It is still so high it will scare you
I am still a freebie
If Life worked on auto mode then manual mode for photography would have never existed.” ― Deeksha Mittal
Maybe that's why the boutique lady boss looked so unhappy. I didn't give them extra biz on additional shots.
i have people asking me if i shoot weddings, and how much i charge...
too bad i always have to tell them sorry i don't do weddings cos i don't want to spoil their big day... haha
Last edited by antacid; 3rd October 2007 at 01:01 AM.
Kodak film disposable camera
Perceptions and mindset. Looks like we've got a lot to do to educate the clients
I think there is nothing much to educate couples..
As everyone will have their own preferences and their priorities in life..
There are some people who just simple ROM, 1 table at Tunglok with parents...
gave birth and live happily everafter..
I know of some people who felt that pre-wedding photos are very corny, and hence just wanna take actual day journalistic-style shots..
There are also others who love certain pre-wedding style...and not spend on actual day as they felt...no one will see AD shots after the big night..
Just different preferences, really dont think we can tell one what to do, and not to do..
and of course, if all couples love to spend...
Thats good news for everyone in here...
That so right
I think what Stephen means is that alot of couples still do not know that wedding photography as a whole is evolving and the current works of lots of talented photographers are still in the woods with the general public.
If we enpower the public the works of wedding photography could be more than the mindsets of what they will preceive, maybe more will learn to enjoy and appricate our craft.
I find his rates very flexible. For me and my wife bery cheap, for my sis-in-law very expensive
dunno why also, must be me and my wife very handsome and beautiful
but the AD rates are really very expensive. I remember asking chris ling why the AD so expensive, he says he have to spend like more than 2x the time on AD compared to pre-wedding.
Last edited by wind30; 3rd October 2007 at 03:32 PM.
1) Uncontrolled venue, versus luxurious choice of venue for pre-weddings.
2) Uncontrolled pacing
3) Very little control over lighting (This is key, as photography is all about light)
4) Split-second decision making often necessary
5) Long hours, often very little break. (I'm still recovering from dehydration from the last wedding.)
6) Unfavourable shooting conditions - clutter, space constraints, people blocking the lens, backlight...
7) Very little time - yes, long hours, yet little time because events are packed back to back
8) Need to be a lot more diplomatic and people-oriented, as subjects are a whole load more
9) Not exactly photography, but for some weddings, wedding photographers need to double-up as advisors for BnG as they're often the one with the most experience in terms of knowing what to do in various situations. This can be distract the photographer from the main job.
10) I can go on actually. But I'll leave it open.
I can also go into why AD photography should be more expensive from the POV of brides and grooms, but that'll sound like a sales pitch when pushed here even if it were sincere.
I would want to shoot a wedding where costs is not an issue. I will set up lights where I want at the various venues, have assistants and additional shooters to control the lights, equipment and manage the flow of events to reduce the loss of photography opportunities. But even at 1k/hr, it's not worth doing that. AD weddings are not 'easy' to shoot, as perceived by so many people, including some of the practitioners who place so little value in their craft. Was it Jerry Ghionis who said 'if you can shoot a wedding well, you can shoot anything'? I can't agree more. I just wish local practitioners would place more value in their craft.
Last edited by shinken; 3rd October 2007 at 05:50 PM.
On record, I've got a whole list of stuffs in the contract that put things to my favour, like I don't take request on what to shoot from relatives, friends and even the bride and groom. If they want group shots, they can do it themselves or hire my 2nd photographer. As well as things like no guarantee any particular shots can be taken even (comeon, it's a 'Live' event).
Not that I'm being unhelpful, but when it comes to the wedding advisor part, I do tell them that my role is to record the event faithfully, so even if you make a big boo-boo on your wedding day, I'll keep my mouth shut and capture the boo-boos. Afterall, everyone now wants Photojournalistic style photography right?
I might have gone a little OT, but my point is, how you want to be treated or valued, is somehow tied to your pricing. Those who are paying low probably don't value your time anyway to begin with.
Ok, maybe this post would be really off topic, but I was just reading through a lot of the posts on this thread and I thought I would write a little about the increasing wedding photography rates.
I read a lot of "If the client doesn't want to pay they probably don't value your time etc,etc" Can I say that this while true to some extent, is not always the case. Sometimes clients just have a budget they are unable to cross no matter how much they love your work. For example, I would love to have Huy or Jose Villa shoot my wedding, but the sad fact is that I just can't afford to have them shoot my wedding. It's not that I wouldn't pay them what they're asking. The money is simply not there in the bank account.
The sad irony is that for those who can pay sometimes don't even value your work because they might have so much money that even if you charge high, it's just money to them and that they have plenty of.
It's my belief that it's always easy to make a lot of money, just shoot for really really wealthy people all the time and give them what they want with no regards to your own style.
It's really easy to be happy, just shoot for people who love your work with no regards to your own overheads and just shoot your style.
I personally think the toughest thing to do is to shoot the way you want to but be paid a lot of money to do so. And that is where to me signifies success as a photographer and a business person and I am still far from achieving that.
After taking into consideration your effort on post processing, printing, sorting, album preparation and delivery, the net hourly charge will be lower. Right?
There are some who charge $800 to shoot 12 hours, throwing in post-processing and album making. Then spend five working days to post process, say, average of 3 hours a day. Then some time to send it for printing, and collect it from printing. Say 2 hours. And if $500 is part of an collage album 'package', then it includes the another 5 hours or so to put the album together.
So 12 hour on the job (usually on weekends, where per hourly rate for many industries actually double), 15 hours post-process, 2 hours transport for album making, 5 hours for album making. We're looking at... 34 hours for $800. Cost of albums and prints not inclusive. Cost of equipment not inclusive. All other costs not inclusive, so to speak. For full-timers, throw in other overheads and costs.
I guess nett income should be at least 300-500 per wedding assignment in order to sustain oneself. Because it isn't realistic to expect that you have assignments every single day of the month.
Anyway there are already alot of threads here that discuss on how to price oneself. Taking into account all overheads, costs, equipment replacement due to wear and tear, etc etc etc...