|
In response to
"I have a few more questions for those of you that do wedding photography"
by
Karl_S
|
The reason I'm no longer a photog is that everything I knew about pricing and marketing went out the window when digital took over
Posted by
zeitgeist
Apr 21 '13, 21:21
|
when I started, photogs offered small albums (the reason 12 8x10 books was the basic was the old big ass press cameras with the 4x5 sheets had cases that held 12 holders, a neg on each side, so you'd shoot a and b of each pose.
I was entering when the medium format took over and we were saying we'd shoot a like a whole hundred shots (a huge pile of pictures as most folks with a camera would put a roll in at xmas and finish it the next xmas)
I charged ala carte, I mean how do you know now what photos you'd want until you see them. so just leave a deposit, I'll shoot and you pick. so a lot of folks thought they'd spend less, but of course they usually loved everything and spent more.
Oh, and no matter how much everyone says they want candid only, the posed photos were the ones purchased, to the point of almost exclusively posed.
all those shots of parents gabbing, the bridesmaids dancing, all of them were normally edited out. to be fair, I was charging $20 an image and that was back in the days when $20 would get you a full tank of gas and change back, a damn good bottle of wine in a restuarant.
Most photogs charge like plumbers or mechanics, the smart business ones charge like a plumber or mechanic with a shop, figuring on 100-120 an hour plus a mark up on the parts (albums etc.) now you have to consider that for good photoshop processing (see in the old days a photog would drop the film off and pick up proofs a week later, NOW we have to do it ourselves, and album lay out, that pretty much doubles the labor time of shooting at the event.
so six hours at the wedding, means about 12 hours shooting, processing, sorting and laying out
few photogs ever consider the wear/tear on the gear or the car (the major reason cheap photogs crap out is that they do well for a couple years, but then their gear is worn out, the fuck a wedding up and haven't had the cash flow to eat the one or two or three before the awful truth, now those big film cams we used had a terrible MTBF of 12-1500 rolls, about 3 years usage as it was those days.
there are far too many 'photogs' who buy a camera and shoot some stuff and think, hey I can do this, in fact I was one of them (ok I did shoot photos with an instamatic for a few years so I had it in my blood but my first wedding was literally my 2nd roll from my first real camera, a neighbor friend's older sister.) this is made worse by all the 'photojournalist' shooters who brag they use no lighting, do no posing as this style requires a lot of effort, a lot of skill and genuine talent, but the craigslist shooters out there are out there with literally no clue how to use the features of the camera nor why they should, so you get photos out in the sun with deep shadows in the eyes, white areas where a dress should be visible. people standing square on to the camera like peasants, holding their hands over their crotch (I call it the 'fig leaf') and the signature crop problem where the full length of the bride and dress, the average amature fills the frame which in most cameras is a 4x6 8x12 but most wedding albums are 4x5/8x10 and there is no way to crop it without losing the feet and train.
before you consider a photog, consider their images and ask yourself, can you see shooting something like them yourself? do they look like the photos you or your friends shoot or do they like wow, look like stuff you see in magazines. that's the one litmus test that counts, it doesn't matter what camera is used, it doesn't matter what they charge ( a lot of expensive photogs are as bad as any craigslist idiot they just schmooze and charm a lot of rich friends and attended some marketing seminars.
|