What no Photographer!

[Steve Burkett]

I can never see myself offering a full Photography service - I despise the formal photos too much to see it compromise my creative video work. Providing more candid shots though is an option and I would look to add a Photo Service where I provide photos from say the Speeches to the 1st Dance, with perhaps the Bridal Preps also as many Photographers are quite late turning up for that. This would allow couples to perhaps book an expensive Photographer for just the Ceremony and formal photos. After that, I would take over. I know some Photographers offer a Ceremony to Reception option in their service, so I am sure I would get some takers. I lost one Booking to a Photographer offering Video, so two can play at that game. :)

Now I am using cameras that I can operate easily handheld, combining video and stills becomes more practical.

[Roger Gunkel]

I might be biting the hand that feeds me here, but I am in agreement with Steve about much of the formal photography side of weddings. That may be surprising as the photography side of our business has grown rapidly and I love working with photographs.

At the risk of being controversiall, I feel that photography at weddings is dated and to a large extent totally uneccessary. If I was to put together what I feel was the best balance, it would include romantic and stylised photos of the couple to hang on their wall and give them a romantic haze when they view them. I would also have a small number of close family member groups for the sideboard and for the family themselves. The rest of the day would be covered by video, moving images and sound being much more in tune with what most see every day.

The vast majority of the other photos on the day are just transient moments and casual shots of people talking and laughing and wearing their best outfits. They are most likely to be viewed once or twice then consigned to the back of a drawer for ever. Most of those transient photos could just as easily be video stills for quick fun viewing and really don't need the attention of a skilled photographer, as is witnessed by the numbers of instant phone photos shared on the day of the wedding or shortly after. Once the bridesmaids are captured in their outfits and beamed across social media, The official hi res carefully posed photos are largely irrelevant in my opinion. There will of course always be a market for them, just as there is a market for skilled portrait painters.

There are a few wedding trappings that have always been traditional but are now becoming less important such as, Church weddings, A wedding car (especially with many civil ceremonies), Top hat and tails and a few others I can't remember. In my opinion, most of the traditional photographs should join them. On the other hand, a video captures the fun of a modern wedding much better than a still photo and seems to be growing in popularity after a long time as an also ran. One of the biggest UK wedding surveys seems to show that video now accounts for in excess of 20% of weddings whereas it has been at around 10% for years.

Again purely from my own viewpoint, our combined video and photo package has seen us taking more weddings last year than any year previously, this year is up by a further 17% and next year is already showing more contracted weddings than the same time last year. I'm very happy taking photos that I think are somewhat pointless, because I enjoy it and it pays the bills along with the video, but I am also keen to keep up with the evolving wedding capture processes.

Roger

[Chris Harding]

It might be insignificant but if we are doing both there is essentially no break from bridal prep right through to the reception so it's an exhausting day. However with video only, once the receiving line is done you have a nice gap until the bridal party comes into the reception (apart from a quick slomo shoot sometime between the two) The bottom line is that the video shoot is a lot more laid back and controlled and you can relax and put your feet up for a short time after the ceremony and recharge your own batteries ready for the reception!!

Like Roger however I don't want to bite the hand that feeds me so financially, combined packages are better for the bank balance so we still take them if brides want them but with two of us and not a solo effort and yes, we still use dedicted still cameras to do the job.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

There are a few wedding trappings that have always been traditional but are now becoming less important such as, Church weddings, A wedding car (especially with many civil ceremonies), Top hat and tails and a few others I can't remember.

When did you last see a chimney sweep at a wedding? Pete The Sweep | Lucky Chimney Sweep for Weddings - 01423 889 125

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

Again purely from my own viewpoint, our combined video and photo package has seen us taking more weddings last year than any year previously, this year is up by a further 17% and next year is already showing more contracted weddings than the same time last year.

I have looked at your website (not 100% sure it was yours so correct me if I"m wrong but since it was located in your hometown and 3D was an option, knowing you have been or are into that as well, I figured it's yours.) and I saw the prices you charge, don't you think the popularity of your combo package is mainly because it's so cheap instead of it becoming more of a trend? If I lower my price by 50% tomorrow the number of inquiries might quadruple but that doens't mean I must be doing something good but it mainly means the extra inquiries I get is because I"m cheap. It's clear you are targeting couples with a very strict budget and if the UK is anything like Belgium that market is massive.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Noa

If you do video for $1000 and photos for $1000 and then offer a combined package for $2000 (just sample figures to illustrate a point of course) and brides take the combined option it's nothing to do with price (you could double or triple the figures and still have the same result) Brides simply like combined packages and we have them here too ...one guy does video, photos and he's the DJ/MC at the reception and not only is he booked out but he is also very pricey too so it's not just budget brides that book it the sheer convenience of being able to wrap up 3 or even sometimes 4 vendors into one easy package and one one person to deal with. Cost wise it actually can be more cost effective when it comes to travel costs (1 car instead of 4)

[Noa Put]

Yeah, but if I saw correct Roger is asking a 1000 pound for video and photo combined, ofcourse you will make budget couples happy with that and they don't have the same demands as couples who are willing to pay 4 times as much for a dedicated videographer and photographer, just because you have a lot of bookings doesn't mean it's something couples in general want. I"m pretty sure couples won't accept some framegrabs from a 4K camera from a videographer who is charging 3 to 4K for it, for that money you can have a dedicated photographer and videographer.

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

When did you last see a chimney sweep at a wedding? Pete The Sweep | Lucky Chimney Sweep for Weddings - 01423 889 125

Ha Ha! yes I remember chimney sweeps well from older weddings. The last one I saw was about 15 years ago, and the same guy also used to do a VHS wedding video during the day and run the disco in the evening.

Roger

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Yeah, but if I saw correct Roger is asking a 1000 pound for video and photo combined, ofcourse you will make budget couples happy with that and they don't have the same demands as couples who are willing to pay 4 times as much for a dedicated videographer and photographer, just because you have a lot of bookings doesn't mean it's something couples in general want. I"m pretty sure couples won't accept some framegrabs from a 4K camera from a videographer who is charging 3 to 4K for it, for that money you can have a dedicated photographer and videographer.

Well let's get things into perspective here Noa. In my part of the world, typical photography only prices are £400-1000 for a competent photographer with the higher prices including a basic album. There are also 4 photographers in my local area who charge £250-500 although they are all part time.

We charge £795 for solo photography only and £795 for solo video only. As the combined package doesn't take us any extra time at all apart from the photo processing, we charge £995, that is with just digital copies on a USB and a guaranteed 250 photos. We also have a combined package that we added on at the end of last year that includes a short pre wedding shoot and some props for fun or formal shots later in the day. That package costs £1495 and is starting to match the take up of the basic combined package. Of course there are add ons that couples can choose if they want to discuss extras, such as prints, albums, photo books, personal interviews etc. etc. The fixed price packages attract clients in the first place, but they can add things later to match more expensive companies if they want to extend their budget. One thing also to remember is that companies charging many times more aren't neccesarily making more profit, if their work load, premises hire and manning levels give them much higher overheads.

I think we have struck a good balance of prices in what is a comparatively poor area of the UK (with the exception of Cambridge) and sticking to a way of working that is pretty quick and mobile, we can make a good profit on those prices, with an even better one if we are both covering a wedding on the same day.

As regards supplying frame grabs, I'll repeat what I said previously, that like Chris, our photography is done with Canon DSLR cameras but we also have the added luxury of being able to take 4K frame grabs when either photography is not allowed, or on the occasion when something happens quickly and there is no time with the stills camera. Of course your comments about £3-4K videographers and photographers are perfectly correct apart from the ones who occasionally get it wrong. I have seen that a number of times over the years, which was why we added our existing photography skills to weddings alongside our video.

Roger

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Hi Noa

If you do video for $1000 and photos for $1000 and then offer a combined package for $2000 (just sample figures to illustrate a point of course) and brides take the combined option it's nothing to do with price (you could double or triple the figures and still have the same result) Brides simply like combined packages and we have them here too ...one guy does video, photos and he's the DJ/MC at the reception and not only is he booked out but he is also very pricey too so it's not just budget brides that book it the sheer convenience of being able to wrap up 3 or even sometimes 4 vendors into one easy package and one one person to deal with. Cost wise it actually can be more cost effective when it comes to travel costs (1 car instead of 4)

Quite right Chris. By doing a low priced photo add on to make a basic combined package, we are increasing the total income per wedding with no increase in time on the day, and only the processing time to add on which is not very long at all. That also makes things simpler for the couple as you pointed out.

Roger

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

Well let's get things into perspective here Noa. In my part of the world, typical photography only prices are £400-1000 for a competent photographer with the higher prices including a basic album. There are also 4 photographers in my local area who charge £250-500 although they are all part time.

If you are referring to the UK as your part of the world then it looks like photographers are a lot cheaper then videographers if I have to believe you, there are plenty of videographers in the UK that charge at least double your price and much more, is photography then so undervalued that a good photographer can only ask 1000 pound incl album?

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

If you are referring to the UK as your part of the world then it looks like photographers are a lot cheaper then videographers if I have to believe you, there are plenty of videographers in the UK that charge at least double your price and much more, is photography then so undervalued that a good photographer can only ask 1000 pound incl album?

There are high end photographers who allegedly charge thousands but many of them seem to deliver an awful lot of workshops & training so you have to wonder how many weddings they are actually doing. However there are also plenty of weekend warriors who will do wedding photography for £250 or even less. For somebody on minimum wage a couple of hundred pounds for a day's work is a very good rate of pay. Photography has been de-skilled to such an extent with modern cameras that anyone can take reasonable photos now. Shoot in auto everything with burst mode then after sorting through several thousand images there are bound to be enough decent ones to please the bride & groom. Not great photos but good enough especially considering the price. It's awfully difficult to make a living from wedding photography nowadays given the competition. Video at least still requires some skill in editing & a little more care in capturing the images & audio.

[Noa Put]

I"m actually surprised that photography in the UK is so undervalued, for videography though it's easy to find enough companies in the UK charging between 1700 and 2500 pound and there are several known videographers in the UK that have made a name for themselves worldwide. In Belgium it's just the other way round, good photographers easily can charge more then 2000 euro for a full day without album while video is generally regarded as less important.

[David Banner]

Wow. There's been a photographer at every wedding I've done for over 20 years.
It seems the prices are falling apart on this since sooooo many people are trying to be photographers now.
I noticed there are lots of family taking photos now and sometimes the photog only does part of the event.

I see members above offering photos and video.
I've considered offering a photo/video combination package but haven't done it yet. I usually take some stills anyway and many times the photos I take are better than the photographers.
But I don't want to get into offering physical prints, albums etc...
Plus those formal photos with all the different people aren't too fun.
Thoughts?

Hey Chris Harding..How are you? You still using Panasonic FZ1000s?
I'm looking at FZ2500 to stick high on a stand for a wide 4K shot during ceremonies.

[Chris Harding]

Hi David

I have two FZ1000's and I use one for stills and one as my B-Cam ..Then I'm using the FZ2500 as my main camera ...the slow zoom is awesome!! Bear in mind all our weddings now are live streamed so we have ditched the traditional shoot and edit (but we also still record to card too)..I got tired of spending 3 days of editing for every wedding! The only thing I don't use in combination with the FZ1000's is the full 4K cinema (I use UHD only) cos the aspect is different in cinema 4K but a stunning image. The 4K on the FZ2500 will impress you!!