# Why Wedding Photographers’ Prices are “Wack”?



## cayenne (Dec 9, 2013)

I came across this article the other day...a lady was complaining about the high prices photographers charge for weddings, etc.

This was a very interesting article about the lady complaining, and a very well, logical, thought out response.

Give this a read and let me know what you think......

http://petapixel.com/2012/01/26/why-wedding-photographers-prices-are-wack/


cayenne


----------



## Hardwire (Dec 9, 2013)

I like this post.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 9, 2013)

She puts her hours at the wedding in perspective. The complaining woman is probably quite typical. They don't understand the pre and post work, equipment required and the cost of running a business. It is almost funny when she compares the cost for the bride's dress to the services of the photographer.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 9, 2013)

I appreciate the sentiments in the reply, but it is angry and whiny. 

Nothing in the explanation of the price would convince any bride to buy the photographer's services at any price.

Why even reply to a craigslist crank? 

Think of dining out. You can find a fast food restaurant or splurge on a gourmet dining experience. You will never convince a customer who can get a fried fish sandwich for $2 that it is worth paying $40 for a platter of fresh stone crabs--if all they want to pay for a meal is $2.

We could consider the food at the wedding too. Why not "cater" from a fried chicken drive-through or McD for your daughter's wedding? 

As photographers, we understand quality costs, but we have to be oh-so subtle with the soft-sell when somebody is truly pinching pennies for an event they'd love to splurge on.

If a wedding is a truly precious day to be documented with the best quality images affordable, with drama, grace, and beauty shining from every shot that makes the final cut, then a fair price can be worked out. Don't worry about the customers who want a $2 fish sandwich!

If cheap and quick is what a prospective client wants, don't get angry, don't preach, don't ask for pity because it costs a lot to run the business. Direct them to somebody else and move on.

Name any business in America that doesn't face crazy costs. Photography is labor intensive and the equipment costs a lot, but at least we don't have to buy and throw away expensive seafood and beef on a daily basis, as fine restaurants do. (Even the best inventory control can't stop 100% of waste; waste is built into the expense of running a good restaurant.)

What the photographer says in the reply is all true, and we can complain over beer to each other, but you'd be a fool to show this reply to the next client who questions price. My point is, complaining about how much it costs to run our businesses is not good salesmanship.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 9, 2013)

And that gets the the crux of the problem. Out of 365 days in a year, according to the article most of the revenue is generated by 20 events over 4 months, most likely on weekends. A full time employee is spreading 2000 hours over 250 days. The consumer will see that it is costing him 6% of his salary or 3 weeks of work (assuming 50k/year not even acounting for taxes) or maybe 10% or 5 weeks of work including taxes for 1 day's worth of shooting for the photographer and a few days of processing. The consumes see little to no value in the weblogging, mentoring, advertising and other aspects of what the linked photographer claims he does because it does not affect his finished product.

Trying to make a living off seasonal jobs is hard. Some find other lines of work during the "off-season". For full-time photographers, all that income needs to sustain them for the year, which is why they are vulnerable to those that do it on the side (i.e. weekend job) and can charge less. Those that excel in quality that the customer recognizes can and do charge more, but it is much harder for those whose work do not stand out.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 9, 2013)

YuengLinger said:


> ...
> 
> If a wedding is a truly precious day to be documented with the best quality images affordable, with drama, grace, and beauty shining from every shot that makes the final cut, then a fair price can be worked out. Don't worry about the customers who want a $2 fish sandwich!
> 
> ...



Don't disagree with what you wrote, but photographers are not the first things on the list for prospective brides and grooms. Typically, the venue, accomodations and food are. Unfortunately, those are the largest ticket items and have already caused the clients to spend more than they want (i.e. What do you mean I can't afford a typical 25k wedding on a budget of 10k?). At this point, a lot of them are trying to squeeze blood from rocks.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 9, 2013)

Exactly, Random Orbits. Customers aren't paying to support a photographer, they are paying for value. If you can't sell the value of the images as keepsakes that both document and dramatize the great day, it doesn't matter how good your work is.

With all the good photographers around, the ones that can connect with the client and sell can keep afloat.

"You seem expensive. Why should I choose you?"

"Because I have to spend so much on gear and insurance."

Really?

As for the total price of a wedding, today's economy sucks no matter how positive our thinking. The pool of customers is smaller. The ones doing great in the stock market and elsewhere are going to choose the best photographers with the best people skills. Period. It sucks, but it's the water we are swimming in right now.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Dec 9, 2013)

Wedding pictures is nothing you need like a hospital or a flat/house.
So take the price or leave it.
It has a reason why good wedding fotographers cost that money.

My 2€- cents.


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 9, 2013)

Hi Folks.
Wow, she wrote all that and then put her business details at the end so everyone knew who to avoid!
Not suggesting she is wrong about why she needs to charge this much, but I think this is the sort of thing you keep to yourself and sell your strengths.

Cheers Graham.


----------



## Grumbaki (Dec 10, 2013)

I'm not a pro photog and I'm an @ss when it comes to negociating.

For all it worth, my stance on that whole stuff would be to direct them to a craiglist 150$ soccer mum with a SL1 on auto. Once enough poeple cry over crappy pictures or find themselves on http://youarenotaphotographer.com/ the market will settle.

That or get them to read Stiglitz's work on asymetric market markets. The former might be easier.


----------



## Radiating (Dec 10, 2013)

I love how 99% of the replies in the comments bickered about the specific prices she listed as being off by 20% 30% or whatever. And otherwise mentioned that photographers are being replaced by amateurs and photographers are just complaining.

I think a large part of what is missing in this argument is the skill photography takes.

If anything photographers are under paid, it's been studied and shown that it takes around 10,000 hours to be good at a skill and with photography it's no different. Even being paid at minimum wage, a highly skilled wedding photographer with 7 years experience, and 10,000 hours of practice on their free time in that time frame would add around $1,000 to each wedding just to reimburse them for building their skill set if spread over all those years, and even without that most photographers barley make ends meat due to overhead.

Skill isn't worthless, and if you think it is, then I encourage you to walk through a war zone with your uncle bill watching your back with an M16 and see how comfortable you are with the idea that equipment is all that's important. Oh that's right, you'd soil yourself 10 times over and beg for someone with military training or a special forces escort. 

When I was initially learning photography my rate of creating truly stunning photos was maybe 1:5,000. After years of effort I was able to move that to 1:500 and then 1:250. When I switched to shallow depth of field lenses things got even harder, and I moved to 1:500 again. Then with more practice I got to 1:150. Adding in more and more complexity and more challenging and expensive equipment moved the rate at which I created good results down further and more practice brought it up. Finally after years and years of even more effort I can make a stunning photo about 1 out of ever 40 times I push the shutter button.

Your uncle bill with more money than skill makes really good photos every five thousand times he presses the shutter button. A pro makes good photos every 50 times or less. If you want to pay 100 friends and relatives $200 to shoot your wedding, go ahead. It will cost $20,000. Or for a low low price, I will do it for $4,000, and you'll get the exact same number of good photos.

On the back end it's also worth mentioning editing. I started out as a photo editor doing work for major magazine and gravitated gradually to photography. Every keeper I take results in 20 minutes of editing. For a 4 hour wedding I would spend 120 hours editing photos. That's another $1000 at minimum wage. Editing is the single greatest difference maker when it comes to photos. 

Example:





















In any case it doesn't take someone "just a day" to shoot a wedding. A dedicated wedding photographer will spend that entire week editing those photos. The effective pay rate for a $3,000 wedding shoot is $37 per hour. For seasonal highly skilled traveling work that supplies it's own very expensive tools and maintains all it's overhead. That is a very reasonable price.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 10, 2013)

cayenne said:


> I came across this article the other day...a lady was complaining about the high prices photographers charge for weddings, etc.
> 
> This was a very interesting article about the lady complaining, and a very well, logical, thought out response.
> 
> ...


Interesting read ... both sides have a point from their own perspectives ... but if one is going to get married and spend $hit loads of money on food, drinks and whatnot which hardly lasts for a few hours, I see no reason why they cannot spend $3000 for life time of memories ... if one cannot afford a $3000 photographer, hire someone who charges less ... there are plenty of people who charge less and you get what you pay for, such is life in any field. A bus and a taxi both take you from place A to place B, but one cannot crib that the taxi is charging more.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 10, 2013)

Thanks for reminding me why I never wanted to do wedding photography.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 11, 2013)

YuengLinger said:


> Why should I choose you?"



That is the question every "professional" photographer needs to ask themselves. There are no shortages of "professional" photographers out there. I know that I want a "good" photographer, but why would I choose you?

If the photographer can't immediately, completly, and measurably answer this question to themselves, the potential customer probably can't/won't. 

Professional photographers need to put themselves in the position of the customer. A photography customer does not care about the photographer's education, experience, time invested, equipment, overhead, taxes, etc. What the customer cares about is the results -- "what will I get for my money?"

This is what makes marketing photography so difficult. And why anyone who wants to make their living soley from wedding photography needs serious professional help.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 11, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Thanks for reminding me why I never wanted to do wedding photography.



And exactly why I would never do it today under any circumstances. It was much easier and simpler 40 years ago!

One thing I'll add to this discussion is something I often tell people -- When the house is burning down, people are saving their pictures. They're not looking around for the wedding day dress or the bronzed baby shoes or the college diploma. The pictures are what hold the powerful memories of our lives, and under all the talk, we all realize this.


----------



## Botts (Dec 11, 2013)

I have read that article before, it was a good read.

I would like to attempt to do a study on wedding photography price regionally. Here in Edmonton, AB it seems that $2,750 is about where pricing starts for a photographer who has IMO a quality portfolio. The median income in Edmonton is $56,338 annually. The average price for a single family detached home is $376k, and the average condo is $222k.

It would be interesting to determine how much of an impact the external labor and housing markets have on photography pricing.


----------



## RobertP (Dec 11, 2013)

My brother and I both got married about 20 years ago before the internet or digital photography had been invented. He hired a professional photographer who probably used a Nikon or Canon. I had less money so my father and I shared the photographic duties using a Praktica BC-1.

My wedding pictures are more memorable and technically better than my brother's. You don't always get what you pay for.

Don't tell me how much your equipment cost or how many year's experience you have. If you want $4000 then show me pictures I'd pay $4000 to own.

And don't complain about people who want $400 photos. That's like Rolls Royce whinging about people who want Toyotas. There are lots of price points in the market. If a customer isn't offering what you're worth then politely decline. Don't waste your breath arguing unless you think you can upsell them.


----------



## Botts (Dec 11, 2013)

RobertP said:


> My brother and I both got married about 20 years ago before the internet or digital photography had been invented. He hired a professional photographer who probably used a Nikon or Canon. I had less money so my father and I shared the photographic duties using a Praktica BC-1.
> 
> My wedding pictures are more memorable and technically better than my brother's. You don't always get what you pay for.
> 
> ...



Exactly. Never hesitate to ask a photographer for a bigger example of their portfolio.

If he's got 8 photos online as his portfolio, you don't know if those are the only good 8 photos he's taken, or the best 8 photos of hundreds. 

Find a photographer with a good body of work, that is in your style, in your price range.


----------



## surapon (Dec 12, 2013)

Dear Friends.
Let me share my sister story :
We, Live in North Carolina, And my Sister's Daughter Live and work as Doctor in Tucson, Arz, And she get Marry with her DR. friend in Tucson---My Sister's and my Brother in law Hire the Local Photographer in his City, NC. for two day( 1 day for rehursal, and 1 day and night for marry day), Fly to Tucson. Yes He go with one Light support girl, His Fee = $ 11,000 US Dollar, Plus Airplane ticket for 2 seats, two nights at the Hotel, and all meals in that two days---The Big Plus = All the cost of Prints and BOOKs that my sister want. Yes, After the wedding day = 3 months, My sister family get to see the Photos = 400 Photos on hie web site, and My sister start to order the Photos---Yes, After 6 Months of the wedding day, My sister get the Photos, But not the Book of wedding= That another 6 more months--------Ha, Ha, Ha, When my sister call the Photographer, He tell her that, The Great Photos must use a lot of Times to make the Best, Like the Great Foods, Must have a slow cook, until the perfected Taste.
Yes, That why he not get more job form my Sister.
Surapon

PS. Yes, All of my family tell me that, DO NOT BRING MY BIG CAMERAS AND BIG LENSES-----Ha, Ha, Ha, I just bring Pocket camera Olympus 12 MP ( $ 150 US Dollars , 2003) and my Cheap $ 29 US Dollars Cell Phone that have 1.5 MP camera---And Shoot the wedding photos that My sister love .


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 12, 2013)

surapon said:


> Dear Friends.
> Let me share my sister story :
> We, Live in North Carolina, And my Sister's Daughter Live and work as Doctor in Tucson, Arz, And she get Marry with her DR. friend in Tucson---My Sister's and my Brother in law Hire the Local Photographer in his City, NC. for two day( 1 day for rehursal, and 1 day and night for marry day), Fly to Tucson. Yes He go with one Light support girl, His Fee = $ 11,000 US Dollar, Plus Airplane ticket for 2 seats, two nights at the Hotel, and all meals in that two days---The Big Plus = All the cost of Prints and BOOKs that my sister want. Yes, After the wedding day = 3 months, My sister family get to see the Photos = 400 Photos on hie web site, and My sister start to order the Photos---Yes, After 6 Months of the wedding day, My sister get the Photos, But not the Book of wedding= That another 6 more months--------Ha, Ha, Ha, When my sister call the Photographer, He tell her that, The Great Photos must use a lot of Times to make the Best, Like the Great Foods, Must have a slow cook, until the perfected Taste.
> Yes, That why he not get more job form my Sister.
> Surapon


Oh my God! 6 months? and $11000? that's just crazy.
By the way, in Canon Rumors, when you say "Marry with her *DR*" you are going to give the wrong impression ... the hard core DR supporters might think you are talking about Dynamic Range in Sony/Nikon sensors ;D ... come to think of it, I hear the word "Wack" (of this thread title) means something else to the Italians ;D


----------



## surapon (Dec 12, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Friends.
> ...




Ha, Ha, Ha dear Friend Rienz---You make my day DR. = DYNAMIC RANGE.

" I hear the word "Wack" (of this thread title) means something else to the Italians " = ???
Have a great FUN day.
Surapon


----------



## vjlex (Dec 24, 2013)

RobertP said:


> There are lots of price points in the market. If a customer isn't offering what you're worth then politely decline.



I think that's mostly where I stand on this discussion. I'm no Professional Wedding Photographer. I'm the guy that friends want to ask to shoot their weddings (usually for free). While at my current skill level I would never dream of charging $3000 for a wedding, I think "free" for anyone not joined to me at the hip would be grossly underselling myself (and very presumptuous). Don't get me wrong, I have shot several of my friends weddings for "free" (and to gain experience), but in general, I've always felt that they got the better end of the deal.

I can see and agree with both sides. Customers want the best value. Photographers want fair compensation for their work... and for most, their work doesn't end after the dancing stops, the lights go out, and the decorations come down. 

Lately, I've been declining to shoot as the sole or main photographer at friends' weddings. I don't want the pressure- I just want to enjoy the day like a regular guest. Of the probably 10 weddings I've shot, only one I can think of has ever paid me for it.

As a photographer who knows that some good photos are luck, but consistent good photos are skill, I tend to side with the photographer charging what they believe their skill is worth. If the customer doesn't believe you're worth your price tag, I'm sure there are plenty suckers like me (friends, relatives, etc) that will shoot for "experience." In some cases it's legit to complain about the prices photographers charge, but in most cases, it's best to just find someone that fits your price point for the quality you're willing to accept.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 24, 2013)

This site makes me feel smugly adequate in my own photography work!



Grumbaki said:


> I'm not a pro photog and I'm an @ss when it comes to negociating.
> 
> For all it worth, my stance on that whole stuff would be to direct them to a craiglist 150$ soccer mum with a SL1 on auto. Once enough poeple cry over crappy pictures or find themselves on http://youarenotaphotographer.com/ the market will settle.
> 
> That or get them to read Stiglitz's work on asymetric market markets. The former might be easier.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 24, 2013)

Man, the US is insane for photography costs in general! 
Here in Japan I'd be lucky to get over $500 worth of pay... and by that price there are photography business monopolies that do everything everywhere, most people aren't even aware of "freelance photographers", and these companies can be cheap for events. But most people don't understand what they're getting, the cheaper they go the less quality they get, naturally. The largest sum I know a photographer has charged and received for a major wedding was about $2000 and most think that's insane. So average starting prices of $2,750 over there in the US is wow.
I once was negotiating a shoot with a couple and they agreed to what I had to offer, they contacted me a while later and told me that they decided I was too expensive, so I said I could drop down to below $500, they said still that was too expensive, and that they found a "professional" who would shoot all day for far less, I couldn't believe them but they signed up with that guy before I could negotiate some more... a Pro is a PRO, and anyone with a good camera should be good at what they do. Portfolios??? No one seems to care, and I think I saw some of the photos from that couple's wedding and they didn't look good at all...

Though, most of the time a wedding just takes place in a chapel or small place, rarely does it become a large scale deal or be planned out in any unique/interesting way with themes and stuff, usually simple reception with simple photos


----------



## Twostones (Dec 24, 2013)

I think anyone who has shot a wedding will agree it is more difficult than most people imagine. I shot free pictures at a wedding for a friend because they could never afford a pro. That experience humbled me. A good Professional wedding photographer has a wealth of knowledge and experience in the art or they would be out of business. It takes time and considerable effort to produce great wedding photography even if you have the equipment and know how to use it. My hat is tipped to those that have the art mastered.


----------



## PhotographAdventure (Dec 24, 2013)

Not sure if I read the article correctly, but it seems she wrote that she pays taxes then lists all these business expenses coming out of her take home net pay. Really should be the other way around.


----------



## Efka76 (Dec 24, 2013)

Dear colleagues,

in original article I see many many conceptual mistakes. Let me explain:

1) Photographer expects to shoot 20 weddings a year and live from that income the whole year. This is conceptually wrong. Even if you shoot 4 weddings per month and remaining time use for retouching photos you will spend maximum 5 months for that work. To spend 7 remaining months for marketing is too much luxury.
2) Equipment (camera / lens/etc.) costs should be depreciated during their useful life. 2 cameras - during 4 years, lenses - maybe during 6-8 years. If you shoot 20 weddings per year, your equipment should even last longer. Of course, here we might have moral depreciation issue, however, many wedding photographers still using their Canon 5DMKII and do not see any problem in that area 
3) House, electricity, insurance, car costs calculated for the whole year. Which is wrong. One of the main accounting rule is that you have to match income and costs for the same periods. Accordingly expenses, that are attributable to that 5 montsh would be significant smaller.
4) Also, she attributes the whole house rent expenses instead of attributing small portion (garage rent costs) to business expenses.

In summary, she needs to do other activities / work during remaining 7 months in order to have sustainable income for the living. Not long ago I saw very good workshop "How to become 10k wedding photographer". Lecturer was prominent photog who makes 10k per wedding and he showed rough calculations which very clearly indicated that he needs to do a lot of other activities (he is doing photog workshops and lessons) in order to keep earn sufficient income for his living. In summary, it is very hard to live from photography only. You caan be successful photographer if you have another profession and photography is your serious hobby. In case you earn something from photography everything counts to profit  In my case I would be very have if my income from photography matches my equipment costs 

Also, I would like to respond to comment who says that you need 10,000 hours to become really a pro. In such case you have to spend almost 5 full years (working 8 h a day, 22 days a month) learning photography secrets. I disagree with this statements as:

a) If you are really interested it is very easy to get technical knowledge that relates to equipment, how it operates, what are main principles of photography. There are many on-line and other course which lets you understand these aspects. For me it took maximum few months (during my free time from my main work as BIG 4 Audit director). Of course, I can not compare myself to such experts as Neuro or few others, however, my current technical knowledge is fully sufficient for photography.
b) Composition, lightning, ability to see that light. In order to master these things you need practice and tutor. I saw many cases when people became prominent photographers (especially wedding pros) after 2-3 seasons (they also have other full time jobs).
c) Photoshop - in my opinion, if you are seriously interested in retouching 2-3 months are more that sufficent to master that skills to acceptable level (for wedding photographers).


USD 3,000 / per wedding price is too high. Clients are not interested in your experience, equipment, lighting equipment, insurance. They want to buy specific product - wedding photos. Nobody cares about your expenses. If someone is doing wedding photography during weekends, has a good equipment and required skills he / she is able to make wedding photos much cheaper. 

Surapon, I was very surprised that your sister paid USD 11,000 for wedding (not including indirect photog costs) and had to wait for such a long time. It seems that person is not a professional as real professional demonstrates professionalism in all aspects (communication with client, timely delivery of high quality results, significatly assissting in preparation for weddig ceremony). In my opinion, your sister significantly overpaid for taht services.


----------



## LewisShermer (Dec 24, 2013)

It's difficult to know what to charge or what you're worth for weddings if that's not your main source of income. I have a steady job where I run a photography studio and shoot mainly product for advertising in magazines, on the internet and billboards. after being asked to do a wedding for a friend as they couldn't afford a proper wedding photographer I kinda just fell into it. I do maybe 1 a month on average and I'm taking bookings now a year or 2 in advance based on my portfolio, I'm still only charging £400 (I've recently put my prices as £800 on my website but obviously that's up for negotiation with regards to who it is, how I know them and who has referred them). I don't advertise as I probably couldn't handle the workload if I were shooting more than 1 a month (not that I'm arrogant enough to think that people would use me if they didn't know me).

How would one go about assessing their own worth as a photographer?


----------



## Efka76 (Dec 24, 2013)

I think that is relatively easy to estimate you worth as you are going to charge the market rates. In US that would be around USD 3,000. In Lithuania - EUR 1,000, in UK - ? If you are very prominent and known photographer you might charge USD 10,000 in US, EUR 3000 - in Lithuania. If you charge your price and have many orders, you increase your price until you have a number of orders that you can fulfill


----------



## LewisShermer (Dec 24, 2013)

Artistically speaking, rather than mathmatically


----------



## gbchriste (Dec 24, 2013)

While the reply letter is probably personally satisfying, it is irrelevant. She is trying to equate cost with price. While they are related, they are not the same thing. Cost is the amount of money and and time it takes a vendor to create and deliver a product or service. Price is the amount of money a customer must spend to acquire that product or service. The only required relationship between those two is that over the long term course of business, prices must exceed cost if you want to stay in business.

But once that requirement is met, there is absolutely no obligation for price to be related to cost - i.e. just because it costs me $1.00 to build a widget, there is no obligation on my part to sell it for $1.10. If my widget is something that revolutionizes the planet and the lives of the people on it, and everyone on planet Earth wants one, I'd be insane not to sell it for $100 if that's what people are willing to pay.

Because at the point of sale, the only real attribute that matters is the perceived value the customer places in your product or service. When someone complains, "Why should I pay X when it only costs Y to build?", what they are really saying is, "I don't think that thing is worth X." 

What the complaining bride is really saying is she just doesn't think wedding photography is worth $3,000. In the same way, if you went to a car dealership and complained about the price of the model you wanted to buy, you wouldn't get a lecture from the salesman about how much it cost to build the car, ship the car, insure the car while it's on the lot, cover his commission, etc. He's try to sell you on the "value" of the car - the smoothness and quietness of the ride, the collision safety, the reliability, maybe even the status associated with the driving that model.

At which point, one of two things will happen. If he sells you on those values and you have the money, you'll buy the car. But if he doesn't sell you on those values, you won't buy it, even if you have the money. Because you don't think those values are worth the price. At which point he'll steer you over the corner of the lot with the clown cars on it.

If a prospective customer balks or complains about your prices, you have one of three choices:
1) Successfully sell them on the value of your product
2) Lower your price to match their value expectations
3) Redirect them somewhere else where they can buy at a price that matches their value expectations

Having said all that, I have a sneaking suspicion that the bride wasn't really complaining about supposedly overpriced $3,000 wedding photographers. She claims she can find someone who will do the job for $400. Fine. Why then isn't she just shutting her trap and hiring the $400 photographer. The answer seems obvious. She's looked a the work of the $400 and $3000 photographers, respectively. She realizes by any measure of evaluation that the $3000 photographer is infinitely better and will deliver a vastly superior product. She WANTS the photos created by the $3000 photographer. The $400 photographer? Not so much. So what she's really pissed about is the fact that the guy whose work is clearly superior but costs a lot more won't lower his prices to meet those of the guy she knows whose photos are going to suck but is charging what she is willing to pay.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 24, 2013)

What you are paying for is pictures. You do not have the option to go back and take them over again. It is the ability to get it right the first time that rises the price above Bubba and his iPhone....


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 24, 2013)

I think at the core of the counter argument in that two-year old craigslist rant lies why few photographers make a decent living if they're trying to go full time. And why so many then do stuff that they probably never signed up for (I personally have no interests in shooting weddings).

What do I mean? It's really an economic argument. The photographer who responded to the cranky bride makes a classic mistake: argue with cost. The thing is, cost is completely irrelevant for the value you're selling. It's only relevant for your own book keeping and as a market entry barrier (or lack thereof really in photography).
Anyone, in any line of business who is calculating their prices as a function of their cost will not be doing well most likely. Not always a popular viewpoint where many folks still remember the good-old-cost-plus-markup.

I could go on and on about it and draw some parallels with the problems in my main line of work in the healthcare sector. But that usually gets me in trouble ;-)

Just some food for thought.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 24, 2013)

Efka76 said:


> USD 3,000 / per wedding price is too high. Clients are not interested in your experience, equipment, lighting equipment, insurance. They want to buy specific product - wedding photos. Nobody cares about your expenses. If someone is doing wedding photography during weekends, has a good equipment and required skills he / she is able to make wedding photos much cheaper.



Not knowing a few key variables, but with a reasonable assumption and some easy math...

Lots of so-called "professionals" are near the $100.00/hr rate for their services. Some are considerably more.

So, $3,000.00 USD gets you 30 man-hours of time at the hypothetical $100.00/hr.

Seems to me, from the outside looking in, that it would be fairly easy to rack up 30 man-hours of time on a wedding job. Easier (faster) if you have paid assistants (8 hour day can equal 12-16 man-hours for 2 people, depending on the billing rate). Remember, you have to track and account for all time spent for that one job: Initial consultation, site preview, the event itself, proofs, more client conversations, delivery (those are just off the top of my head). 

Depending on what you really want or need to make per hour, there is some latitude. It always comes down to some sort of hourly rate.

Then the other stuff like mileage and equipment depreciation, supplies and so forth comes out of that hypothetical hourly rate.

So, just from a business perspective, there is justification for the price. Value and selling those services to paying clients are completely separate entities.

I bet if the $500.00/event photographers figured out what they were making per hour after lugging several thousand dollars of equipment around, many would be very disappointed.


----------



## emag (Dec 24, 2013)

I checked out her website. I was underwhelmed.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Dec 24, 2013)

I cannot speak for markets in other countries, as I don't shoot there and have not run a business there. But as for the US, it is apparent many of you really don't have much business background. You don't figure out how much you charge for weddings based on what you think of your product, or even what you think others are willing to pay. If you are actually in the business, whether part time or full time, you simply do the math to figure out how much it takes for you to do business, including what you expect to be personally compensated annually, and charge per number of weddings/portrait session/other shoot mix. When someone does the math, they'll quickly figure out that charging less than about $3k (Charleston, SC local market) average per wedding is a losing business proposition in the long run. And that's for a wedding without assistants or second photographers. 

Only when you know that break even amount will you be able to answer the question of whether you can or should charge what your services should cost. Hopefully, the "worth" of your product in the marketplace meets or exceeds the amount you need to charge to be a sustainable business. If that answer is no, then you should not be in business. The correct answer is NOT to lower your rates to what you think you can get away with. If you've done the math, you'll know why and won't sabotage your dream without good reason and a solid plan to mitigate the shortfalls. 

As a businessman and program manager in my regular job, I am very familiar with the actual costs of doing business. When I take that knowledge to my full-time photographer friends and look at what they are doing, I'm amazed they manage to stay in business. Many don't. They don't charge enough, and are always robbing peter to pay paul in their personal finances. 

It's a worn out argument, but the trajectory of this thread demonstrates why so many photography businesses fail.


----------



## colvinatch (Dec 24, 2013)

The title should read "Why GOOD Wedding Photographers' Prices are Wack" I book about a dozen or so weddings a year and my portfolio is as good as anyone else's out there (been shooting for 40 years, so if I can't take a good wedding pict by now I'm never going to!). If a perspective client doesn't like my prices I encourage them to shop around, they usually come back after a week or two and book my services, if they don't then they can shoot their own wedding with an iPhone and hope that they get decent results! The market (for really good photos) drives the price. Like everything else, you get what you pay for.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 24, 2013)

I see a number of good responses here and many mention thoughts that have crossed my mind over the years.

I am curious as to why so many people seem to feel qualified to decide what a person in ANY trade should earn.

I have been fortunate to make a full time income that is at the upper end for our industry. I avoid weddings like the plague specifically because the clientele are emotional, delusional (at times) and believe that I should earn 10% less than a gardener.
I choose clients who will not freak out by my pricing thus I do not do retail photography. Everyone has scissors yet few cut their own hair. Those that do, look the part and would never go to a professional.

The attraction for so many to do wedding photography is that it appears easy, fun and lucrative. Anyone who has shot one ( I shot many as a younger man) knows that it is demanding, time sensitive, and long with lots of off event work. Digital has made even the most casual snapper somewhat unimpressed with those who make a living doing it. 

My nephew asked me the other day why anyone would pay me to take pictures and my answer was " I take pictures for people who will get fired if they don't show their boss a good photo". "If you knew you would lose your job for bad pictures would you hire someone who had always made your boss happy or would you use your phone?".

The DIY mentality rampant in the digital world means that if you do get hired, many clients believe that the fee should be roughly the amount to offset the inconvenience in your day.


----------



## bigmag13 (Dec 24, 2013)

first, I want to say that I am happy so many ppl replied to this topic. It gives balance to my idea of what I should charge. I am VERY new to selling wedding photography and all the ideas about what to charge clients helps me to delivery what should be a fair price at the sit down. I remember seeing the VERY article the OP used to spark this lil hootin'nanny. I actually wrote a similar post that had way less ranting to my photo bizs' FB page ( something inside told me not to post to my actual website such an article). 

A lot goes into this art we all love so much... time, money, sweat and pain to name a few. Even though I agree with most of the opinions that disagree with the articles rantiness I disagree way more with the posters who think 3000 US is too much.

For my own wedding my wife and I had a chance to hire Ken Sklute of AZ ( the Canon explorer of light Ken Sklute) as he was going to be in town to do my wife's colleagues wedding. The price he gave us then was 3500 US. I learned that this was discounted from his usual fee because I think 
1. He was going to be in NY anyway and 
2. He knew how much of an avid Photography student I was, how I knew of him and how much I admired his body of work( I like to think this anyway, lol). 

We had already budgeted to have him shoot our wedding when my wife all of a sudden wanted video as well as photos. The event company mention to her a studio that did both video and photos. She asked that we at least take a look and we did. they were charging the same for stills and 1000US for video. We went over to their studio and my Wife and I were BLOWN AWAY by the images they had on their website and hanging all over their walls. they seemed like a very capable and fun company to hire. Further thinking I should put the cork on my wallet at this point I asked this studio if they would just give me the Images so that I could create my own album and save some money. I asked for the RAW files, they said NO PROBLEM. after all was said and done we found out the hard way that they [email protected]*king Sucked!!!! 
first off the photog tells me the day of that he only shoots jpegs. Then I saw that they shot the most grainy high iso no WB photos I have seen in a long time! We were lucky to salvage two family group shots and 3 B&G pics to hang on the wall. they took 9 months to return video and that was decent to their credit. 

Bottom line is that, who is anyone to say how much is TOO MUCH? If a persons work is worth it it's worth it. There are plenty of $500 wedding photographers out there. " Good luck with that" is what I say to potential clients who bring it up. for all of the time I spend making sure the job is top notch I have to charge accordingly. 
This is something that sticks with me because my wife and I got had by a looser who probably used someone Else's images to display. So I will NEVER for the life of me give back bad work to a client, and that just costs what it costs.


----------



## gfoulk (Dec 24, 2013)

PhotographAdventure said:


> Not sure if I read the article correctly, but it seems she wrote that she pays taxes then lists all these business expenses coming out of her take home net pay. Really should be the other way around.



Yeah, that bothered me too. Shows that despite couching her entire argument on cost (which, as an aside, I think is a mistake) she doesn't understand how costs actually work.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 24, 2013)

While I would never subject myself to a fate of wedding photography, I do recognize the value in a good wedding photographer. I have several friends that do it as their primary source of income and I know that it is no easy task. It is quite involved and painful to say the least.

However, while many wedding photographers that charge in the 3k and up range do great work, there are just as many (if not more) that do not. I suppose my point is that on the other end of it, merely paying that much doesn't always get you what that amount of money rates either. 

The two most experienced wedding photogs I know make roughly 4-6k/wedding here in California and they seldom have issues with people being unwilling to cough that up. The reason for that? The work that they do is consistently great and they produce many images that don't look like ones you see all the time. So IMO, if you truly have a portfolio that is amazing, you will be separated from the ocean of mediocre-average photogs and easily earn your stated price. And if you are not able to separate yourself in that way, then I don't know what to tell you. But crying about how $500 wedding photographers are making things hard for you is not going to fix your problems.

As a sidenote, Lightroom and other similar software has certainly made post production much more streamlined. Generally speaking, my buddies are going through a couple thousand images per wedding and finishing up with no more than 8-12 hours processing time thanks to LR and things like VSCO. Not that I do weddings, but recent events I've done have yielded anywhere between 150-300 keepers each. PP on those jobs were around 3-4 hours max per. So IMO, as far as the post processing portion of post production goes, it doesn't have to be as time consuming or laborious as some make it out to be.


----------



## WPJ (Dec 25, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> While the reply letter is probably personally satisfying, it is irrelevant. She is trying to equate cost with price. While they are related, they are not the same thing. Cost is the amount of money and and time it takes a vendor to create and deliver a product or service. Price is the amount of money a customer must spend to acquire that product or service. The only required relationship between those two is that over the long term course of business, prices must exceed cost if you want to stay in business.
> 
> But once that requirement is met, there is absolutely no obligation for price to be related to cost - i.e. just because it costs me $1.00 to build a widget, there is no obligation on my part to sell it for $1.10. If my widget is something that revolutionizes the planet and the lives of the people on it, and everyone on planet Earth wants one, I'd be insane not to sell it for $100 if that's what people are willing to pay.
> 
> ...



I think you hit the head if the nail on that one

.hahaha


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 25, 2013)

Photography is a cottage industry, and a popular one at that (it wouldn't be one of my hobbies if it weren't). Anyone with enough spare money can pick it up and the best career a person can hope for is to become a small time celebrity. I think $3,000 is too much given how specialized the job actually is. If people are willing to pay the prices though, who am I to argue. Having someone you can be confident isn't going to seriously screw up the critical moments does sound like it would be worth extra, but after reading this thread it sounds like I would have to see how the guy works at every step to figure out if he actually walks the talk.
I have enough relatives with experience in this kind of thing that I will probably just put the money into a few nice lenses and hand the cameras over. Honestly at this point I'd rather edit the photos myself anyway.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 25, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Photography is a cottage industry, and a popular one at that (it wouldn't be one of my hobbies if it weren't). Anyone with enough spare money can pick it up and the best career a person can hope for is to become a small time celebrity. I think $3,000 is too much given how specialized the job actually is. If people are willing to pay the prices though, who am I to argue. Having someone you can be confident isn't going to seriously screw up the critical moments does sound like it would be worth extra, but after reading this thread it sounds like I would have to see how the guy works at every step to figure out if he actually walks the talk.
> I have enough relatives with experience in this kind of thing that I will probably just put the money into a few nice lenses and hand the cameras over. Honestly at this point I'd rather edit the photos myself anyway.



It must also be said that we, the forum members, are not very representative of the general public. A glance at the image forums or at the technical forums will show a degree of skill and technical knowledge that is beyond the scope of the average consumer. Many of us have shot weddings and many more have the skill to do so, so for us, we might be better off doing it ourselves, but for the average Joe this path leads to disaster.

We know that you can spend more time processing a picture than taking it.... We know to watch out for what is in the background.... After a while it becomes automatic.... But the average Joe does not.... and if they don't know something exists how can you expect them to understand why they have to pay for it....


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 25, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> It must also be said that we, the forum members, are not very representative of the general public. A glance at the image forums or at the technical forums will show a degree of skill and technical knowledge that is beyond the scope of the average consumer.




I think this is a key point that's been overlooked: this forum is not representative of the clientele. Client expectations for photography are as varied as their food preferences: some just want meat and potatoes (large portions) and wash it down with PBR, while others prefer gourmet with a properly-paired wine. Some clients just want a record of the day, with image quality that's consistently better than smartphones, and do not want to burden their guests with the obligation to take the photos. Other clients want their photos to be worthy of Vogue.

And here's where money comes in: with modern photo gear, there are many people who can learn to do meat-and-potatoes wedding photography, and there's nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, if a bride has spent $20k+ on a dress, and $100k for the overall wedding (possibly more if it's a destination event), why would she not choose a photographer who will take Vogue-quality photos? A meat-and-potatoes photographer had better have a day job, because she/he is not going to make a living at $300-$500 per event. A high-end photographer, on the other hand, will have the best gear, hire competent assistants, and study the craft as a full-time occupation.

Talking about the cost of "a wedding photographer" is just as unhelpful as talking about the cost of "food" .... is it beluga caviar or a bag of beef jerky?


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Dec 25, 2013)

@ orangutan: food is necessary, but not a wedding fotographer.
If some pay 3k or 11k (hello dear Mr. Suprapon!), so there will be some who take that.

If you not willing to pay so much, so what?

I never took more than €1000, but this was years ago.

Another observation: as strange it may sound: if you take less, youre work is less appriciated.

Merry X- mas from Austria!


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 26, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> Another observation: as strange it may sound: if you take less, youre work is less appriciated.



This. Psychologically speaking, there's a natural assumption that quality costs, and although some folks may appreciate finding the exception to that rule, most people will assume that the higher-priced shop will do the best work. Therefore, it probably makes sense to advertise at a slightly more expensive price than average for your area, but not so much more expensive that people don't bother to contact you. Then give a discount. That way, they go into it thinking not that they got an inexpensive photographer, but rather that they got a great deal on a great one.


----------

