# What to consider when hiring a Wedding photographer???



## Gino (Sep 19, 2014)

Hi Everyone,

My sister is looking to hire a wedding photographer to do both still photos and video for her wedding coming up this January in St. Paul, MN.

Can you please give me some advice on what questions my sister should ask wedding photographers when considering who she should hire? Also, is there anyone in the St. Paul/Minneapolis metro area that she should consider who does good work at a reasonable price? She has about a $2,000 budget, and she is looking to hire someone for 5-6 hours of work.

Thanks


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 19, 2014)

Gino, it isn't 5-6 hours work, it is 5-6 hours on the wedding day at the same location as the couple, with probably another 5-6 in travel, getting gear ready, ingesting the files etc etc plus all the pre and post production work.

$2,000 is the budget end for stills and video, at that price I would probably look to get two separate people in for around $1,000 each to cover the event, this is really on the low side but you will probably find two better people than one good one that is working for so low a price. I would be very suspicious of any photographer who was offering that kind of package for that money.

Questions; ask to see their work, if you like it then keep talking. Ask for references from previous couples, at least five or six, and get in touch with them. Ask to see their contracts, good shooters have good contracts.

Other than that, just talk and play it by ear, but don't think for one second it is 5-6 hours work.


----------



## Gino (Sep 19, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Gino, it isn't 5-6 hours work, it is 5-6 hours on the wedding day at the same location as the couple, with probably another 5-6 in travel, getting gear ready, ingesting the files etc etc plus all the pre and post production work.
> 
> $2,000 is the budget end for stills and video, at that price I would probably look to get two separate people in for around $1,000 each to cover the event, this is really on the low side but you will probably find two better people than one good one that is working for so low a price. I would be very suspicious of any photographer who was offering that kind of package for that money.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your advice. When I stated 5-6 hours of "work", I meant 5-6 hours of taking photos & video...I understand that doesn't account for set-up time, and post processing time. 

When you suggest hiring two people, do you mean one photographer would do the still photos and the second would do the video? Also, are most photographers willing to work with another photographer that they don't know?

Thanks


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Sep 20, 2014)

Hi Gino,

I tend to agree with private, and would also recommend hiring two different people. I have worked with a ton of videographers and those who specialize in video tend to produce better videos (from my experience). Similarly, we shoot a ton of weddings and are often asked if we can also do video. My answer is always the same, we have the equipment for it, but until we can provide a top-notch product, I will not be including video as one of our options. I think some simply see the dollar signs and jump into both fields because they can, which I find to be unfortunate. All of that being said, however, St. Paul may have someone who can do both, and do them well.

I would also reflect what Private said about the amount of time needed. Though I'm sure you are aware of the amount of time it takes, the phrasing could potentially be a turn off for the photographer/videographer, but she can ask for 5-6 hours of coverage without stepping on toes.

Regarding the meeting, I have had 64 meetings with potential wedding clients and have booked 61 of them. I love meetings. Often times, the folks I am meeting with will not have any questions for me, which is okay. I will then ask them more about their day and help bounce possible ideas necessary to make their day spectacular. Some of the things she may want to consider;

Is she having a first glance? 
Is she having a 'grand exit'? if so, what time?
Would she rather have one or two photographers?
Will she receive a print release? What size can she print?
How many photos will they edit for her?
Can she view any FULL galleries?
If she does have to order prints over a certain size through them, how much are they?
How long until she receives her images back?
How are their reviews from TheKnot, Wedding Wire, Facebook, etc?
What gear will they shoot with?
Is this their full time occupation?

For videos and photos alike, I would recommend she take the time to watch a ton of videos from a particular company, if she likes their style then go with them. Similarly, with photos, look into their full galleries and look to see if she likes the style and coverage of their images.

Lastly, I fly around for weddings and Tulsa to St. Paul is less than a $500 fare when I checked a random date in March... there is always the option to fly someone in as well. 

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 22, 2014)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> What gear will they shoot with?
> Is this their full time occupation?



Not sure I understand why these two items would be important at all?

Who cares what gear they have if you like the pictures? The final product is all that matters  to the customer. If you like the final product that the photographer produced in other weddings, you will probably like the final product for your wedding. A photographer can have the latest, most expensive gear, but if you don't like their final product, that photographer is not right for your wedding -- regardless of the gear.

The same applies to the second item. Who cares if it is their full time or part time employment -- if you like the type of photographs the photographer takes? This is why it is so important to carefully review past work. A full time photographer can take photographs you don't like just as easily as a part time photographer... and vice versa. 

There are so many more important considerations when selecting a wedding photographer. A wedding photographer is a business of which taking pictures is but one aspect the customer is paying for. Which gear they use and whether they do this full time or part time are not, in my opinion, high on the list.

Past performance is. And past performance is independent of gear and employment status. 

Do you like the way this particular photographer shoots weddings? There is no such thing as a good wedding photographer. Only wedding photographers that are good for a specific customer. Not all wedding photographers the same and it is important to choose one that is right for your wedding. A wedding photographer that worked well for one wedding may not work well for yours. It is a personal service. That's the advantage of hiring a professional. 

I think as time goes on, we will be seeing fewer photographers that can exist solely on wedding photography. I think the part time photographer will be becoming more common as the industry continues to be over saturated. I, personally, would not discriminate against a photographer solely on the fact they have another job (whether photography is the primary or secondary job). 

I will discriminate past on past performance.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 22, 2014)

Gino said:


> When you suggest hiring two people, do you mean one photographer would do the still photos and the second would do the video? Also, are most photographers willing to work with another photographer that they don't know?
> 
> Thanks


You can't shoot stills and shoot video at the same time.... you really do need two people... As professionals, they should be able to get along with each other and work together, but it would really help if the three of you met at the same time and discussed who is going to do what and when so that everyone will be working with the same understanding of what you want.... You need to bond them as a team, not have them competing with each other.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 22, 2014)

Gino said:


> Can you please give me some advice on what questions my sister should ask wedding photographers when considering who she should hire?




Beforehand, she should decide what style she wants, e.g. portrait/glamour vs. photojournalistic
Decide whether it's important to have high-quality prints or a large set of JPEGs. Some photographers do the old-school print-based business model, while others will hand you a DVD with hundreds of JPEGs, and then you print what you want. Make sure that's clear in the contract.
Describe the venue and ask to see work examples in that kind of space. Some photographers bring a mobile studio lighting setup, others work better outdoors or use hotshoe-based lighting.
Ask for references, preferably recent, and a year or two previous
Ask to see more than their portfolio: ask to see at least one full set that was delivered for a wedding similar to what she has in mind


----------



## gsealy (Sep 22, 2014)

IMO the biggest thing is experience. A lot happens during a wedding, and it happens fast. These are things that just can't be missed, and they have to be done well. People who have shot a lot of weddings know what to look for and they are ready for when it happens. The quality is going to be better because they are prepared. They know the best angles, lens, and framing. 

Some friends have asked me to take photos of their weddings. I have always declined. I know that there is good chance I would miss something or do a poor job because I don't have the experience. Also, it would not be fair to the happy couple. 

So my suggestion is to get someone that has a solid track record.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 22, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Ask to see more than their portfolio: ask to see at least one full set that was delivered for a wedding similar to what she has in mind



I think that is an excellent idea!

Are there any commercial or other business reasons why a photographer would not want to do this?

If I hire a professional wedding photographer, does that mean that all the pictures he or she took of my wedding will be shared with potential future customers of the photographer?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Ask to see more than their portfolio: ask to see at least one full set that was delivered for a wedding similar to what she has in mind
> ...



Of course! Well not that they will be, but that they might be, that is how we build a portfolio and illustrate our capabilities. 

Any decent photographer will have their and their clients usage covered in the contract, but the photographer always holds copyright (in most jurisdictions) and very rarely gives away or sells all usage rights.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Any decent photographer will have their and their clients usage covered in the contract, but the photographer always holds copyright (in most jurisdictions) and very rarely gives away or sells all usage rights.



How does Title 17 U.S.C. section 201b (Work for hire) affect this?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Any decent photographer will have their and their clients usage covered in the contract, but the photographer always holds copyright (in most jurisdictions) and very rarely gives away or sells all usage rights.
> ...



If your contract isn't laid out as a "work for hire" arrangement, it doesn't enter into it at all.

To be clear, if the contract does not state who owns what, then it is up for interpretation, but that was not what I was saying, what I said was _"Any decent photographer will have their and their clients usage covered in the contract,"_ and that is a quite different thing.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> _"Any decent photographer will have their and their clients usage covered in the contract,"_



Good point. And an important one.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > _"Any decent photographer will have their and their clients usage covered in the contract,"_
> ...



Thanks.

To be sure, "work for hire" is a generally misused legal term with pretty narrow definitions, and a lawyer would have to convince a judge to be pretty lose with the intent of the law to give any credence to a wedding shooter/bride copyright dispute. Though I am sure they will.

Wedding shooters are not employees, so 1. doesn't count. In section two only parts I/II/V could possibly used to leverage a dispute, though I would think could be fairly easily discredited, but the clincher is the last sentence, _"and only if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire"_, if you don't agree to that, and sign a document stating that, then it cannot be argued to be "work for hire".



> Section 101 of the Copyright Laws defines a “work made for hire” as:
> 1.a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
> 2.I. a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work,
> .II. as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
> ...



Further, if you don't have a contract (though who would do that in the USA?) then it cannot be argued as "work for hire" becasue implicit in the law is that you have to have an agreement that states it is "work for hire", no agreement means it is not.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 22, 2014)

Gino said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Gino, it isn't 5-6 hours work, it is 5-6 hours on the wedding day at the same location as the couple, with probably another 5-6 in travel, getting gear ready, ingesting the files etc etc plus all the pre and post production work.
> ...



with a total budget of 2k for both, your better off finding 2 who are not connected. and for both you are kind of looking for folks who are just starting. The average cost for a photographer alone in the US is $2500 (photo only). 

Yes, you can find a larger company that does both (hell, you can actually find one that also does the dj'ing too). But, you gotta ask yourself at that stage, what is the priority? spending $2 and not getting the product you actually want, or, spend 2K on the photo alone and have friends and fam do the video side


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 22, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Tabor Warren Photography said:
> 
> 
> > What gear will they shoot with?
> ...



there are a couple relevant answers to the gear question - Gear is just too all inclusive but asking if they have backup systems (aka 2 bodies) is important. No one wants their primary camera to die on the day of a wedding, but, even with a top of the line camera sh!t happens. So does the photographer have a backup camera is a very important Q.

Full time vs part time - this can also be important, of course it does not truly make a difference - but - it may be a psychological reassurance - a full time, established photog whon't just take the money and run for instance. But also, turn around time. If your full time gig is photography your turn around times may be a bit different than someone who shoots weddings on the side while also working a full time job (40 hours a week punching the clock somewhere else means that's 40 hours of the week that they are not working on your wedding!)


----------



## agierke (Sep 22, 2014)

i agree with those saying to hire 2 separate individuals to cover photo and video. 2000.00 is on the low end for both so i would temper your expectations in terms of the quality of the product of each.

i will only enter into a contract with a bride and groom after i have done an in person meeting. the reason behind this is i find that making sure our personalities match is vital for having a successful day. i want my couples to want me and i want to make sure i don't get involved with individuals who will be impossible to please. as a wedding photographer, you spend the most intimate moments of the day with the bride and groom. i advise my couples that you want to make sure you dont get stuck with a creep or weirdo.

additionally, it was pointed out that you should ask for references. though this may sound like a good idea, i personally will not release personal info of my past couples so that strangers can then call them to ask how their day went. i find this strange...and would not want to receive these types of calls myself. if a prospective couple cannot determine my abilities and professionalism as a photographer from the in person consultation and my portfolio, then that is a situation i walk away from. if references are really needed, then testimonials should suffice. no way i'm releasing my couples info though....

so i would say these are the initial critical criteria you should use:

1. demeanor...are they professional and will the couple be comfortable with them.
2. style...do you like the quality of their work.
3. price...you can only afford what you can afford.

after that, all the details should be worked out during consultations. a competent professional will answer all questions regarding the day whether you ask those questions or not. i break down the entire day during my consultations which allows the bride and groom to ask the questions they wouldn't have thought of on their own.


----------



## risc32 (Sep 22, 2014)

from my exp at least it's an industry norm for full timers to be VERY slow with delivering photos to clients. I've known of some to put pull the memory cards from the event and put them on a shelf. (They typically buy new cards for every event) then after a couple months they get around to post work with the files. Obv that isn't everyone, but that has been something i see alot of. I'm part time. I'm faster than they are. I have backup, and my backup has as backup. i wouldn't worry to much about what equipment they use. within reason.
If i were you i'd try and get 2 shooters. As much as the lone shooter would like to be in 3 places at once(shots of the guys getting ready, girls getting ready, and reception area(and this one usually is't ready until moments before they arrive, so it's tough)/wedding venue) it's just not going to happen. that's right, quotes inside quotes!

i have been to weddings where the photographer is a disaster. Once the the guy was on the verge of being drunk. he spent most of his time "chimping", and fussing with his camera. Apparently that guy was very inexpensive so he got the gig.i was just there as a wedding guest. I get almost all my work as a "hired gun". That's one of the reasons i don't post photos here or anywhere else. It's just not that cool. My pay is on the lower end of the grand scale, but for the hired gun work i usually do, i'm near the top. it's cool though, with my schedule i can't devote a lot of time to it all anyway. having a second full time job is good for the bills while the photo thing is just side money, and i do enjoy making good photos for people and seeing young couples being so happy on there wedding day. on the other hand if i woke up tomorrow and i had 12 jobs i'd have to make some changes.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 22, 2014)

risc32 said:


> from my exp at least it's an industry norm for full timers to be VERY slow with delivering photos to clients. I've known of some to put pull the memory cards from the event and put them on a shelf. (They typically buy new cards for every event) then after a couple months they get around to post work with the files. Obv that isn't everyone, but that has been something i see alot of. I'm part time. I'm faster than they are. I have backup, and my backup has as backup. i wouldn't worry to much about what equipment they use. within reason.
> If i were you i'd try and get 2 shooters. As much as the lone shooter would like to be in 3 places at once(shots of the guys getting ready, girls getting ready, and reception area(and this one usually is't ready until moments before they arrive, so it's tough)/wedding venue) it's just not going to happen. that's right, quotes inside quotes!
> 
> i have been to weddings where the photographer is a disaster. Once the the guy was on the verge of being drunk. he spent most of his time "chimping", and fussing with his camera. Apparently that guy was very inexpensive so he got the gig.i was just there as a wedding guest. I get almost all my work as a "hired gun". That's one of the reasons i don't post photos here or anywhere else. It's just not that cool. My pay is on the lower end of the grand scale, but for the hired gun work i usually do, i'm near the top. it's cool though, with my schedule i can't devote a lot of time to it all anyway. having a second full time job is good for the bills while the photo thing is just side money, and i do enjoy making good photos for people and seeing young couples being so happy on there wedding day. on the other hand if i woke up tomorrow and i had 12 jobs i'd have to make some changes.



With their budget, 2 shooters and 1 video just isn't going to happen. Most second shooters get between $150-500 for their time - if your thinking 1k for photo and 1 k for vid...wow, your getting a beginner as a primary and someone who is just handed a camera in green box mode as a second. 

Even if the photo budget goes to $1500 (leaving $500 for video), getting 2 shooters would put you in dicey territory.

Mind this too - the problem with judging them by past performance. Established shooters with a past performance to show will be on the higher side. I'm not sure what the market is like in your area but where I live if your charging 1 k, you may only have one or two weddings to show - or, you may only have second shooter experience to show. Not saying these shooters won't or can't be good or great (all good or great shooters start somewhere). so if past performance is going to be a big factor in your decision then your looking at being on the higher side of the budget for photo. 

To the person I am quoting - I have seen the opposite, being a guest at a few weddings and watching the photographer put forth the bare minimum (mind you, these are weddings which used a friend photographer who shoots on the side - not going with me because they wanted me to be a guest...) - take 2 shots - then lens cap on, mull about, talk to guests, set the camera down....lol.


----------



## mattsepeta (Sep 22, 2014)

Tell her to just ask me directly 

sepetaphotography.com


----------



## rcarca (Sep 22, 2014)

Watch out for cheapskates who don't know what they are doing. I was a guest at a wedding recently where the video guy ran out of battery and resorted to his iPhone... He also plonked his wretched tripod in plain view of all the guests which was distracting at the church!


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 22, 2014)

Gino,
I saw your photos in the past....why not Gino 

Maybe just video guy.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Sep 22, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Tabor Warren Photography said:
> ...



As Chuck mentioned, gear and full/part time occupation play a role in the whole process. I know this because I went from a T1i, 17-40L, and 430EXii to dual 5Diiis with a third in the bag, tons of L glass, two 600EX's and upgraded by way of the 60D, 7D, and 5Dii along the way. My first wedding was decent, but I'm happy to say that I have come a long way in both talent and gear. I know that the gear is not everything, but it does reflect at least a partial amount of the investment the photographer is willing to make in their clients. There is a less expensive option to everything I own, but knowing that the 5Diii does better than the 60D (in my opinion) and the 85 f/1.2L ii does better than the 85 f/1.8 in portrait stills (in my opinion), tells me that if I want the best for my client, I buy the best. Gear, will definitely have an impact in the outcome of the work. Someone can always just buy the same setup as me without having to work their way up, and then it goes back to whether or not someone likes the portfolios they have to offer. We all have to start somewhere, and I covered expectations with my first wedding client extensively prior to taking the gig, but I also know that asking what gear they are shooting with is a valid question.

To answer your question about full/part time relevance, I used to shoot part time. I spent 4 years of undergrad and my first year at the college of veterinary medicine shooting part time. Exams matter. I hated having to put edits on the back burner, or having to rush through them to get them done in a reasonable amount of time, but if I had to study, I had to study. Even during the summers when I was working full time or part time in the winters, I had to be at work. It took my turn around time further than it would have if I was a full time photographer. Now, my wife and I have ventured into photography full time and have the capability of turning edits around faster, all while doing a better job than we had before. We have even hired a third photographer/editor, another editor, and an album designer. If I am backed up editing one wedding, another person can take it, I give the final proofing, and we can deliver in weeks instead of months. Yes, the part-time portfolio can and should look great, but my best work was done with May weddings, right after school, and just before I started full time in June. If I booked someone for Fall, I let them know the timing I would be working with. Having been there, I also find full/part time photographer status to also be important.

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## AtSea (Sep 23, 2014)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...



Is the couple personable, friendly, experienced, and do they take the kinds of images that emote the feeling the couple is looking for? Those are the questions that need to be brought to the forthright. 

If a couple cares about the kind of 85mm lens being used, well that's downright silly and tells me they're looking for the wrong qualities in the photographer. I wouldn't shoot their wedding if that were the case. That example is much different from your broader point of "does the photographer have professional gear" - which is a valid expectation.

Further, whether the photographer shoots part-time or full-time is also somewhat irrelevant, provided that the turn around dates are discussed and agreed upon and the other aspects of their work are found worthy.

Surely, these points can be discussed in a sit-down meeting with a client, but it seems strange to expect a couple to care about what aperture the photographer's lenses shoot at.


----------



## tyger11 (Sep 23, 2014)

She might also consider finding examples of the style of wedding photography & video she likes to provide to prospective photographer & videographers to make sure they know what SHE wants.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Sep 23, 2014)

AtSea said:


> Tabor Warren Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Since the dslr world seems to be expanding by the minute, I have had more and more clients ask about the gear being used. You are correct in saying, 'what aperture 85mm lens do you use?' is a silly question, however, asking about the gear is completely relevant. My exact question was, "What gear will they shoot with?" everyone seems to have the internet and if you're down to the final two photographers, and find out one is shooting with a $300 dslr and the other is using a $3,000 dslr, the likelihood is that they would feel more comfortable with the better camera being used.

Also, if they don't care when their photos are delivered, then it is a perfect scenario for the part time photographer. My first wedding took me about 2 months to edit. I could have made it happen in less time but was a full time student, full time employee, and part time (in all my free time) photographer. I could have done the edits in less time, heck I could have done them in a week, but would have sacrificed the meticulous editing that I was doing to give them the best product. If she does not ask about their occupational status, that is fine, but it is silly to think that it would not play some sort of role in the final outcome, be that quality, consistency, timeliness, etc.

Lastly, "Is the couple personable, friendly, experienced, and do they take the kinds of images that emote the feeling the couple is looking for?" _Also_, valid questions.

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 23, 2014)

Look for: 1) Shooting Style - is it what is wanted?, 2) Personality & Professionalism - is the photo/videographer someone easy to work with and wanted at the wedding?, 3) Deliverables & Timing - understand exactly what will be received, how soon, and make sure it is what is wanted: # & size of prints, DVD, slideshow, raw video or edited, whatever?, 4) Staff - will photographer bring additional help, husband wife teams are common; but, some photogs will enlist 2nd shooters they hardly know?, 5) Practices - what does photog typically wear to wedding?, how do they handle family trying to shoot their set-ups?, when and where do they expect to eat?, do they drink while working?, 6) Gear - do they have pro-grade back-up equipment, will they be using tripods and/or lighting stands - if so does placement need to be agreed?, 7) Plan B - what is the photographers back-up plan if they themselves can not shoot the wedding? (broken leg, sickness) - make sure the back-up is equal to what is expected as well, 8) Shot list - do they have a template shot list to review and decide which shots are desired or definitely not wanted (e.g. guy who caught garter putting it on girl who caught bouquet) ?

My own preference is toward great still shots - candid and formals - and a well done slideshow of stills with appropriate music (maybe 5-10 minutes long). No one wants to watch hours of lame video even if it is their own wedding. And, to have a truly professional video shot, color graded, edited, etc. requires multiple cameras, lots of hours post work, and still takes a long time to watch. Spend the budget on great still shots and have friends bring their camcorders or iPhones and cover the video side. Just my opinion.


----------



## jepabst (Oct 15, 2014)

Personally, I would suggest not doing video at all a budget of 2,000. Even at 2k you'll have a hard time finding a GREAT photographer. You're going to compromise on both at $1,000 for sure, and bring on the distinct possibility that she'll be disappointed with both the photos and the video. Which is always very sad, and I've seen it happen dozens if not hundreds of times. Stories of brides so deflated and disappointed in their photographer. 

Someone said it above; decide what is important. You could have a family member film/document the wedding with a good HD video camera just for posterity; no, it won't have the cinematic bells and whistles like Fiore Films or Obviouschild Productions... 

That's just my humble opinion. If it were me.


----------



## helpful (Oct 15, 2014)

The wedding photographer you hire needs to be knowledgeable and experienced with photography in the same environment where the wedding will be held.

For example, consider two completely distinct situations, calling for different photographic skills--
Is it in a dark church with no ability to set up flashes and lighting?
Or is it going to be outdoors during daylight hours?

I suggest that you look at the photographer's portfolio, especially their recent work, and see if there is any evidence of producing good photographs under the conditions and location where the wedding is planned.

Ask to see one or two complete wedding photography books from weddings in situations similar to yours. The photographer may not be able to display them to you publicly at their website, but they should at least be able show you them in a face-to-face meeting. Compare the results of three or four photographers and pick your favorite.

One other important note is that $2,000 is not enough to even pay for the equipment depreciation and business expenses of a good photographer, let alone their need to pay for the expenses of staying alive. 5-6 hours of on the scene photography translates to at least 50-60 hours of work directly related to your wedding, and much more work that is indirectly related but equally important. Set your expectations quite low if $2,000 is all that you can afford.

If I worked 80 hours a week for 52 weeks out of the year, and spent $150,000 annually on running my business, I might be able to reach a level of productivity of 100 weddings per year, absolute maximum.

But even in this ideal scenario of the highest possible profitability and efficiency for the photographer, a price of $2000 for the wedding values the photographer's expert time, usually based on 30+ years of dedicated commitment to the trade, at only $10 an hour.

So just ask yourself if you want to entrust your wedding memories to someone whom you are paying an hourly rate of just 75 cents more than the "Fry Cook" position at McDonald's.


----------



## TeT (Oct 15, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Tabor Warren Photography said:
> 
> 
> > What gear will they shoot with?
> ...



You've never been to a wedding where it was handycam and powershots doing the image capturing... FYI: that was a paid gig...

Yes I know, just shake your head and make for the exit....


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 15, 2014)

TeT said:


> You've never been to a wedding where it was handycam and powershots doing the image capturing... FYI: that was a paid gig...
> 
> Yes I know, just shake your head and make for the exit....



Were the paying customers happy with the product? That's really all that matters.


----------



## LarryC (Oct 15, 2014)

The photographer and videographer for my stepdaughter's wedding two years ago cost ~$6K. She picked the photographer after interviewing 6 photography studios. She was shown a number of very impressive wedding sets by the photographer she ultimately went with. The resulting end product, however, was mediocre, at best - and I'm being polite. It turns out the photographer she interviewed was a junior photographer from the studio and what she was shown at the interview was photographs taken by the principle at the studio - NOT the photographer that was interviewed and showed up on the wedding day! 

I would make certain that the photographer you get is the photographer you interviewed and that the work you're shown is actually the work of the photographer who will do the job.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 16, 2014)

LarryC said:


> It turns out the photographer she interviewed was a junior photographer from the studio and what she was shown at the interview was photographs taken by the principle at the studio - NOT the photographer that was interviewed and showed up on the wedding day!



That stynks of bait and switch. 

For a photographer to mis-represent themselves like that is unprofessional. Being a professional is far more then just being paid...it is more about the ethics and behaviour.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 17, 2014)

I'd ask for several things:


A portfolio of work shot by that photographer (not the studio, as you've already noted)
An example video of someone's wedding, as shot by that photographer
A photograph of the photographer
A list of churches where the photographer has worked and who officiated
A list of typical equipment

The reason for the first and second items should be mostly obvious. You want to make sure that the photographer is competent, and make sure that the videography work matches the style that you expect. For example, some folks want a straight movie of the ceremony as-is, whereas others prefer more of a highly edited highlights reel with various musical additions in the background, ducked during the "I dos". Make sure you know what you'll be getting, and that it is what you're expecting.

The reason for the third and fourth items are so you can go talk to people at the church who were involved in previous weddings and ask them whether the photographer would be welcomed back, or whether the person was a nuisance.

The reason for the fifth item is so you can determine A. whether the photographer is likely just some kid with a rebel who got lucky with the photos on one shoot, and B. whether or not the photographer has the lenses needed to do an adequate job without getting in the way, based on the size of the church in question. If, for example, you're shooting in a cathedral, and the photographer shoots everything with a 50mm lens, you can safely assume that you won't get any usable shots during the ceremony unless the photographer *gets in the way* of the ceremony.

I would ask if the photographer does video. If not, ask whether there are any video crews that he or she has worked with successfully in the past (and/or unsuccessfully, so you know who to avoid). It is far better to have people who know each other and know how to stay out of each other's way, which is why (IMO) if you can find a *good* all-in-one shop, you're probably better off, even if that all-in-one shop subcontracts the video work to somebody else.

If you're trying to save money on the video work, you might ask if the photographer would be willing to provide you with the raw footage at a discount rather than editing it down into a final presentation. The ingestion and editing is a large chunk of the time invested in doing a wedding video, and if you're willing to do that hard work yourself, you could potentially save money that way, if the photographer is amenable to it. (Some do, some don't.)

And ask how many video cameras they use. Two is really the minimum, and I would recommend three, depending on location. Ask if they have remote control cameras or if they have to have a person physically manning each of them. This can impact where they can put cameras, and depending on the location, this can make a big difference in terms of what they can do without being disruptive. (With that said, you can often get away with static cameras, so lack of a RoboCam isn't necessarily a show-stopper.)

Another thing you might consider, if you're camera-savvy, is renting some decent video gear, setting it up ahead of time with fixed shots, starting it, and leaving it running. That won't give you quite as good a result as a professional videographer, but it would reduce the cost enormously. Remember to budget for a decent microphone, and be sure to check the levels during loud musical passages to ensure you aren't clipping. Or if you really don't care much about the video, you could do as some folks have occasionally suggested—mount a GoPro to the bride and groom and be done with it. 

Finally, beware of videographers named Sal DiPasquale.


----------



## Botts (Nov 17, 2014)

I would definitely ask your sister what she is most interested in from a photography perspective, before looking at portfolios.

My wife and I went through this exercise before choosing our photographer. We asked the following questions:

[list type=decimal]
[*]What photo are we going to print to share and remember our day with?
[*]What photos might friends and family be interested in?
[*]What photos have we seen that we don't like?
[*]We decided that we needed to own 100% of the copyright, and would do our own printing.
[/list]

When it came down to #1, we decided that formals were the most important for us. We figured we'd never print and hang a ceremony picture, but instead one of our formal shots.

For #2 we figured photos of the bridge & groom with each extended family unit would be appreciated, but further, we realized it would be a great opportunity for some relatives to find family photos.

#3 we determined that the current craze of shooting into the sun would be a fad and not stand the test of time. We prefer sharp photos, vs photos that have their contrast and detail crushed by shooting into the sun.

These three answers led us to judge portfolios, and ultimately photographers by how good they were at posing people in formals. You could be the best event photographer, and ceremony photographer in the world, but if you couldn't pose people for formals, you weren't the photographer for us.

We also looked for photographers who's style most closely matched ours. I.e. some shots into the light were acceptable, but if 50-75% + of a portfolio was shot into the sun, we vetoed the photographer. We focused on photographers with great formal shots. We also splurged on a second photographer to help get the family photos done. 

Post processing was another area we paid attention to, if you vignetted every photo, and/or took the clarity slider "to 11" so to speak, it wasn't an immediate no, but I made sure to ask if the photographer would mind if I asked for the RAWs of my favorite shots.

One thing we learned was that once you cross a certain point, for us in Alberta it was $2k, pricing no longer reflected portfolio quality. It was clear that those under $2k were at a lower level, but those over $2k while all good were all over the map in terms of portfolio quality to investment ratio. There were some for $4,500 that I felt both technically, and artistically couldn't compete with our photographer at $2,700.

A last comment: We did our photos with myself, my wife, bridal party, and our immediate families before our 3 pm ceremony, and scheduled 2.5 hours for them. It was a fantastic idea in hindsight. No one was rushed for photos, we got every single shot we wanted, and no one had to fill an awkward gap in the day where photos were happening. We did do another 45 minutes of shooting (aggregate) throughout the reception where we nailed down some extended family shots. Sure it ruined the "surprise moment" when I saw my wife in the ceremony, but we both felt it was more special when it was just the two of us who saw each other for the "first time" at our photo location. We also got to see each other before the ceremony and calm our nerves. Our wedding officiant strongly recommended that we meet before the ceremony to have a chat and calm nerves before regardless of photos.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 18, 2014)

Botts said:


> Our wedding officiant strongly recommended that we meet before the ceremony to have a chat and calm nerves before regardless of photos.



I think that is great advice. I wish we could get rid of this "bride and groom can't see each other before the event. Most likely the bride and goom have spent a lot of time together before the wedding


----------

