk/calculator.php[/url] (It's probably a little biased given the content of the site, but it's not far off)

L

Don't get my started on the flowers. Good lord.

Yep you can buy a bike for the same cash but the bike will still be on sale in a few year time - your wedding day won't be. Not a reason to spend without thinking - just a reason to think about what your spending

No you don't look at the photos much next over the 30 years but when you do you want to look at something fantastic rather than another set of holiday snaps.

Done the disposable camera thing and it rocks and is full of memories but it doesn't cut it by itself.

If you only spending 3k on a wedding then 800 is too much for photos otherwise it's a good starting point.

Ti29er stuff looks great, really. If I was spending 15k on a wedding I would hire him

did I miss anything?

I think Nick has it spot on.

Nick couldn't be more wrong.

This is not his big day, so what the bride wants, what she's been working towards and reading about, discussing on line and with her girlie pals since forever (!) and generally thinking about is not what Nick has been doing his home work on.

All (95%) my clients are women.
All (90%) my email addresses are from women.
The initial inquiry, the visit, the wedding show, the magazine articles, the home visit, the paperwork. It's all driven by the bride and not the groom.
And that's why Nick is so wrong.
Once he realises his logic is fundamentally flawed, however logical and sensible it may well be, the sooner he'll be allowed to start a family!
😆

Seriously, if your other half puts up with your "need" to reduce your many bike's weight, own more bikes than you can realistically ride at once, pamper over, read about incessantly, buy presents for (read new shiny kit), take them on trips to far flung fields with lots of other muddy men, spend so much time and effort debating over their various merits on line, (I'll not go on, I think you get the jist), and not chastise or reason or criticism you for your choices & purchases, you'd best be very, vey sure & confident she will fully comprehend your view about only having a few snaps on her Big Day - or you'll be single again in double quick-time.

Besides, a good photographer is going to take enough kit with them to ensure that he's going to be able to take good enough photos whatever the eventuality...

If only lots of expensive kit = good. Just imagine how good some people on here would be at cycling! 😀

I find this unbelievable

ti29r -fine to charge that much if people want to pay and fine to say " quality costs" but to justify it for the amount of work you do for it - laughable. what's it work out per hour?

the whole wedding thing has become a status symbol and people are willing participants in a rip off. £10 000+ to get married? give 50 guests rubber chicken in some dreadful hotel? cheesy disco? ridiculous conspicuous consumption. thats the deposit on a house pissed away.

best wedding I have been to cost a fair bit - a few thousand but they flew family from all over the world and paid for them and their accommodation and we had a tremendous party in the woods for a couple of hundred folk. Photos were done by a couple of good amateur friends and are as good as any pro set - perhaps better for being slightly less formal.

I find this unbelievable

but enough people don't find it unbelievable to sustain a market for wedding photographers at price points from a couple of hundred to several thousand pounds.

just because you wouldn't pay so much doesn't mean others are wrong by doing so.

Clearly Mr smith - a fool and their money and all that.

something is worth what someone will pay and if people will pay a couple of grand for a photographer then its worth is to them. doesn't mean it makes any sense

lots of things don't make sense

australian boots designed to be worn indoors on cold stone floors for a the 3 cold weeks of their winter being sold over here for silly money.

Madonna and her 'music'

presenters shouting on tv when commentating on the inane actions of the general public who give themselves up to the scrutiny of reality T.V.

cars that do 150mph when our speed limit is half that

people allowed cigarette breaks but you get told to get back to work if you stand there with them not smoking

going to a foreign country and wanting to eat english food.

it's down to choice, justifying things on cost grounds would make for no choice in what we spend our money on, maybe the state should control our purchasing so no irrational choices are made?

I have to say that the frankly startling prices have put SoontobeMrsZ and I off paying for a photog at all. We can't afford Ti29er's prices, although given them, I can see why he took the side he did in his dogged arguments about why you must obey the manufacturers and buy a £300 lens when a £60 one from the same maker would do the same job 99% of the time for 99% of users. I digress...

Anyway - how do you work out who is a good photographer? Is it that they charge £2k and therefore must be good, or alternatively you might end up with some nonce who thinks by charging £2k people will make that assumption. There are certainly enough wedding photos out there to make up a fake portfolio easily enough. Most of us only ever plan to have one wedding - so most of us have no experience in dealing with wedding photographers on a personal level!

In the end, we've asked two friends who are wedding photogs to bring their cameras on the day (they were invited anyway). I'll process them myself and we'll pay between us for prints and a book. Having had to rescue a friend in tears after she got her official photos back with my unofficial and drunk shots from her big day, I reserve judgement on most of the trade. She certainly paid enough for it the official photog to be exceptional, and given the kit he was using, he should have been. I got better photos cropped down from a 100mm lens at the back of the church compared to what he managed, and he could stand where he liked, as a simple guest, I couldn't...

Anyway - how do you work out who is a good photographer? Is it that they charge £2k and therefore must be good, or alternatively you might end up with some nonce who thinks by charging £2k people will make that assumption.

if they are visually unaware they may find it difficult to make an informed choice, or they may be easily pleased with mediocrity, the crap photographers out there making a living suggest this is often the case

it's a bit like cars. ford sold millions of ford orions. those purchases were probably not 'educated' choices
[img] [/img]

The Orion was a specific market tool designed to satisfy a group that wouldn't drive hatchbacks - so actually they were bought by informed clients.
I still find it funny about the IT boys pushing their cost of everything, value of nothing philosophies. It's all about making both a rational and irrational choice, tempered (hopefully) with a dash of pragmatism. It's up to the couple getting married to do what they want, whatever your own personal opinions on this, why not let them do what they want on the day?
Personally I find the one upmanship and desparate expense not to my taste, but I'm not going to say anything to them or their family because I'm not ignorant.

Let me stick up for Ti29er here (and others). It's a market. If he is busy with work, and that work pays him £2k+ a pop then good luck to him, he is obviously worth it to his clients, and at the end of the day thats what matters.

Anyway - how do you work out who is a good photographer? Is it that they charge £2k and therefore must be good, or alternatively you might end up with some nonce who thinks by charging £2k people will make that assumption.

You are right in that I do know someone who keeps putting up their package price just because they can (and they are fully booked). You're also right in that a photographer could put together a fake package from other people's stuff but that is less likely.

If I was paying 500 I wouldn't be too fussed. At 2k I would ask to see sample photos from weddings in the last month. No samples, no business.

...and like TJ and others, the best weddings I have been to have been low budget affairs put together by everyone involved and the photos have been a great memory, but they weren't pro photos even if they were good. Depends on what you want in the end.

Here's a link to one G.S Wedding Book layout, all done long-hand in Photoshop.

Hmmm... if you were trying to justify your fee with the main pictures on pages 12 and 18 I'd be rather concerned.

And i thought I was being cheeky asking £350 to shoot a wedding...

CHB - Member

Let me stick up for Ti29er here (and others). It's a market. If he is busy with work, and that work pays him £2k+ a pop then good luck to him, he is obviously worth it to his clients, and at the end of the day thats what matters.

I quite agree. Its not Ti29r that is crazy - its the people on normal incomes paying a years salary on a wedding that are barking

its the people on normal incomes paying a years salary on a wedding that are barking

In your opinion of course. Some people enjoy being able to do these sort of things for family and friends.

Spending 20K on one day, hiring a stately home that you have no connection with puts you in the same category as driving a Range Rover Sport because you have a small [img] [/img]enis and feel the need to tell everyone about it

I have to agree with the "you get what you pay for" contingent!!!

Now here is a complete can of worms!!!

[url= http://www.christianpayne.com/funeralphotography/ ]Funeral Photography[/url]

Photos are a little lifeless for my liking!!!!

IGMC

Market forces are at work here, that much is obvious.
If you don't want the work I or anyone else in the wedding industry produce, we're not going to lose any sleep.
In my case: People beat a path to my door. There are sound reasons for this. For example, they see my work in the magazines, at the wedding shows (Earls Court costs me about £4k each year for example plus Olympia and the NEC and you can see how it soon mounts up) and in editorials. They know I have a name and a reputation and people aspire to have me photograph their weddings - this is something I have worked on for the last 15 years, carving out a reputation for me and the work I produce, engendering venues and organisers & brides to both me and my work. Ultimately you as the groom have very little influence in the decision to book most everything at the wedding - get over it!

Now, if I was too much, no one would be interested in the work, and we're not just talking about the photographs on the day but also the book or albums.
But it goes far deeper than that.
Couples book someone with whom they feel confident with, & in my case, I will be with them maybe 15hrs, so they rely upon me and must feel comfortable with me and the work being carried out for them, but the picture taking is really only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

If you want, as TJ seems to, to break it down into it's constituent parts and even work on an hourly basis (which we don't do) you will find many photographers are actually on an extremely poor rate as you're neglecting the years worth of training and practice of technique and skills required to produce the work we do, week in, week out.

Last w/end for example, I spent 3 days in various lectures at the SWPP convention, & visiting a trade fayre to look at new products and trends in the market. I attended a variety of speakers, ranging from marketing and sales, to landscape photography to book production. No one but me pays for this training but it all goes into making me and the services I offer, so it'd be very silly to assume you're paying for just a photographer for a few hours when perhaps your pals can do a similar job: they can't. However, if you can't see a difference in the work being produced, go the friend / relation route by all means assuming one thing: your bride thinks in the same way as you do, 'cause I'll tell you from experience, that's not how 90% of the brides-to-be are thinking right now.

To think "Hourly rate" is to completely, utterly miss the point. I had 2 solicitors spend 20 minutes looking over one of my properties for a valuation. £200 was the average invoice. Do you think I argued about that? I asked for 10 quotes for the work and took 2 up on these quotes. Do you think I was going to question the years of training in their profession? So simply because you can buy a £500+ camera at Jessops and think you can do a good job doesn't make you a professional photographer. If you think it does, sure, buy the cheap kit and I wish you well, 'cause I've seen too many rubbish wedding pictures to be bothering with the cheap clients who wants everything on the cheap.
I don't do Skoda weddings, nor have I ever set out to attract Skoda couples; it's the not the sort of couple I am looking for.

BBC caveat: there are other photographers available.

I don't do Skoda weddings, nor have I ever set out to attract Skoda couples; it's the not the sort of couple I am looking for.

Seeing as Skoda are also owned by the people who own Bugatti and Lamborghini, as well and many manufacturers in the middle, it looks like you're cutting yourself out of the market a little 🙄

perhaps your pals can do a similar job: they can't.

Good to see you know my friends so well. One of whom's portfolio is for the most part considerably more impressive than yours. It's just he isn't quite so pompous...

mastiles_fanylion - Member

"its the people on normal incomes paying a years salary on a wedding that are barking"

In your opinion of course. Some people enjoy being able to do these sort of things for family and friends.

Its perfectly possible to have a fantastic wedding that is great fun without spending inordinate amounts of money. The two best I have been too were not very cheap but were a few thousand not tens of thousands and were all the better for that because the people setting them up used imagination to make them work and work well.

horses for courses and all that

we paid a fair bit for our wedding and chose a photographer based on their portfolio not their price, as has been mentioned, choose a photographer you like and pay the price or get a mate to do it for free, there really is no middle ground. We didn't want all the crap posed group pictures but succumbed to pressure form relatives to have a few. The rest of the pics were candid and ambient shots which was where choosing the right photographer becomes important.

I've taken pictures at a fair few weddings and do some corporate photography but i would never undertake the role of a primary photographer in these situations, there is far too much pressure to get the exact results for people who in general don't have the ability to communicate their needs.

I really enjoy shooting candid shots at weddings but that's me satisfying my creative side, i'd hate to have to adapt my style to fulfil someone else's tastes. People who i've done weddings for as a secondary/candid photographer always say they enjoy my pictures more but i'd never expect them to be the type of picture you can print out for your nan or put on the mantelpiece.

At some point i'd like to set up a business providing various services along these lines for weddings but i'd need to get a whole lot better at being a photographer first!

i lit, decorated and took candid shots for this wedding:

(you can see my cunning coordination with the official photographer to get him to act as my remote flash)

[url= http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2002/2169115965_ee3193d355.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2002/2169115965_ee3193d355.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

and this is one of my favourites

[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/2451855418_3d67d9e0c9.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/2451855418_3d67d9e0c9.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

It's just he isn't quite so pompous...

Let's face it - that would be difficult

Spending 20K on one day, hiring a stately home that you have no connection with puts you in the same category as driving a Range Rover Sport because you have a small enis and feel the need to tell everyone about it

(BTW, we didn't spend £20k on our wedding nor hire a stately home. We had a small ceremony for family and our closest friends, followed by a marquee in the garden of my wife's parents' house complete with bouncy castle.

Still cost quite a lot of money though, but every penny well spent IMO.

Of course it isn't for everyone. I even attended a wedding reception in a shopping centre in York once, but she was an art student and everso slightly mad.

Its perfectly possible to have a fantastic wedding that is great fun without spending inordinate amounts of money.

One of whom's portfolio is for the most part considerably more impressive than yours. It's just he isn't quite so pompous...

Zokes.
You're still not getting this are you?
It doesn't matter, not one jot, that your friend's portfolio is better than mine.
He / she needs to sell. Advertise effectively. Market well. Sell. Promote the work. Sell.
Are you getting any of this?
It's not about the work per se. I know some photographers who are so confident in their sales abilities and themselves it matters not one jot that I consider the work to be far less competent in almost every way than my own. They do things better than I do. They promote and sell themselves and their work more effectively than I. They charge more and work more often than I.
Perhaps you're starting to better understand what being a self employed photographer might actually mean.

You're still not getting this are you?

To be honest, it's more this bit that grates

It's just he isn't quite so pompous...

rather than the prices. However in your case, it appears this has less chance of changing than the ludicrous inflation of cost every time someone mentions 'wedding'.

Perhaps you're starting to better understand what being a self employed photographer might actually mean.

I understand quite well actually - you're a business, and you choose how much time and money to invest in various different facets of the business, marketing included. That's the joy of running your own business, you get to choose, within what the market can sustain. You seem to think having the absolute latest and best kit is important, others may invest differently and as you say, market themselves better.

Although tbh, if you spent slightly more time working on your layouts instead of bickering on here, they'd be a bit more tasteful...

a bit more tasteful? like nice photographs of sunsets?
'taste' is a funny thing you only have to look at the naive imagery in the photography thread to see this.

I think Ken Rockwell's [url= http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm ]7 Levels of photographers[/url] explains things quite well 🙂

got bored on the second page but..................

£2.5k (or more)!

You could buy 10 secondhand D40's with the kit lenses for that, or maybe 8+ a load of memory cards and flash guns.

I don't care how good a photographer you are, if 1000 monkeys and 1000 typewriters can produce shakespere, I'm sure 8 moderately competent friends with a passing intrest in photography can take a good shot in P+S mode.

I'll undercut Mr Nutt, a packet of Jaffa Cakes and you pay for the film processing?

You could buy 10 secondhand D40's with the kit lenses for that, or maybe 8+ a load of memory cards and flash guns.
I'll undercut Mr Nutt, a packet of Jaffa Cakes and you pay for the [b]film processing[/b]?

shows how much you know about photography