Wedding photographers – how much!??!?

PeterPoddy, to me that sounds just like how a wedding should be. And almost exactly what I would have done if I wasn't so young and impressionable when I got hitched.

I find it odd that they think their time is worth double for weddings and portraiture.

Everyone does this though, and it is a bit of a scam imo – try and book a band/DJ or whatever for a wedding and they will often try and charge around double what they normally would, just because they know so much is getting spent overall and people are desperate for it to be 'perfect'.

Think I've looked at my wedding photos (the ones that aren't on the walls of my parents and in-law's houses) once in 13 years, my that was £1500 well spent, could have got a bike for that etc

Everyone does this though,

I agree they do – it just seems odd and not *really* justifiable – it is just what the market allows.

It is not a racket.

There is no extortion involved? The customer looks at the photographers style at whatever price bracket, and presuming the photographer provides pictures of a similar quality at the wedding, then everyone should be happy.

I know a high end wedding photographer who charges more than Ti29er, he has lots of happy customers and a full diary for this year. People come looking for him, not the other way round.

Here is picture I took of my future niece on a horse.

Can I have £2000 now?

No – it is badly composed, has too many areas of conflict in the image, is over-exposed in some areas and under-exposed in others.

Taking a good picture isn't *that* easy

I agree they do – it just seems odd and not *really* justifiable – it is just what the market allows.

I suppose the argument would perhaps be that a higher standard of professionalism and quality might be expected at a wedding as opposed to a regular gig, so more pressure, more preparation time, better equipment, smarter clothing or whatever is required? I dunno.

Hmmm…we got my wife's friend to do ours who is a keen amateur and has done courses. Unfortunately a week before the wedding she got hit on the head and her friend had to fill in for her. Not so good.

I suppose the argument would perhaps be that a higher standard of professionalism and quality might be expected at a wedding as opposed to a regular gig, so more pressure, more preparation time, better equipment, smarter clothing or whatever is required? I dunno.

I would say that in a commercial guise, they should be working harder and using at least the same equipment, if not more (additional lighting, studio etc) – after all they are working with professionals who can be very exacting about the shot being taken. I can easily spend a day creating one or two shots. I do agree there is more pressure to get the right images though as there is no second chance (certainly with weddings – general portraiture not so much so).

Just wonder why anyone who is non religious wants to get married in a church?

I'm not religious, neither is my fiancée. We are getting married in her village church – a village of about 50 residents on Anglesey. She walked past it every day as a kid, and always wanted to be married there. Is that so morally reprehensible?

(Oh, and her grandad was a vicar, as was her great uncle – the late Bishop Suffragan of Repton)

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?

If you were very good at more than one style then yes.

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 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.

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:

"wedding flowers"

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 the wedding photos of their little girl's big day 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 at least 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:
http://www.weddingphotographerindex.co.uk/calculator.php (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

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.