Wedding photographers vastly overpaid

Kevin Shaw · August 7th, 2006, 09:54 AM

What gets me about wedding photographers is the ones who charge good money to show up and take the pictures, then charge outrageous prices for every copy of every print (e.g. $10 for a 4x6 lab print). That's a great business model for photographers but a terrible one for customers, who would have to take out a second mortgage just to get snapshot-size prints of the pictures they already paid to have taken. Seems to me that if you charge that much for prints you shouldn't charge more than a token fee to show up at the event, and if you charge good money to show up you ought to deliver copies of every picture you take to the client. But we've been over this before and I realize some photographers don't see the problem here, so whatever works with their clients is up to them.

Scott Jaco · August 9th, 2006, 01:22 AM

I totally understand why wedding photographers make more money. The photographers are generally more important to a wedding than a videographer. The photographer is responsible for the “money” shot. The photos are hung over the living room fireplace, in people’s wallets, on the office desks and e-mailed to everyone on the net.

The video is something that is watched once or twice a year if that. There isn’t the same pressure to perform. If you disagree with this statement, perhaps you are over emphasizing the importance of your job. If you want more money, get into corporate video.

Scott Jaco · August 9th, 2006, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

Its up to US to make these changes...

a perfect example is HDV... perfect opportunity to increase teh value of our product, but do we? How many here actually charge $1000more for HD??

HDV is only a big deal to videographers because it has become so affordable. The consumers have yet to purchase HD TV's and Blu-Ray DVD players.

Everything I shoot in HD has to be downconverted to Standard and letterboxed. It doesn't make sense to charge more for something you can't yet offer.

Paul Cypert · August 9th, 2006, 02:18 AM

The time it takes me has nothing to do with the finished output...some weddings I'll labor on for weeks (pictures)...some not so long...i have a base package of 1K that is just the files on a cd. For that it takes me however long it takes me to process files...

I shoot raw. So I am effectively "developing" my pictures...I go in and edit out blinks and what not. I'll then do some batches, but a lot get special treatment...then I process to jpeg (this takes a lot of computer time which could be used for other things)...then I batch process for noise removal (even though I'm Canon there's more that can be done)...then I sort by part of the day (rehearsal, getting ready, ceremony, etc)...then I start going in and doing jpeg actions...making black and whites, duo tones, cross process, etc...then I come up with the number of proofs to be delivered and sort throught to pick out the best of the bunch for proofs...i'll then divide up a batch that optimizes for web viewing (resizing and stripping meta tags and what not...apply sharpening, etc)....then I optimize for proofs at 4X6 300dpi with borders and logos. Then I produce slideshow (if purchased). Then I create special disks for lightscribe covers. Then I burn everything off and meet with the client. Then the client will choose if they want me to design the album, us together, or send it off for an ouside company depending on album style (I am currently studying book binding and will be creating custom unique albums ala John Michael Cooper aka AltF photography in Vegas)....I then upload proofs to online galleries for viewing by families...the books come back...we do a final run through and I'm off of them

Now I've probably forgotten some steps... like when I do custom ipods for them and slideshows for the ipods...but that gives you some idea of time spent and what I'm doing. The difference in me and others is I've streamlined all of this and enjoy doing it. This doesn't even touch up on all the meeting I do beforehand, engagements, bridal shoots, etc. Trips to labs, driving to events, etc. There are photographers who do far more than I do. I would say currently my photo time spent is about 4 to 1 my video time spent (photo being 4X's more time spent). I work smart with video. Some things can take hours more for the tiniest bit of quality gained (cool if you want to do it, but don't piss and moan that your edits take 80 hours if you choose to do these things...you chose it)....Right now video rates vary from 600 or so up to 1500 for really not much added. A lot of it depends on the package they already have, if my wife or friend will be running the camera/s, if they choose two cameras or not...etc...

Next summer I'll start more aggressively pushing two cameras and will be adding more coverage time as I get some more people trained to opperate cameras and add more equipment.

I'll look a client in the eye and ask them honestly if they'd rather have an honest portrayal video that is simple and cleanly cut or something with loads of cuts, edits, camera movements, etc...I show them quality examples of both...and most just want a simple telling of the day. Because as another poster stated...they'll hang the pics on the wall and everynow and then dust off the video. I have friends who paid 3K or more (back in the day so that was really expensive) for their video guy and haven't watched the video in years. But their ratty album gets pulled out all the time. People have time to casually flip through pictures...video you've got to shut up, sit down, change rooms, etc to watch it. I'll tell them straight up if you just pay me the lowest price I'll set up one camera that won't move, set up one mic, barely any cutting, a simple DVD template that others could have, etc and they go for it....I'm trying to add more just to put more money in my pocket, but I know they'd be just as happy either way and watch it just the same.

I still believe people can make it a bigger value in the client's mind. But that's up to you in your market. And the only photographers that are over paid are the posers. They're out there...using other people's pics to get jobs, not having the right equipment (backup, etc), not having people skills, etc...but there are video guys just the same who I would say are getting overpaid too. Work smart and sell yourself hard. There's no reason for these "longform edits" that go 6-8 months. They put up from scratch and no casting done broadway shows in four weeks and less...you can't get a video out quicker than that?...if not something's wrong with your workload, workflow...

I'll take more questions if you have them.

Paul

Paul Cypert · August 9th, 2006, 02:24 AM

Oh and one more thing. More and more photographers are moving to a flat fee what you see is what you get business model (like me). There's no charging for reprints, etc. I give them the files when all is said and done and they can print all they want. It's more the old used to be hassy shooters that do that sort of thing. But I have collegues who give digital negatives to clients and they still get 2K plus in reprint orders off their custom built client online proofing and ordering systems. Why, because

1. Never underestimate people's laziness. If they can pay someone else to do it 9 times out of 10 they will...like people will pay someone to mow their yard so they don't have to do it and then pay membership to a gym because they're getting fat sitting around the house and work :)

2. They have such quality pics, services offered, customer relations at the event that people want to use them to purchase and trust them

Don't be jealous because some folks came up with business models that keep making money long after the event...it's smart...there's add ons to be discovered for video...not stills, but creative stuff...like time vaults or other ideas yet to be exploited...

Paul

Marco Leavitt · August 9th, 2006, 06:20 AM

I don't think it can be denied that photos get more exposure than video, but I wonder if this is going to change as people become more savvy with their iPods, and are comfortable e-mailing MPEGs around. Probably the next step, and I think wedding videographers are already starting to do this, is adding Web downloads and other services to the package. Don't video picture frames already exist? What about throwing that into the package as well. It could be a short montage of the most touching moments from the wedding. I think people would really go for that.

Peter Jefferson · August 9th, 2006, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Jaco

HDV is only a big deal to videographers because it has become so affordable. The consumers have yet to purchase HD TV's and Blu-Ray DVD players.

Everything I shoot in HD has to be downconverted to Standard and letterboxed. It doesn't make sense to charge more for something you can't yet offer.

I agree on your comments on HD only now starting to take a hold in teh market, however the fact remains, that this extra processing takes time and effort.
In addition, it IS somthign u can offer now, being that you offer them the TAPE, and then a voucher to come back to you for a conversion once an optical medium has ben made available. I know for my corporates, when tehy ask for HD, i provide the material on removable Hard Drives, WMV9 HD 5.1 and they love it. I also have people asking for DivX and now H.264, so delivry options ARE there.. there just not so mainstreamed.

Its one thing to shoot in HDV then to offer an SD product form that sourced material, its another thing to offer a HD product, and if u are offering a HD product, then you should be charging for it IMO

Paul Cypert · August 9th, 2006, 11:02 AM

I've shown the last two couples I filmed the HD footage and then showed them it next to the SD footage they were getting...they were very interested after that in the option of paying more to come back later when the media is more readily available and getting a new copy. This is a no-brainer upsell, especially if you are shooting high end clients...they will have the technology sooner rather than later...was it Chris Rock that talked about them getting you "on the comeback"?

:)

Paul

Peter Oliver · August 9th, 2006, 11:06 AM

I'm doing my first wedding today .... need help I am vastly inexpierenced

Thanx Peter

Steven Davis · August 9th, 2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Oliver

I'm doing my first wedding today .... need help I am vastly inexpierenced

Thanx Peter

Bump this to move I suppose.

But if you don't know anything about video, and you're still committed to doing this wedding, then set you camera on auto, use a secondary camera on a wide angle (as a back up in case you messup) and try to keep the camera steady at all times. Don't get too cute with your zooming as if you don't know when to and when to not zoom, excessive zooming at the wrong times can be a real distraction. Figure out a way to get good audio, if you have to get a mic and an mp3 recorder and put it near or on the groom. Keep you camera in auto if you don't understand camera basics, but atleast try and set the white balance by all means.

But again, be very careful to try and keep you coverage pretty simple since being new to the business spontaneous things which happen at weddings can get very overwhelming.

I hope it works out for you.

Nicholas Heuer · August 10th, 2006, 11:20 AM

I really do think videograpy is becoming more popular and we may be able to charge these rates soon.

Dante Waters · August 12th, 2006, 08:45 PM

These are all valid points...
HD will soon have it's media, but for now there are ways of delivery.

The value of Videography is becoming more and more evident.
I really don't bash photography because once you're into cinematography
you can use a still camera to do a lot... It's used all the times in movies and production. In fact for that very reason I purchased one recently.

Jason Robinson · August 13th, 2006, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Waters

These are all valid points...
HD will soon have it's media, but for now there are ways of delivery.

The value of Videography is becoming more and more evident.
I really don't bash photography because once you're into cinematography
you can use a still camera to do a lot... It's used all the times in movies and production. In fact for that very reason I purchased one recently.

Heck I still use stills in my videos because some times the viewer needs to focus their attention on what I want them to see and the best way to do that is a nice big 5MP picture with a good Ken Burns effect.

jason

August 9th, 2006, 11:06 AM	#24
Peter Oliver Tourist Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: los angeles CA Posts: 1	best settings for wedding XL2 I'm doing my first wedding today .... need help I am vastly inexpierenced Thanx Peter

August 7th, 2006, 09:54 AM	#16
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	What gets me about wedding photographers is the ones who charge good money to show up and take the pictures, then charge outrageous prices for every copy of every print (e.g. $10 for a 4x6 lab print). That's a great business model for photographers but a terrible one for customers, who would have to take out a second mortgage just to get snapshot-size prints of the pictures they already paid to have taken. Seems to me that if you charge that much for prints you shouldn't charge more than a token fee to show up at the event, and if you charge good money to show up you ought to deliver copies of every picture you take to the client. But we've been over this before and I realize some photographers don't see the problem here, so whatever works with their clients is up to them.

August 9th, 2006, 01:22 AM	#17
Scott Jaco Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 471	I totally understand why wedding photographers make more money. The photographers are generally more important to a wedding than a videographer. The photographer is responsible for the “money” shot. The photos are hung over the living room fireplace, in people’s wallets, on the office desks and e-mailed to everyone on the net. The video is something that is watched once or twice a year if that. There isn’t the same pressure to perform. If you disagree with this statement, perhaps you are over emphasizing the importance of your job. If you want more money, get into corporate video.

August 9th, 2006, 02:18 AM	#19
Paul Cypert Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Bangkok, Thailand (work in US in the summers) Posts: 89	The time it takes me has nothing to do with the finished output...some weddings I'll labor on for weeks (pictures)...some not so long...i have a base package of 1K that is just the files on a cd. For that it takes me however long it takes me to process files... I shoot raw. So I am effectively "developing" my pictures...I go in and edit out blinks and what not. I'll then do some batches, but a lot get special treatment...then I process to jpeg (this takes a lot of computer time which could be used for other things)...then I batch process for noise removal (even though I'm Canon there's more that can be done)...then I sort by part of the day (rehearsal, getting ready, ceremony, etc)...then I start going in and doing jpeg actions...making black and whites, duo tones, cross process, etc...then I come up with the number of proofs to be delivered and sort throught to pick out the best of the bunch for proofs...i'll then divide up a batch that optimizes for web viewing (resizing and stripping meta tags and what not...apply sharpening, etc)....then I optimize for proofs at 4X6 300dpi with borders and logos. Then I produce slideshow (if purchased). Then I create special disks for lightscribe covers. Then I burn everything off and meet with the client. Then the client will choose if they want me to design the album, us together, or send it off for an ouside company depending on album style (I am currently studying book binding and will be creating custom unique albums ala John Michael Cooper aka AltF photography in Vegas)....I then upload proofs to online galleries for viewing by families...the books come back...we do a final run through and I'm off of them Now I've probably forgotten some steps... like when I do custom ipods for them and slideshows for the ipods...but that gives you some idea of time spent and what I'm doing. The difference in me and others is I've streamlined all of this and enjoy doing it. This doesn't even touch up on all the meeting I do beforehand, engagements, bridal shoots, etc. Trips to labs, driving to events, etc. There are photographers who do far more than I do. I would say currently my photo time spent is about 4 to 1 my video time spent (photo being 4X's more time spent). I work smart with video. Some things can take hours more for the tiniest bit of quality gained (cool if you want to do it, but don't piss and moan that your edits take 80 hours if you choose to do these things...you chose it)....Right now video rates vary from 600 or so up to 1500 for really not much added. A lot of it depends on the package they already have, if my wife or friend will be running the camera/s, if they choose two cameras or not...etc... Next summer I'll start more aggressively pushing two cameras and will be adding more coverage time as I get some more people trained to opperate cameras and add more equipment. I'll look a client in the eye and ask them honestly if they'd rather have an honest portrayal video that is simple and cleanly cut or something with loads of cuts, edits, camera movements, etc...I show them quality examples of both...and most just want a simple telling of the day. Because as another poster stated...they'll hang the pics on the wall and everynow and then dust off the video. I have friends who paid 3K or more (back in the day so that was really expensive) for their video guy and haven't watched the video in years. But their ratty album gets pulled out all the time. People have time to casually flip through pictures...video you've got to shut up, sit down, change rooms, etc to watch it. I'll tell them straight up if you just pay me the lowest price I'll set up one camera that won't move, set up one mic, barely any cutting, a simple DVD template that others could have, etc and they go for it....I'm trying to add more just to put more money in my pocket, but I know they'd be just as happy either way and watch it just the same. I still believe people can make it a bigger value in the client's mind. But that's up to you in your market. And the only photographers that are over paid are the posers. They're out there...using other people's pics to get jobs, not having the right equipment (backup, etc), not having people skills, etc...but there are video guys just the same who I would say are getting overpaid too. Work smart and sell yourself hard. There's no reason for these "longform edits" that go 6-8 months. They put up from scratch and no casting done broadway shows in four weeks and less...you can't get a video out quicker than that?...if not something's wrong with your workload, workflow... I'll take more questions if you have them. Paul

August 9th, 2006, 02:24 AM	#20
Paul Cypert Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Bangkok, Thailand (work in US in the summers) Posts: 89	Oh and one more thing. More and more photographers are moving to a flat fee what you see is what you get business model (like me). There's no charging for reprints, etc. I give them the files when all is said and done and they can print all they want. It's more the old used to be hassy shooters that do that sort of thing. But I have collegues who give digital negatives to clients and they still get 2K plus in reprint orders off their custom built client online proofing and ordering systems. Why, because 1. Never underestimate people's laziness. If they can pay someone else to do it 9 times out of 10 they will...like people will pay someone to mow their yard so they don't have to do it and then pay membership to a gym because they're getting fat sitting around the house and work :) 2. They have such quality pics, services offered, customer relations at the event that people want to use them to purchase and trust them Don't be jealous because some folks came up with business models that keep making money long after the event...it's smart...there's add ons to be discovered for video...not stills, but creative stuff...like time vaults or other ideas yet to be exploited... Paul

August 9th, 2006, 06:20 AM	#21
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I don't think it can be denied that photos get more exposure than video, but I wonder if this is going to change as people become more savvy with their iPods, and are comfortable e-mailing MPEGs around. Probably the next step, and I think wedding videographers are already starting to do this, is adding Web downloads and other services to the package. Don't video picture frames already exist? What about throwing that into the package as well. It could be a short montage of the most touching moments from the wedding. I think people would really go for that.

August 9th, 2006, 11:02 AM	#23
Paul Cypert Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Bangkok, Thailand (work in US in the summers) Posts: 89	I've shown the last two couples I filmed the HD footage and then showed them it next to the SD footage they were getting...they were very interested after that in the option of paying more to come back later when the media is more readily available and getting a new copy. This is a no-brainer upsell, especially if you are shooting high end clients...they will have the technology sooner rather than later...was it Chris Rock that talked about them getting you "on the comeback"? :) Paul

August 10th, 2006, 11:20 AM	#26
Nicholas Heuer New Boot Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Wentzville, MO Posts: 24	I really do think videograpy is becoming more popular and we may be able to charge these rates soon.

August 12th, 2006, 08:45 PM	#27
Dante Waters Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: NY, NY Posts: 217	These are all valid points... HD will soon have it's media, but for now there are ways of delivery. The value of Videography is becoming more and more evident. I really don't bash photography because once you're into cinematography you can use a still camera to do a lot... It's used all the times in movies and production. In fact for that very reason I purchased one recently.