...and all(most) 600 bucks ports to be bad..
Yes, the difference may be there but what good is knowing that fact if u dunno who charges what? the better one could be the 600$ guy. shouldn't u be looking at the photos first before u look at the price? But wait, u can't price the difference even knowing the fact that they are "different". How abt 1.5k? 2k?
im not sure why. The herd mentality of everything more expensive must be good? Im even more unsure why people want to charge 600 when/if they deserve more or why 5k ports never bother to downgrade to lower brackets.
I suspect at the end of the day it's not about the photos, but how much u value the wedding shooter...and your wedding?
Anyhow, it's a good time for beginners to join the market.
Wow... Strong statements about the comparison between $600 and $5k photo qualities! I'm surprised you've not been strongly rebutted or admonished by the pros and usual people in CS. Maybe they've given up on such discussions.
I haven't quite seen a $600 shot rivalling anywhere close to that of a $5k shot though. But I certainly will stand by the notion that it is perhaps herd mentality that people think the more expensive you are, the better the quality is. When friends asked me to recommend wedding photographers here, I used to rattle off names and give praises to their works.
But having seen a few of my friends and recent colleague's wedding shots, I totally reserve my opinions now. They paid a few grand for an AD but seriously, yes, a person with good photography knowledge who is charging much less can probably do the same, if not better job.
I'm not sure if the whole wedding photography market has become a "rojak" place where everyone jumps on the bandwagon to the point where even if you are not so good, you can price your services on the high side. Like computers, practically every equipment junkie today owns some form of digital cam, and an increasing number of guys are turning to DSLRs with a couple of nice lenses in the deal (which don't mean anything if the skills are not there.)
It is true that good marketing is probably more important than skills. Sad case. Every couple I know seems to be easily pleased with certain shots, and it really doesn't take much convincing for them to choose whichever photographer. It can get to a point where even if the quality sucks, a couple would go ahead and make a booking cos "my XYZ colleague/friend recommended it". And through such recommendations, there is a avanlanche of business pouring in.
It's made worse when some of these photographers use flowery language to describe their services, like "I would like to capture your Big Day", or "Make your wedding a memorable time with me". Some try to write sobs sobs stories about how they will glorify that beautiful smile in the bride till eternity, etc etc, as if only they can capture those moments. *goosebumps*
At the end of the day, like other businesses, no matter how nice sounding the words are, it's all a ploy to capture clients. It's still about the survival of the fittest. It's still about $$$. Which is why you'll never find quite useful advice here on how to start a wedding business. If anything, a bleak picture is often painted of a wedding photographer. Simply put, you're a potential rival to them.
Coming back to the topic, I personally wouldn't pay so much to get a wedding photographer. Just decent shots will do. I've heard 100% comments from couples who paid $500 to $4000 that after the wedding, the albums will be chucked in some deep recesses in your home which you will hardly or never refer to for a long long time.
