Where's the Wedding togs?

[2F/2F]

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.)

That sounds pretty accurate, though there is a ton of variation. The ladies I work for get about $1,500 to $2,500 for a digital file/negative buyout, plus travel. This means they don't concern themselves with any of the printing, which the two of them, and myself, hate doing, no matter how lucrative it may be. We'd rather have the free time. Knock us if you want, but I like lounging about scratching my arse when I can, instead of sitting in front of a computer for almost any amount of money. I was hired as an outside editor to reedit (AKA correct the original editors big screw ups) Getty's pix of the U.S. Open in '07. The pay was incredible for 24 hour's work (equal to what I normally made in a whole month), but I was about to slit my wrists after being in front of a computer for hours correcting some 8,000 images. Never again. I hate editing. I'd rather shoot and sell the pix outright for three weddings than shoot *and* print one. Besides, the types of people who want a buyout are generally more budget conscious (AKA frugal), so tend to jive with my bosses and my own personality much better than loaded types. We have never had a bad personal experience with a bride, bride's mom, or anyone else at a low-budget wedding. I cannot say the same for the higher budget ones. As you see, it not only depends on the clients, but on the shooters. We don't want to make as much money as is humanly possible. We only want to be paid enough to survive to provide something, while striking a balance with our personal free time. Other people feel differently about their wedding work. More power to each of us, IMO.

Maybe I would feel differently if I did not have much work, however. In that case, I might try to milk the couple for whatever I could.

At the same time, I gave a quote for a vow renewal for an acquaintance at $600 with proof prints, and they said their budget was only $300, and had a totally inexperienced friend with a DSLR do it. Go figure. I thought $600 sounded like a "favor" at less than half of what they should have expected to pay, but it goes to show that the clients matter quite a lot. I prefer low-income people and weddings in every way, but good luck making a living doing them exclusively. Low income people have every right to ask a family member to do it for cheap or free. When they do this, they know full well that they are going to get what they pay for...but that it is certainly better than nothing at all. Should the fact that someone's uncle has an SLR on P mode really cut into our business? I don't think so. It certainly has not for the people I work for, and we don't even do ritzy affairs like a lot of wedding photographers. I lost that job because of my acquaintance's budget combined with my refusal to do it any cheaper; not because Uncle Joe has a DSLR. I don't get sore about Uncle Joe and his DSLR if that gives the clients what they truly want for what they can afford. We usually shoot about 600 pix each in a candid style (the equivalent of about 35 rolls of film between the two of us; a lot, but nowhere near unheard of in a 12+ hour day of candid shooting by two people) and deliver about 300 to 500 pix. Yes, people do want hundreds upon hundreds of stupid-ass pix. Don't ask me to explain, but they do. The 2D image is validation of our existence and self worth for some reason.

 

[markbarendt]

2F/2F, I think your plan is just fine.

Like you I hate the computer editing stuff. If a client wants an album I hire that out. My job is to shoot and sell. Lounging is cool!

 

[markbarendt]

Dbl

 

[Matt5791]

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.)

Interesting, thanks for that Cheryl.

I did attend three seminars run by Jeff at Focus, the photographic exhibition here in the UK (conveniently held in Birmingham) and found it very entertaining and extrememly interesting.

I was the only one who put up a hand when he asked the question "anyone still shooting on film". Interestingly he responded "I wish I was" - and I wasn't too sure what that meant.

I would completely agree with you on Americans valuing decent photography more than people do in the UK - that has been the impression I have had.

Matt

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Matt, Jeff was amazing with his Leica and noctilux. He went digital because resources for his film work were drying up left and right, and he felt he had no choice. I will say that his digital work is very good and tastefully handled; he was quite successful in carrying his style over through the change of medium.

 

[2F/2F]

Matt, Jeff was amazing with his Leica and noctilux. He went digital because resources for his film work were drying up left and right, and he felt he had no choice. I will say that his digital work is very good and tastefully handled; he was quite successful in carrying his style over through the change of medium.

Good photographers have managed to do this. It is not all that hard. It is the "crummy" D) film shooters who have really been called out by the switch to digital, IMO...not to mention the ones who have always done everything digital.

 

[markbarendt]

Trpl

 

[Matt5791]

Matt, Jeff was amazing with his Leica and noctilux. He went digital because resources for his film work were drying up left and right, and he felt he had no choice. I will say that his digital work is very good and tastefully handled; he was quite successful in carrying his style over through the change of medium.

Interesting - now it all makes sense - much of his seminar revolved around how shooting film benefits you if you shoot digital, and anyone who has never shot film is at a considerable disadvantage.

Matt

 

[Gary Holliday]

Here are some starting guide prices...
http://www.wpja.com/wedding-photographers/international/europe/england-photography.htm

http://www.wpja.com/

I can understand the frustration of editing thousands of images; but I feel that photographers who dump their photos unprinted onto discs, don't really care about their work. I do absolutely everything from beginning to end and take pride in my work. The reward is seeing the delight on the clients' face when they receive the pictures...this is the buzz that keeps me going in this job.

Why take 1000s? I use around 10 36exp films and we can easily pick out 40 album worthy images...don't press the shutter if it's likely to be binned.

 

[markbarendt]

I can understand the frustration of editing thousands of images; but I feel that photographers who dump their photos unprinted onto discs, don't really care about their work.

Gary,

It's not about caring one way or another, it's about good business and offering products or services that the photographer is competent in providing and willing to do.

I used to do it all when I was digital, hated being behind the computer. Started offering shoot and burn and had great fun and made a lot more hourly. That's good business and the clients got good raw material because I care a lot about the shots I took. The customer got exactly what they contracted and paid for.

Let's turn this on it's head a bit.

If we were talking about a commercial job, instead of a wedding, would printed proofs or finished albums be an issue?

 

[Gary Holliday]

The fact is that the photos are going to end of being printed at the cheapest mini lab on glossy paper. All photographs require manipulation whether it's cropping, exposure or burning in. Friends of mine took the shoot and burn option and I sat back and listened to all the comments when the photographs were handed around the bar.

The photographer in question had MPA Photographer of the year for "region". I doubt that if the MPA saw those photographs when they were judging, she wouldn't have been awarded the honour. She traded on a reputation that didn't reflect all of her services. My opinion is that those friends wasted £500 on shoot and burn in an attempt to save some money.

 

[2F/2F]

The fact is that the photos are going to end of being printed at the cheapest mini lab on glossy paper. All photographs require manipulation whether it's cropping, exposure or burning in. Friends of mine took the shoot and burn option and I sat back and listened to all the comments when the photographs were handed around the bar.

The photographer in question had MPA Photographer of the year for "region". I doubt that if the MPA saw those photographs when they were judging, she wouldn't have been awarded the honour. She traded on a reputation that didn't reflect all of her services. My opinion is that those friends wasted £500 on shoot and burn in an attempt to save some money.

We do not do a "shoot and burn", as you call it. We do a basic "printing" of everything, just no Photoshop, no layers, etc. I do all my work in Canon Digital Photo Professional, and they do theirs in Bridge. These programs let you relatively quickly, yet totally manually, do the basic things that you do in a wet darkroom (density, contrast, color balance, cropping) without having to open stuff in PS. If it is not 90% editable in one of these programs, it is no good to begin with, IMO. When someone wants hundreds of pix delivered on a CD as part of the contract, and no prints, that is their decision, not mine.

 

[markbarendt]

All photographs require manipulation whether it's cropping, exposure or burning in.

Frankly Gary that is just your opinion. That may be very true for your chosen workflow and style, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I would say that any image can be "changed" to manipulate it's look but it's by no means a given that improvement can be made. Improvement can only be defined when the expectations for the job are known.

For my own work it depends on how hard I worked at the shoot and how well I've defined my "normal" processes for a given film. My goal is to be completely done creatively when the shutter drops. This is especially true of weddings.

I crop with my feet and my zooms, I look for natural vignettes and frames and context, I use flash, skrims, and reflectors to burn and dodge and control contrast.

At the end of the day I'm pretty well done and the film can be processed "normally" and printed without special work in the enlarger.

She traded on a reputation that didn't reflect all of her services. My opinion is that those friends wasted £500 on shoot and burn in an attempt to save some money.

This is only true if there was something less than full disclosure on the photographers part. If the client was informed of the pitfalls and chose to press ahead there no reason to berate the photographer.

There is no sin in providing great camera work and letting someone else do the rest.

 

[Matt5791]

There is no sin in providing great camera work and letting someone else do the rest.

I'm not so sure about that - If you allow the client to print, and this is done poorly, then this can, at best, take away the impact of a great shot, but at worse give prospective clients a poor impression of your work.

I can understand being protectionist about who handles / prints the negatives / files. Plenty of photographera will only supply a finished album or framed prints.

Matt

 

[markbarendt]

I'm not so sure about that - If you allow the client to print, and this is done poorly, then this can, at best, take away the impact of a great shot, but at worse give prospective clients a poor impression of your work.

The issue is not any specific great shot that the photographer likes, the issue is serving the market the photographer has chosen to be in profitably.

In business the perfect intent is to make a profit, photography in this sense is just a means to an end. In business the only tests of a great shot are "does it meet the specification of the job (is the customer happy) and the business plan (Is it making me money)?"

I can understand being protectionist about who handles / prints the negatives / files. Plenty of photographera will only supply a finished album or framed prints.

Matt

Protectionism in this sense is just about marketing, maintaining the reputation you want.

If your business plan calls for selling prints by all means you should avoid work without prints.

If somebody else's business offers just negs well so be it. They have chosen to serve a different market.

 

[JBrunner]

Mark hit it square on the head. There are so many ways to be a photographer, and so many methods within any given way. My portrait work, which is starting to go very well, is based on being the anti. In other words, I offer something that very few do. I know people around here that could, but it isn't where they are putting effort, so in effect, I'm the only one. The draw of my work is the print. Price shopper aren't part of my business plan. Folks who want something unique and are willing to pay for that are. There are many fewer of them, but I'm one of the only one meeting that need, so for me there are a lot. 10,000 cheapos for 10,000 photographers that serve that market, or 1000 folks for just one photographer. Not a tough choice.

 

[Matt5791]

The issue is not any specific great shot that the photographer likes, the issue is serving the market the photographer has chosen to be in profitably.

In business the perfect intent is to make a profit, photography in this sense is just a means to an end. In business the only tests of a great shot are "does it meet the specification of the job (is the customer happy) and the business plan (Is it making me money)?"



Protectionism in this sense is just about marketing, maintaining the reputation you want.

If your business plan calls for selling prints by all means you should avoid work without prints.

If somebody else's business offers just negs well so be it. They have chosen to serve a different market.

I agree with you, totally. I was simply saying, in my opinion, in the field of wedding photography, I think allowing the customer to print could be counter productive if your objective is to build a particular reputation. I am sure there are plenty of photographers earning a living and operating a profitable business and giving away copyright at the same time - as you say a different market.

 

[JBrunner]

I agree with you, totally. I was simply saying, in my opinion, in the field of wedding photography, I think allowing the customer to print could be counter productive if your objective is to build a particular reputation. I am sure there are plenty of photographers earning a living and operating a profitable business and giving away copyright at the same time - as you say a different market.

Actually, most (but not all) of the people giving away copyright are the hangers on, the weekend warriors, the Moms with cameras, GWCs etc. They usually aren't profitable in any business sense. Most of them are actually losing money, but haven't figured it out. By the time they do, their place has been taken by the next crop. The only way you can compete with them is to lose money yourself, so don't bother to try. Go for the quality client.

 

[markbarendt]

I think allowing the customer to print could be counter productive if your objective is to build a particular reputation.

This statement can be true, but that truth depends completely on the market and particular reputation someone may be wanting.

As a photographer I'm not without control here even if the client is going to print on their own. I view it as part of my responsibility to know how the images will be printed.

If I know that they will be printed by a minilab I know that I need to avoid using techniques that require some thought or judgment on the labs part. Shoot snap-shot style if you will.

If it's commercial work, I need to shoot to the specs their lab expects.

I can still provide value and show my style, I just have a narrow range to do it in because I can't fix the mistakes I make in the camera at printing time.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Actually, most (but not all) of the people giving away copyright are the hangers on.

The ones I have met are just trying it out for the fun of it, and the clients they have aren't really into elaborate weddings. It's weekend warrior or Aunt Mabel. They get what they pay for, but as they don't want much they don't pay much.

In Britain, judging by my cousins, almost all wedding photography is done by hordes of relatives with P&S's.

 

[Gary Holliday]

Frankly Gary that is just your opinion. That may be very true for your chosen workflow and style, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I would say that any image can be "changed" to manipulate it's look but it's by no means a given that improvement can be made. Improvement can only be defined when the expectations for the job are known.

For my own work it depends on how hard I worked at the shoot and how well I've defined my "normal" processes for a given film. My goal is to be completely done creatively when the shutter drops. This is especially true of weddings.

I crop with my feet and my zooms, I look for natural vignettes and frames and context, I use flash, skrims, and reflectors to burn and dodge and control contrast.

At the end of the day I'm pretty well done and the film can be processed "normally" and printed without special work in the enlarger.

I do all of those things, but in fast-paced documentary weddings, you don't always have that luxury. I will make minor adjustments to the balance of composition, straightening and apply some artistic licence to the tonal range of the photograph using burns and dodges, all those things that a mini lab will not do. A bit like trying to sell a house with shabby DIY.

I've had a google for wedding photographers and there are some shabby DIY photographers with logos of 'pro organisations' on the main page...cliched gimmicks and shoot and burn for pennies. I doubt very much that these guys will "inform the client of the pitfalls"

Am I on my own for wanting to deliver the highest quality?

 

[markbarendt]

I do all of those things, but in fast-paced documentary weddings, you don't always have that luxury.

A little context is wonderful. You made a choice to sell to this style, nothing wrong with that. Choosing and focusing on a market is essential to succeeding in my estimation.

I will make minor adjustments to the balance of composition, straightening and apply some artistic licence to the tonal range of the photograph using burns and dodges, all those things that a mini lab will not do. A bit like trying to sell a house with shabby DIY.

For weddings right now I'm really selling my camera work because it's what I'm skilled at, creative at, and what I enjoy most.

When I become truly skilled, efficient, and reliable in my developing and printing I may add those services to what I offer, but just maybe. That foray will depend purely on me being able to enjoy that work and a real business necessity. If I can get to the point of making a comfortable living in my current business model I'll probably just stick with it and save my developing and printing efforts for portrait and fine art work where I can limit the volume and maximize the profit/hour spent.

For now I build into the sale (and make a profit on) the cost of pro film and the processing costs at a high quality pro-film-lab to do my back end work to get high quality proofs for the client.

This is the end of my work as a photographer in a business sense for weddings. Past this I'm a merchant selling the services and products of others.

I will sell albums and prints, but I hire out for this and I make a merchants profit, instead of a creative's profit, to cover the work I do of organizing and selling those "commodities".

I'm happy to make those sales but many times just as happy not to because they are not the core product of my wedding business, my camera work is.

Yes, my business plan views the lab work and albums as commodities. High quality commodities, but commodities non-the-less. They are pre-priced by the labs, available to any pro, there are various labs/album companies that can do the work who competing with each other for that business, they are inexpensive (when compared to my time), and they are reliable and fast in the grand scheme of things.

This makes for what is viewed as a nice high-quality product for my market and for me. It allows me to get paid nicely for my creative work, have good quality control, to keep prices low, and to do other things like spend time selling more camera work.

This does pose a problem for people like you who do your own back-end work and who RIGHTFULLY expect to be paid creative wages for that work instead of commodity wages.

You have to be able to sell that extra value.

I've had a google for wedding photographers and there are some shabby DIY photographers with logos of 'pro organisations' on the main page...cliched gimmicks and shoot and burn for pennies. I doubt very much that these guys will "inform the client of the pitfalls"

That may be true, but poor communication will bring the wrath of their clients which will either teach them to behave or drive them out of business.

What I don't see here is the connection between the shoot and burn market and the market you are selling to.

Ferraris, Chevys, and Yugos do not compete with each other. These brands market to decidedly different clienteles. The Yugo buyer isn't even going to look seriously at a Ferrari and vice-versa.

Am I on my own for wanting to deliver the highest quality?

No, but you do have to be able to sell that "extra" level of quality to your market at a profitable volume and price or you won't be in business long.

There are very few buyers capable of or interested in buying 40 professionally printed 40 inch Ilfochomes to document a wedding.

The product may be truly stunning and of the highest quality but who could buy such a thing?

 

[Gary Holliday]

What I don't see here is the connection between the shoot and burn market and the market you are selling to.



No, but you do have to be able to sell that "extra" level of quality to your market at a profitable volume and price or you won't be in business long.

There are very few buyers capable of or interested in buying 40 professionally printed 40 inch Ilfochomes to document a wedding.

The product may be truly stunning and of the highest quality but who could buy such a thing?

I'm up against every photographer who does weddings. "Why pay £1000+ when I can pay half that and get the images on disc also?"

I had a chat with my ex-boss who went to America. We were discussing prices and in the US, they can charge big bucks. The UK won't pay for those copyright fees because they feel the photos are theirs and they should be able to print the photos themselves, so there's a very narrow gap between top and bottom because nobody is willing to pay much.

Shoot and burn photographers are allowing this idea of self printing to thrive and become the norm. If people think it's fine to do the photos in a mini lab we as professionals should not be encouraging them.

Creating an amazing photo in-camera can be ruined in two seconds by a poor printer, so I don't see the argument. Printing is half the battle in creating a good image and I feel we should be overseeing the whole process whether it's done in a pro lab or by ourselves.

I don't do documentary 40 inch Ilfochromes by the way! Who does??

 

[markbarendt]

I'm up against every photographer who does weddings. "Why pay £1000+ when I can pay half that and get the images on disc also?"

.... there's a very narrow gap between top and bottom because nobody is willing to pay much.

Gary, I'm sorry to hear there is so little difference between top and bottom. That is truly a problem.

Shoot and burn photographers are allowing this idea of self printing to thrive and become the norm. If people think it's fine to do the photos in a mini lab we as professionals should not be encouraging them.

The genie is out of the bottle, it's too late.

Actually I think technology has done this, not the low dollar shooters.

IMHO digital technology has turned normal wedding photography into a commodity. Think about the shift from painted portraits to photography, a lot of painters were probably a bit peeved as their monopoly crumbled.

I shot digital weddings and did digital albums and digital prints and all the blah, blah, blah.

I could not make it profitable while doing all the back end stuff, the market I was trying to sell to wouldn't pay properly, so I gave up on the back end.

That was the market's choice.

Creating an amazing photo in-camera can be ruined in two seconds by a poor printer, so I don't see the argument. Printing is half the battle in creating a good image and I feel we should be overseeing the whole process whether it's done in a pro lab or by ourselves.

Noble thought, as a business though it only works if you can find enough brides willing to pay for it.

This is a business plan question, not an artistic one. Your product needs to fit your market.

My question is, are you getting paid fairly for the services rendered?

If not you have three choices; 1-market where you can charge more or 2-provide less in your current market or 3-stop selling wedding services.

Giving away your professional time and reversing the course of history are both fruitless endeavors.

I don't do documentary 40 inch Ilfochromes by the way! Who does??

Nobody I know either, that's the point.

The normal wedding market won't support that level of quality or cost, it may not be able to support your preferred level of quality either. (this isn't a reflection on you, it's a reflection of the market.)

Film, Pro-labs, and keeping the shot count low makes weddings a profitable venture for me and provides a quality step up for my clients.

Me doing back-end work kills my ability to make a profit because I'm slow compared to the labs I use and it uses up the time I need to sell more work, and my family time, and my sleep time.

 

[Gary Holliday]

I don't want to go into too much detail as I've got work to do! But if I'm printing photos myself I expect to be paid a printers wages not a £100+ per hr photographer. If I don't have time, it gets sent out to the lab, but as long as I retain quality control.

I don't think the change in technology should have provided this self-printing idea to emerge. A hi-res file is the original whether it's on film or pixels. Back in the day were you one of those photographers who would hand over the negatives?

Good luck, at least we are not travel agents. Do people still use them?