Where's the Wedding togs?

[markbarendt]

Most wedding photographers aren't into giving up the files or negatives without getting something out of it, because it means no print sales.

You are right.

I do think the pricing models are changing to accommodate the idea of giving away the negs though.

Getting paid properly upfront for shooting is one way to take after-the-fact print profits out of the calculation.

Timing is another, delivering the negs after say, a year. If I haven't made the print sales in a few months I'm probably done chasing that client, deliver the negs on "their" first anniversary and ask for referrals instead.

A third option is being a great printer. If your printing can stand on it's own as a salable product you become very hard to replace regardless of who has the negative.

 

[djorourke]

I don't think it's a film vs. digital thing. I just don't see why anyone would want 1000+ images from their wedding regardless of the medium used. 100 would be plenty.

It just seems that because the digital shooters can shoot a lot more, they do and therefore it is now expected, making more unnecessary work for everyone.



Steve.

One of the reasons 1000+ shots comes in handy is for slideshows. We produce slideshows on the web and DVD for our clients. We typically don't aim to do a hokey slideshow of 1 image/2 seconds. Instead, we lay the slides to the music, often running through more than one a second to provide a feel of action and movement.

So while our B&G's won't need or buy 1000 prints. They enjoy what can be done for slideshows.

Here's an engagement slideshow I did last year with a couple when I was shooting nearly 100% digital:

http://www.djophotography.com/Jessica_and_Devan/

 

[dwdmguy]

I think wedding photographers, just for fun and to see what happens, should try this. Instead of placing disposable cameras on the table as some brides do, carry a couple of Holgas in their pocket as well as the second shooter to see what they come up with. Who knows, can't hurt.

I have several friends in that business and once in a while I used to second shoot for them, some years ago, it's a shame what is happening. Most say it's the increased flood into the market place with new photographers offering $500 shoots on craigslist etc., that is killing them. But interesting, the top 5 percent of the famous wedding photographers are doing their best business right now, almost like their clients are proving the seperation of the Classes between richer and poorer.
Anyway, digital or film, I don't like to see anyone hurting.

 

[markbarendt]

We typically don't aim to do a hokey slideshow of 1 image/2 seconds.

No offense here, your slide show is fun, but your statement is a good example of why I think video will replace much of what has been still's territory.

Slow slide shows are considered "hokey" today and the technology to replace them is in my wife's D90.

I imagine that in a few years it will be hard to find a self respecting soccer mom without video capability. If mom can do a high quality movie clip it raises the bar for digital shooters who are making slide shows.

Throw in the "Red" cameras at 10mp per frame and video is poised to put digital stills at weddings out of business.

 

[markbarendt]

interesting, the top 5 percent of the famous wedding photographers are doing their best business right now.

I would bet it has a lot to do with their marketing and business skills.

The shooters of $500 shoot and burn jobs aren't the problem either in my mind, the $500 buyers are, that's all they are willing to spend because that's all they have or that's all it's worth to them.

$500 for 3-4 hours shooting and no processing is a reasonable day rate for a new shooter actually. $125/hr.

 

[jgcull]

>>Riccis Valladares<<

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed seeing the work. Beautiful!

 

[Tim Gray]

No offense here, your slide show is fun, but your statement is a good example of why I think video will replace much of what has been still's territory.

I partially agree with you. On the other hand, who actually ever watches the wedding video? In one year's time, all that will be looked at is a photo or two that is on display. The album might get dug out in the future to show the kids or reminisce, but I doubt the video will be ever really watched again. At least that's how I feel about it.

 

[Riccis]

Dan - Thanks for sharing your engagement slideshow. I'll respectfully disagree with you on your statement that 1000+ shots come handy for a slideshow since all that is needed are strong images with deep emotional impact. I deliver anywhere from 137-250 total images for the average 6-8 hour wedding day.

Mark - I honestly don't think moving images will replace stills. IMHO, the are completely different mediums that can complement nicely when done well but one does not replace another... Just imagine the workflow nightmare of trying to pull a 1/125s exposure out of something shot at 24-30 fps... This is something that you will never see me doing. Also, the day that a professional photographer has to worry about soccer moms competing with him/her just because they have top of the line equipment is the day that such studio should retire.

jgcull - Thanks for your kind comments about my work.

Cheers,

 

[Steve Smith]

On the other hand, who actually ever watches the wedding video? In one year's time, all that will be looked at is a photo or two that is on display. The album might get dug out in the future to show the kids or reminisce, but I doubt the video will be ever really watched again. At least that's how I feel about it.

I agree. I think I recorded over our video within a year of getting married (I hope my wife doesn't read this!).

I have been to a couple of weddings where the video of the service was played at the reception. Just about everyone at the reception was at the service so I didn't see the point. I don't think I would have watched it even if I wasn't at the service.




Steve.

 

[JBrunner]

I think the shoot and burn togs and their clients can be left out of the equasion. Riccis, do you market your shooting as being on film, or do you just market the result?

 

[Riccis]

Riccis, do you market your shooting as being on film, or do you just market the result?

I market my style and the results that come from it but the clients that know film (art directors, folks from the creative and entertainment industry, etc...) specifically seek out film shooters.

Cheers,

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I shoot very few weddings, but the ones I have shot have been almost entirely B&W film, and almost entirely available light. The clients came to me specifically because I'm a film shooter. I turn down weddings all the time just because they're more stress than I like to inflict upon myself.

 

[JBrunner]

Throw in the "Red" cameras at 10mp per frame and video is poised to put digital stills at weddings out of business.

You bet. I shoot the Red. Would you like a price quote? It will likely be more than the entire budget for most weddings, let alone the post.

 

[markbarendt]

You bet. I shoot the Red. Would you like a price quote? It will likely be more than the entire budget for most weddings, let alone the post.

Jason, you are absolutely right today. What I'm saying is that in the next two or three digital product cycles (4-8 years?) we could see affordable high quality video that could make digital still cameras redundant.

 

[markbarendt]

Mark - I honestly don't think moving images will replace stills. IMHO, the are completely different mediums that can complement nicely when done well but one does not replace another... Just imagine the workflow nightmare of trying to pull a 1/125s exposure out of something shot at 24-30 fps... This is something that you will never see me doing.

Riccis, I'm not saying I'd do it either but at the shoot & Burn end of the market where 1020x768 pixels is big enough video could take the whole market. The video shooters are already doing all the work except yanking a single frame for a portrait and polishing it a bit.

Also, the day that a professional photographer has to worry about soccer moms competing with him/her just because they have top of the line equipment is the day that such studio should retire.

Amen.

 

[JBrunner]

Jason, you are absolutely right today. What I'm saying is that in the next two or three digital product cycles (4-8 years?) we could see affordable high quality video that could make digital still cameras redundant.

From someone who shoots both, I would have to opine that it is unlikely. Not from a technical point of view but from a creative standpoint. I think hacks may advance the idea, but the difference between stills and motion are far greater that technical. Video does not translate into effective compelling images for still as a surefire concept. Also it's going to be likely at some point that the manufactures will reduce undermining professional gear with pro-sumer equipment. They will reach a point of no return at some point where they will have to.

 

[markbarendt]

Also it's going to be likely at some point that the manufactures will reduce undermining professional gear with pro-sumer equipment. They will reach a point of no return at some point where they will have to.

I actually think the opposite will happen, that the development money will be focused on the pro-sumer, that's where the money is for Nikon and Cannon et al, the pro market is tiny by comparison.

The Pro lines may just end up there for marketing value to drag the pro-sumers up the food chain.

This change in the market does bring up the possibility of "pro" sponsorships like Fuji has started doing with people like Jose Villa and others to promote their film. Hey, if 400H is the magic bullet that makes Jose's work great, I want to use it too.

We know better, but it's still a powerful marketing tactic.

 

[djorourke]

Dan - Thanks for sharing your engagement slideshow. I'll respectfully disagree with you on your statement that 1000+ shots come handy for a slideshow since all that is needed are strong images with deep emotional impact. I deliver anywhere from 137-250 total images for the average 6-8 hour wedding day.

Riccis et al,

I posted the e-shoot slideshow to demonstrate where one might find value in shooting 1,000+ shots. I'm not actually interested in defending that approach. In point of fact, it's the approach I've moved away from (which is why the slideshow itself is from 2007). Though I do believe that those types of slideshows get passed around between friends/family and give my studio better exposure, but it's not the kind of thing I'm interested in doing any longer.

I'm more interested in providing the quantity of product that you're producing Riccis. I'll let the $600 togs deal with 1,000+ shoots.

 

[Matt5791]

I shoot weddings on colour neg / B&W with Nikon 35mm and Hasselblad.

It's interesting what has happened to this business lately, although I'm speaking about the UK here, I don't know about elsewhere.

Firstly, photography in general, and Wedding photography in particular, has become an astonishingly aspirational profession. It seems there are more people trying to become Wedding photographers and shooting weddings on a part time basis than there are weddings each year. Prices attainable for shooting weddings have fallen like a lead baloon in the past 3 years because there are so many people shooting for £300 - £400 a pop.

There are few wedding photographers who command big money (Damian Lovegrove, Jeff Ascough), but the market is VERY small for this. However the aspirational types think they will be able to achieve this so these people cater for them with wedding photography courses, where they actually make most of their money with delegates paying £250 - £500 a head.

I wont shoot a wedding unless I can see myself earning a resonable wage for EVERY hour I spend on it. (Time is the most expensive aspect - even with film, processing and film is a small part of the cost.) There are many people out there working for less than the minimum wage because they only look at the wedding day itself as the time involved. Or they are just shooting jpeg and burning the image straight to a CD after the wedding without looking at them.

The consequence of all this is that Wedding photography has come full circle: Back in the 70' and 80's it was the fag end of the profession (for those of you in the US a fag is English slag for cigarette) It was the what the photographer from the studio, who drew the short straw, or was the new kid, got sent to do at the weekend. Throughout the 90's and into the new millenium it became much more of a profession in it's own right, with prices climbing considerably and, importantly, the quality improving too.

Then digital came along and lots of people percieved that anyone could pick up a DSLR and shoot a wedding - weddings in particular because they tend to happen at weekends and thus fit in around an existing job. The result of this, over the past 3 years in particular, is that the quality of work and the viability of wedding photography as a specialisation, has fallen through the floor, and I think we are back to where it was - the fag end of the profession.

Unquestionably, the biggest money in photography at present is in training. Hands down, no two ways about it.

Matt

 

[Steve Smith]

weddings in particular because they tend to happen at weekends and thus fit in around an existing job. The result of this, over the past 3 years in particular, is that the quality of work and the viability of wedding photography as a specialisation, has fallen through the floor

Perhaps the quality has fallen in the last three years but the idea of fitting it around an existing job is nothing new.

My father was a part time wedding photographer from the 1960s to the 1990's. He provided high quality but for low pay. It usually seems to be the other way round now.

As a sideline, his full time job as a central heating engineer brought him into contact with Sangamo Weston sales reps (Weston also made central heating timers). This kept him stocked up with free light meters for many years!).




Steve.

 

[Matt5791]

Perhaps the quality has fallen in the last three years but the idea of fitting it around an existing job is nothing new.
Steve.

Absolutely - I would definitely agree with that, there has always been part timers.

The difference now is that digital means more people percieve photography as being something they can get to grips with - they all have a PC and a DSLR and surely that's all they need.........When I got married in 2005, one "photographer" my mother in law approached openly suggested that with digital you didn't need any skill! Kind of an own goal as, understandably, he didn't get the job!

Further to this we have the economic downturn - there are record numbers of new businesses being started at present, generally and with record numbers of people enrolling on photography courses I'm sure many of those businesses are photgraphy.

I have been dealing with Warehouse Express recently and they have had record sales in January.

Matt

 

[Gary Holliday]

I've had a look at some of the wedding photographers charging that top price and didn't see any skill that was different from those charging hundreds. But it's all down to marketing, the bride will then name drop that she has hired x photographer for her Royal Wedding.

I've seen a few new wedding photographers spring up in my area, even the guy who tried to sell me advertising space did weddings at the weekend...
"Yeah we do black and white as well. We convert it to black and white and leave the flowers in colour."

There are more cowboys and tacky photographers than professionals and people don't know any different, I'll let them get on with it.

I've seen these seminars training people up to be wedding photographers close to my area. Yes they'll earn thousands from that weekend, but I wouldn't be encouraging more people to compete with you!

 

[markbarendt]

Firstly, photography in general, and Wedding photography in particular, has become an astonishingly aspirational profession.

I agree completely, when I look around me at all the people trying to sell photography it is crazy because I'd bet that maybe 1 in 50 has actually done a market survey or business plan.

That's not much of a way to run a business.

I wont shoot a wedding unless I can see myself earning a resonable wage for EVERY hour I spend on it. (Time is the most expensive aspect - even with film, processing and film is a small part of the cost.) There are many people out there working for less than the minimum wage because they only look at the wedding day itself as the time involved. Or they are just shooting jpeg and burning the image straight to a CD after the wedding without looking at them.

Been there, done that "less than minimum wage thing", good lesson; now I wont do any work that I don't get paid for either.

It wasn't too hard to figure out what reasonable rates were either. Labs that do wedding processing as a normal thing all have price sheets. I took these to heart, I figure if I can't get what they charge or more on an assembly line that I can't do it profitably as custom work.

The consequence of all this is that Wedding photography has come full circle: Back in the 70' and 80's it was the fag end of the profession (for those of you in the US a fag is English slag for cigarette) It was the what the photographer from the studio, who drew the short straw, or was the new kid, got sent to do at the weekend. Throughout the 90's and into the new millenium it became much more of a profession in it's own right, with prices climbing considerably and, importantly, the quality improving too.

I think what happened here is that a higher end market was actually created that could support people charging artistically.

As you suggest though this is a very limited market.

There is a middle market too that I think can support bread and butter pros, solid work for reasonable pay but it's limited too. This market feels the pressure from the aspirational shooters but my guess is just at the lower end.

I'd suggest that the challenge in breaking into these markets is driven more by marketing and sales than technique. I'm not discounting photographic skill here, I'm just saying that that's maybe 10-20% of the job required to succeed.

Then digital came along and lots of people percieved that anyone could pick up a DSLR and shoot a wedding - weddings in particular because they tend to happen at weekends and thus fit in around an existing job. The result of this, over the past 3 years in particular, is that the quality of work and the viability of wedding photography as a specialisation, has fallen through the floor, and I think we are back to where it was - the fag end of the profession.

At the low end of the market, I agree, the aspirational shooters you describe have flattened the market.

Unquestionably, the biggest money in photography at present is in training. Hands down, no two ways about it.

Matt

Just like the old time gold rushes, the general store is the business that made the real money, most of the prospectors went away broke.

 

[Matt5791]

Thanks for your detailed thread there Mark - I guess there are many similarites with UK and US in this area. Infact I think a lot of the high end stuff did float accross the Atlantic, with Bambi Cantrell being relatively well known here - however, guess what, she's best known for training seminars.

For what it's worth, and I might be sticking my neck out a bit here, I believe that £1000 - £1500 is about the limit, at present, for good quality wedding photography from a photographer with a good portfolio. This would include a decent album and about 50 prints. This is what the discerning couple will be looking at. There are plenty of photographers asking for more, but I'm really not sure how many bookings they will be getting.

I was recently talking to a very well established photographer with a very good reputation www.simonjohn.co.uk He charges a "creation fee" of £595 + production fee of £995 - £1500 to cover album etc. Ie. total starting at around £1600. He says everyone is after a deal at the moment. It's a tough market.

Matt

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Matt, the market is a bit better for wedding photography here in the US. $3000 for the photographer's time and an album is quite average and not at all hard to get, even in this economy, provided the photographer is halfway decent at what he/she does. From what I've gathered over the years, Americans tend to like to shell out money to wedding photographers more than the British do. Jeff Ascough (a good friend of mine) doesn't charge nearly as much as I believe he could in the US, and he does absolutely impeccable work (even if he has gone over to the dark side, the traitor.)