Logging Off. "You have 2,631 messages stored, of a total 400 allowed." don't PM me.
There are tens of thousands of weddings a year, I believe there're enough to go around for the many photographers targetting different market segments. A consolidated attempt to pool marketing resources for photogs targeting the lower end market is quite a good idea, as the marketing dollar is shared. Although more cost-benefit analysis had to be done to see whether the profit is worthwhile at the end of the day. If well-executed, it could be a good breeding ground for budding photogs. Although there are some refinements to be made on the deliverables as pointed out by the forumers. Nevertheless, quite a fresh concept. The business has to bear in mind the obligation to the clients though, and how the team of photographers have to be part of the shared responsibility to produce the deliverables.
It's an excellent concept... taking a page from no frills budget airlines. At least should be able to cover his cost and not paying to shoot.
If you want "extra" like water (cuz cannot consume own beverage in airline), you gotta but it from the airline itself. In this case "extra" would be backup equipments.
My only thoughts are backup equipments should be considered part of the "essential" in providing the service (airline also at least have 2 engines loh ) Mabbe the other parts of the "package" can be classified as "extras".
Anyway, not my business model, not really my business too.
Most of the time,
the cheaper you are,
the more lemon juice they will try to squeeze out from u.
Frankly, I am not a full time photographer.
But the portfolio pics are really... *sigh*. Looks like they are not serious in putting a good portfolio to attract customers....
Well, one of my friends did use one of these 'budget' photographers. Though it is unfair to say that pay peanuts get monkey for all of these photographers, my friend unfortunately got the monkey.
When I was looking at the photographs taken during the actual day, a good portion of them were somewhat blur due to handshake. I later heard the lamest excuse that was given by the photographer - MISTY EFFECT!
Wah kaoz! That was the icing on the cake. This 'budget' photographer had group photos that weren't centred, some had the flashed reflected off the mirror in the background, over-exposed shots just to name a few.
As much as I would like to give newbies or budgets wedding photographers a chance, I would also advice couples to think about capturing one the happiest moments in their lives with a better photographer.
For me, I like to thank Kelvin Lim and Benny Ang for giving me wonderful pictures for my wedding. More than a year down, and I still have photos that I want to do up and develop that were taken by them. Too many to select from! Hahahaha ...
I have a friend who really don't care about all these (slight handshake) blur and centering and flash reflections and stuff. She just want someone "designated to take photos for souvenir" and relieve the guest from that responsibility, specially dinner photos where guest just wanna eat and drink and the last thing they wanna do is follow the couples and do table shoots. So this kind of budget photography is aimed for people like her.
In the example of TVs, there are Sony, Samsung and some noname brands from China that cost 1/4 that of Samsung. Each has their own target market and the only losers are those noname brands that charge as much as Sony but has 1/4 the quality of Samsung.
They basically won't value your time.
To me, it's good thing that there are vendors to caters to the bargain hunters, let's say every photographer has their own market /clientele, am never bothered by these so called under-cutters. Most of my clients set aside and prepared to spend $3k-4k for wedding photography, you think they'll settle for something less than $500.00?
I had a quick run thru all the webpage photos. Indeed some are overexposed and can say not well taken...perhaps it was taken by some trainee photographer.
To be fair to the owner of "Budget Shots", i too feels that everyone had their own reason and rights to charge or agreed at whatever rate both the consumer/client and the photographer had agreed on ($$). We have to respect willing seller and buyer theory!!!
I feels that, if you want to post photos especially for business purposes, than you should do something...at least touch up the photos....crop or even enhance to make it better right?? So as to give consumers/clients to have more confident on you!!! Consumers/clients will feel their $$$ are well spend in engaing your services. Don't just post the photos for the purpose of posting. It will ruin your reputation!!!
I sincerely hope the the "Budget Shots" will take all our comments positively and improve on your skills... Photography is a never ending learning process. Focus on how to upgrade on your photography skills and built your portfoilo..... I'm sure you can do better....
Sometimes i felt that being a pro photographer, we must respect our client's copyrights and be professional. When i started photography, my mentors disapproved and disallowed me to post our clients's wedding photos or event photos....etc on web to share with anyone else which what some clubsnaps Cers are doing. I don't mean they are wrong, but ... i was been trained in a different way....
Whenever we need to show our profile or portfolio to our new client...we will bring our notebook along.... In this way, we are protecting our client's interest and copyright issues.
Hope that we can look at the aspect of different photographer have different charges on their services fees. But "streetsmart" consumers/clients will know: "You will get what you had paid for". If want good and quality results than you have to prepare to pay certain price on or above market rates.
Can't beat him join him lor....don't feel threaten by them lar....I still know of photographers who charge $6K for a one day wedding shoot, and his schedule is full for the year 2007. Wonder why his market is not affected....End of the day is the skill and potfolio that matters. I for one did almost 20 weddings for my friends for free (they give me ang pao), so that considered as spoil market? Most of them come and ask me if it worth pay $XXX for the photographers, and I end up doing "free" for them. Of course they go make their own prints and they are very happy about it.
**** those photographers who charge $100 and give crap for a once in a lifetime event.
"Lelong Lelong, Who got wedding? I charge $10 only. Don't worry, BAO JIA ONE."
Last edited by benjaminteo; 30th November 2006 at 11:18 AM.
But being an idealist, I am concerned of this implications on the field of wedding photography as art. Over the last 10 years, wedding photographers around the world and Singapore have fought hard for wedding photography to be recognized as an art form as opposed to being a step child of photography. Ie, in the 1980's wedding photography was the last resort when someone couldn't make it as a art/national geographic/photojournalistic/magazine/fashion photographer. Wedding photography back then was predictable and uniform.
Over the last 10 years, the industry has changed tremendously. We now have photographers who choose to shoot weddings over fashion or commercial...etc. And just look at the results. The standard of wedding photography around the world has made massive jumps in the last 5-8 years or so. And thankfully, clients are also starting to see it as an art form due to increasing education. But I think professionals in this field are still struggling for it to be recognized as art on a daily basis.
It's my personal opinion when wedding photography becomes so commodified, it's a step back for everyone in the industry. I think sometimes we need to also look at the bigger picture, money aside.
On the same note as what kuang said, here are some of my thoughts.
I believe there are many forumers who think they should "start low" and charge more as they 'improve'. Sounds logical. And based on observation over the past year or two, there is a sizeable increase in number of photographers who subscribe to this ideology. And they form a substantial supply chain who try to price each other out. If there is an aggressive supply chain of photographers who can convince majority of the demand (brides) that they can offer tangible products (physical photographs, doesn't matter quality, as a number of forumers had indicated) at lower prices, then this is the "education" to the majority of the brides. The message these photogs are sending to clients: Quality doesn't matter. Price does.
Humour me and picture this. How in the world does the photographer 'move up', in that case? After he has improved? Would the clients give 2 hoots that this photographer has "improved"? Majority of the demand market would have been 'educated' substantially by photogs to emphasise more on getting more tangible products out of lower prices. They got lots of "price education", zero education on art forms, visuals, instrinsic values. And photography is not featured much in the equation. How does this photographer 'move up'?
Trying to undo a fixed mindset is not easy my frens. Potential clients almost always end off with comparing prices just before signing the deal. It's not about the indecision over whether they prefer the style and personality of A or B. But whether A or B is cheaper. That's not a huge problem if we're talking about buying a Sony or Akira LCD TV. After the Akira LCD TV start to discolour, just buy another one. My frens, we're talking about wedding photography (actual day) that cannot be redone. I've ex-pontential clients (what a term~) who came back to me and express their regret in trying to save that $200-300 on their wedding photos, just because photographer B undercut me by this price. They told me, they could have just cut back a little on starbucks or that drinking session, or that few visits to swensons, and have photos they really want for the rest of their lifetime instead.
Last edited by shinken; 30th November 2006 at 12:32 PM.
it seems that everyone here think that low price = bottom quality?
is that true?
if you know that you are charging to low for the amount of work you do, either you will quit or rise your price, very simple.
same as your full time job, you will start to look for a better offer if you think you are under paid by your company now.
anyway, to many wedding couples, most of them won't appreciates the photographer's works when they got it cheap, for example, which bath towel would you used once and throw away, a bath towel from Robinson or a bath towel from Pasar Malam?
If one is forever stuck on that same financial treadmill of having to shoot one job to survive to the next job, it's really hard to grow artistically. That's why I'm not a big fan of charge low to get lots of job business model.
Furthermore, artistic growth generally requires a large amount of experimentation with equipment, techniques etc which not only requires time but lots of money.
My big fear is that photographers that are starting out get trapped in this treadmill, charging low prices, trying to survive for one job to the next and the industry as a whole doesn't grow. It will suck for them and for me as well because I need growth in the industry to improve myself as a photographer, so even though my market is not the same, i am losing out because I'm personally not growing and have to spend extrodinary amounts of time and money travelling abroad to expand my horizons instead of being able to do so at home.
I'm alway very envious of wedding photographers in the US and Australia because they share ideas and techniques as an industry, have tremendous growth and they do it all for the comforts of their own homes without having to spend massive amounts of money travelling.
And I guess to be brutally honest, a lot of the budget work I see from these sites, which I do get sent lots of, this site is neither the first no the last, has this really 1980s, set the camera to auto, not a lot of thought, look to them which indicates they either have a long way to go skill wise or they seem to be stuck on some sort of business treadmill. Even multi shooter commercial setups can create amazing work. Just look at www.xsight.com.au or www.lacourphoto.com, amazing stuff. So it's not really the business model thing either.
In this example, its your potential ex-client's fault to scrimp and choose the cheaper photographer and not the photographer's fault who undercut you. I still agree with the logic that inexperience photographers have to start somewhere and this is the only avenue to do so. And for those who have improved and believe they are now good enough to charge higher who are having a hard time, I think its a mistake to continue sourcing at the market pool catered to c-d class, he have to move to the a-b class, and if he can't do so then perhaps he is not yet ready.
I think the point with the analogy with the TV of Sony vs Akira did not hit the mark. It should be the same factor where class c-d will choose Akira because thats the only thing they can afford. While class a-b may choose Sony if quality is a big concern and they can easily afford it. And when Akira finally decides that he can and he want to compete with Sony, he will focus on class b-c, and perhaps later a-b, much like what Samsung is trying to do now.
And wedding nowadays is not so once-in-a-lifetime anymore. There were 1 divorse for every 4 weddings last year in Singapore. Perhaps there is a new group of market.