Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Affordable Wedding Photography

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 12:23:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I live and am getting married in the Philadelphia Area Saturday, July
25, 2005.

We would like to have a digital photographer take 5-6 hours of photos
of our big day. We would prefer someone a bit more artistic and a bit
less traditional. I want all the digital images (preferably on a CD) so
that I can edit/create/print my own album.

Are there any recommendations?
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 12:58:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113146625.136765.103170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I live and am getting married in the Philadelphia Area Saturday, July
> 25, 2005.
>
> We would like to have a digital photographer take 5-6 hours of photos
> of our big day. We would prefer someone a bit more artistic and a bit
> less traditional. I want all the digital images (preferably on a CD) so
> that I can edit/create/print my own album.
>
> Are there any recommendations?
>
Google search for Wedding Photographers Philadelphia. Or theknot.com.
You'll be surprised at what turns up. Most of our clients find us on the
web.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 1:17:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks... but we have already tried that. It seems that many of the
photographer w/ websites in this area do not want to relinquish the
proofs (or the digital high res files). Is that normal?
Related resources
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 1:45:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113149826.533621.34320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks... but we have already tried that. It seems that many of the
> photographer w/ websites in this area do not want to relinquish the
> proofs (or the digital high res files). Is that normal?
>
Yes, that is normal. We charge $300 for the "digital negatives," which
seems to be a fairly standard price in our area for them. Most
photographers either don't release them, charge extra for them, or include
the cost in and increased "package" price, since the release of those
implies that the photographer's not going to get any additional print
business.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 2:20:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks for the helpful tips. I will certainly do the leg work necessary
to find an artist I love and the one-use cameras for the lucky shots.

Being a freelance graphic/web designer and my fiancé a musician we
work/live from gig to gig... I still am a bit shocked that the
photographers I have contacted so far are all so well off that they
gawk at making $700 for one days work.

I am disheartened to realize that many professional photographers would
rather be salespeople than be paid a fair price for their talent.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 2:53:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Your packages seem more than fair. And your work is creative and
beautiful. Wish you were in business in this area.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 8:58:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Look through your local papers and get the names of photojournalists whose
work you like. Don't forget the free papers. Call up those people and see
how you do. Also...hand out one-use cameras as people show up and let them
take shots for the "grand album"


"NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113146625.136765.103170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I live and am getting married in the Philadelphia Area Saturday, July
> 25, 2005.
>
> We would like to have a digital photographer take 5-6 hours of photos
> of our big day. We would prefer someone a bit more artistic and a bit
> less traditional. I want all the digital images (preferably on a CD) so
> that I can edit/create/print my own album.
>
> Are there any recommendations?
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 9:40:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113149826.533621.34320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks... but we have already tried that. It seems that many of the
> photographer w/ websites in this area do not want to relinquish the
> proofs (or the digital high res files). Is that normal?
>
Yep. I certainly would never give up my originals.
H.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 10:11:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
news:o JmdnVkuB9Fwy8TfRVnyug@pipex.net...
>
> "NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113149826.533621.34320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Thanks... but we have already tried that. It seems that many of the
>> photographer w/ websites in this area do not want to relinquish the
>> proofs (or the digital high res files). Is that normal?
>>
> Yep. I certainly would never give up my originals.
> H.

Seems to me, Hannah, that if you or anyone were offered enough money, you
would give them up easily. What's the point in holding on to something if
giving them up will result in the same amount or more money?

I can see Natalie's reason for wanting them. She wants to be able to play
with them afterward and get exactly what she wants.

Clyde Torres
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 10:41:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

NatalieLynn wrote:
> Thanks... but we have already tried that. It seems that many of the
> photographer w/ websites in this area do not want to relinquish the
> proofs (or the digital high res files). Is that normal?

That was the norm 40 years ago and it is still the norm. Most
photographers consider the prints yours but the images are theirs.
Copyright laws support this procedure.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 10:42:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

From: "NatalieLynn" <nstea...@gmail.com> - Find messages by this author

Date: 10 Apr 2005 08:23:45 -0700

I live and am getting married in the Philadelphia Area Saturday, July
25, 2005.

--who cares.

We would like to have a digital photographer

--no such thing(yet).

take 5-6 hours of photos
of our big day. We would prefer someone a bit more artistic and a bit
less traditional.

--ok, so ask everyone to come naked, or wear hats like the
Camilla&Charles wedding.

I want all the digital images (preferably on a CD) so that I can
edit/create/print my own album.

--nope, go with VHS.

Are there any recommendations?

--ye, dont get married.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 10:47:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"That was the norm 40 years ago and it is still the norm. Most
photographers consider the prints yours but the images are theirs.
Copyright laws support this procedure. "

screw copyright. a wedding photog who has negatives going back 40
years is 70+years old.
A)he/she is close to death
B)has closed up shop and could care less as to what happens to your
original negatives.
C)has misplaced them.

NEVER allow the photog to keep your RAW, proofs, negatives, etc.
he/she wil lose them in a fire, flood, out of biz, misplaced, etc.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 12:24:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"--nope, go with VHS. "

Bolshoy - I don't want to play them?! I want them to create my own
album. This is the DIGITAL Photo group... You do understand the
concepts of jpegs & CDs, right?

"Have people see poorly printed and presented samples of his work
detracts from his
reputation. "

Joey - I am a self-employed graphic designer, degreed in Fundamental
Design not to mention the BRIDE. The CUSTOMER in this scenario... my
wedding photographer will understand this just like I understand my
part when I pursue my clients. I am fully capable of handling Photoshop
and a watercolor pencil and do not need these services. However I am
not capable of being a photographer (I tried it out in college) I
recognize and respect the art of photography. I want someone to know
the right light, the right moment the right attitude. As for ruining
reputations - I bet that most wedding photographers, just like other
working artists,
would thrive on accolades of "adaptable" "caring" "understanding"
believe me brides-to-be clients are not concerned with the deep black
(tux) really doesn't pop next to that harsh white (dress)... Besides my
friends & family will know I did our album, who else would care to see
my wedding photos?

Am I digging a hole here? Is $700 for 6 hours of work really insulting?
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 12:44:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am disheartened to realize that many professional photographers would
rather be salespeople than be paid a fair price for their talent.


You are assuming that they have talent. A wedding photographer who had
talent too would be worth that much. At best, most are just competent
technicians.

A photojournalist will look for a few special shots and is not set up for
printing. Hourly work is what they are used to.

I do only a few weddings...and I am in Easton PA so let me know if you get
desperate.

www.palmiter.dotphoto.com
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:06:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

NatalieLynn wrote:
> Thanks for the helpful tips. I will certainly do the leg work
> necessary to find an artist I love and the one-use cameras for the
> lucky shots.
>
> Being a freelance graphic/web designer and my fiancé a musician we
> work/live from gig to gig... I still am a bit shocked that the
> photographers I have contacted so far are all so well off that they
> gawk at making $700 for one days work.
>
> I am disheartened to realize that many professional photographers
> would rather be salespeople than be paid a fair price for their
> talent.

Actually they would rather eat and support the families than not.
Wedding photography is a pain. It is a lot of work and not a lot of profit.
Without being able to make money on the original prints it just does not
pay.

Now add a little something to the mix. A good photographer wants others
to see his good work and to generate additional sales. Have people see
poorly printed and presented samples of his work detracts from his
reputation.

I don't believe it is at all unfair to expect a fair price for their
talent. However are you really prepared to pay what a fair price really is?
I suspect you would be surprised to find that most photographers are willing
to do as you wish, but at a price you might not consider fair.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 3:37:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Am I digging a hole here? Is $700 for 6 hours of work really insulting?

Yes! For some of the photographers that do wedding by an hourly basis I have
heard of rates from $120-$150 per hour and that is just for the photographer
to be there and shoot. After that if you wanted all image originals (ie
negatives or raw digital files) you would have to pay $250 plus $5 per
image. You are basically "buying" the copyright to these photos so you can
do as you wish with them. So for 6 hours of shooting you would get hundreds
of images. I am no math wizard but that puts price well over 2 grand.

>I am a self-employed graphic designer, degreed in Fundamental Design

What would you say to someone that wanted you to make up a business logo for
a major product but only pay you a one time fee to create it? Put yourself
in the shoes of that photographer that has spend thousands of dollars for
the equipment to do the job and years of training or experience to do the
job right.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 5:07:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113189847.678002.29900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> "--nope, go with VHS. "
>
> Bolshoy - I don't want to play them?! I want them to create my own
> album. This is the DIGITAL Photo group... You do understand the
> concepts of jpegs & CDs, right?
>
> "Have people see poorly printed and presented samples of his work
> detracts from his
> reputation. "
>
> Joey - I am a self-employed graphic designer, degreed in Fundamental
> Design not to mention the BRIDE. The CUSTOMER in this scenario... my
> wedding photographer will understand this just like I understand my
> part when I pursue my clients. I am fully capable of handling Photoshop
> and a watercolor pencil and do not need these services. However I am
> not capable of being a photographer (I tried it out in college) I
> recognize and respect the art of photography. I want someone to know
> the right light, the right moment the right attitude. As for ruining
> reputations - I bet that most wedding photographers, just like other
> working artists,
> would thrive on accolades of "adaptable" "caring" "understanding"
> believe me brides-to-be clients are not concerned with the deep black
> (tux) really doesn't pop next to that harsh white (dress)... Besides my
> friends & family will know I did our album, who else would care to see
> my wedding photos?
>
> Am I digging a hole here? Is $700 for 6 hours of work really insulting?
>
The problem here is that you are only seeing the photographer work for 6
hours, but there is far more work involved than you see. My wife, who does
all of our post processing, will spend 20-25 hours doing that, plus the
meetings with the client, rehearsal, album consult, etc. All for
$1000-$2000.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 7:38:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> Am I digging a hole here? Is $700 for 6 hours of work really insulting?
>
More on wedding photography... the technical side of wedding photography is
daunting. The customer usualy has no idea of what is good and what is
ordinary. They want dozens of images to choose from to create an album for
the coffee table. The shooter has to make every shot count. This is no time
to try out ideas...everything has to work. So they take over...direct
everything.

As a photojournalist I work differently. I can't intrude on the scene. I
wait for thing to happen. I watch...I lurk. But, I am looking for just a few
great images.

email me and lets discuss this further...

palmiter_gene@verizon.net
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 10:06:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1113184076.865905.166880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Mr.Bolshoy Huy <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:

> NEVER allow the photog to keep your RAW, proofs, negatives, etc.
> he/she wil lose them in a fire, flood, out of biz, misplaced, etc.

Spoken by a true amateur...
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:09:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> "NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > ...
> > Am I digging a hole here? Is $700 for 6 hours of work
> > really insulting?
> >
> The problem here is that you are only seeing the photographer
> work for 6 hours, but there is far more work involved than you
> see. My wife, who does all of our post processing, will spend
> 20-25 hours doing that, plus the meetings with the client,
> rehearsal, album consult, etc. All for $1000-$2000.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I've worked in a studio
and I have to say that Skip is absolutely right about this. The
work done during the wedding itself is the most critical part,
but it's not the only part and not even the most time consuming
part. And a lot of it is highly skilled work - not just the
photo shoot, but the selection, cropping, printing, mounting, and
so on all require experience, skill, and a good eye.

And don't forget all the other things a professional photographer
has to do from renting his studio to designing and maintaining
his website, advertising, buying cameras, computers, printers,
inks, papers and/or all the very expensive film based technology,
etc.

I've known a number of professional photographers in my life. I
haven't known any rich ones. I'm pretty sure that, even if I
have the talent to be a pro (very questionable), I'm making more
money in my current profession of computer programmer.

Alan
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 2:51:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 10 Apr 2005 20:24:07 -0700, "NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Am I digging a hole here? Is $700 for 6 hours of work really insulting?

I don't do weddings,and am a very limited photographer in general.
However, I do know that a wedding is more than just 6 hours of work.
Maybe if you hire a photographer to take the pics, provide the memory
cards, and just collect them at the end of the day, you can get off
for less, but just maybe.
6 hours? What about the work it takes to process the pics and make the
album you want? That's not somethigg that just magically appears.
And (from experience)(and no offence), but dealing with the bride's
mother makes it worth a lot more! :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 2:54:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <oJmdnVkuB9Fwy8TfRVnyug@pipex.net>,
"Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote:

> "NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113149826.533621.34320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Thanks... but we have already tried that. It seems that many of the
> > photographer w/ websites in this area do not want to relinquish the
> > proofs (or the digital high res files). Is that normal?
> >
> Yep. I certainly would never give up my originals.
> H.

And what are you going to do with these *valuable* originals?

Why not make a deal - a high res printed set, a CDR of all the pics with
a *Joe Bloggs, Photographer. www.XXX.com* print along the bottom and
free up you HDD of pictures you're never going to look at, use or print
again.

What are the odds of your customer coming back in 5 years time and
asking for another set?

LOL!
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 3:47:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr.Bolshoy Hvy wrote:
> "That was the norm 40 years ago and it is still the norm. Most
> photographers consider the prints yovrs bvt the images are theirs.
> Copyright laws svpport this procedvre. "
>
> screw copyright. a wedding photog who has negatives going back 40
> years is 70+years old.
> A)he/she is close to death
> B)has closed vp shop and covld care less as to what happens to yovr
> original negatives.
> C)has misplaced them.
>
> NEVER allow the photog to keep yovr RAW, proofs, negatives, etc.
> he/she wil lose them in a fire, flood, ovt of biz, misplaced, etc.

I am no where near 70+ years.

I am no near death, at least I hope not.

I gave vp weddings many years ago. Too mvch work too little profit.

Based on what I saw, the average life span of a negative in the hands of
a cvstomer is abovt 48 hovrs. Far less than in a professional stvdio.

The stvdio where I worked never lost a negative as far as I know. The
owner covld pick vp a 20 year old First Commvnion class photo negative, hold
it vp to the light and name the priest, sisters and most of the kids. He
covld even name many of their kids.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Mvire dvit
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 5:38:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <1113184076.865905.166880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Mr.Bolshoy Huy <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> NEVER allow the photog to keep your RAW, proofs, negatives, etc.
>> he/she wil lose them in a fire, flood, out of biz, misplaced, etc.
>
> Spoken by a true amateur...

Not true, most amateurs know better than that.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit
April 11, 2005 5:38:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <F5v6e.635$Lk1.385@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com says...
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> > In article <1113184076.865905.166880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > Mr.Bolshoy Huy <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> NEVER allow the photog to keep your RAW, proofs, negatives, etc.
> >> he/she wil lose them in a fire, flood, out of biz, misplaced, etc.
> >
> > Spoken by a true amateur...
>
> Not true, most amateurs know better than that.
>
>


My sons wedding is a "case in point" on what you get with an "affordable"
Wedding Photographer.

She showed up with a 35mm manual Canon camera of 30 to 35 years vintage, one
50 mm lens, and a bag from Wal-Mart containing lots of rolls of "store
brand" 400 speed all-purpose film.


I took several hundred shots before, during, and after the ceremony wit a
Sony F-828 and the Sony Auto-Flash unit (Fz 32 I think, it s not here right
now so I dont remember the model number).

Six weeks after the wedding the Photographer delivered several dozen prints
of dubious quality.( all indoor shots are dark and noisey, most oudoor shots
are over exposed, and the Cream colored Wedding gown is bright white in every
shot) She also left all of the negatives. She "doesn't want the
responsibility" of being in charge of wedding photos..

Believe it or not, this lady does a wedding a month on average (onc a week
this time of year)

Her price for this service was $700.00 (US).

Now Im being pestered for prints of my shots (they seem to be the prefered
shots) by a raft of in-laws for a wedding someone else was paid to shoot.
These requests are coming from people who have no intention whatsoever of
paying me for the prints...it seems Im expected to do it for free, because
now Im family..

I have yet to speak to my son about this, but Im sure he will negotiate with
the inlaws about covering my costs for prints.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:27:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:07:56 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Skip M"
<shadowcatcher@cox.net> in <ufq6e.45681$lz2.15573@fed1read07> wrote:

>Skip Middleton
>http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>"NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1113189847.678002.29900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> "--nope, go with VHS. "
>>
>> Bolshoy - I don't want to play them?! I want them to create my own
>> album. This is the DIGITAL Photo group... You do understand the
>> concepts of jpegs & CDs, right?
>>
>> "Have people see poorly printed and presented samples of his work
>> detracts from his
>> reputation. "
>>
>> Joey - I am a self-employed graphic designer, degreed in Fundamental
>> Design not to mention the BRIDE. The CUSTOMER in this scenario... my
>> wedding photographer will understand this just like I understand my
>> part when I pursue my clients. I am fully capable of handling Photoshop
>> and a watercolor pencil and do not need these services. However I am
>> not capable of being a photographer (I tried it out in college) I
>> recognize and respect the art of photography. I want someone to know
>> the right light, the right moment the right attitude. As for ruining
>> reputations - I bet that most wedding photographers, just like other
>> working artists,
>> would thrive on accolades of "adaptable" "caring" "understanding"
>> believe me brides-to-be clients are not concerned with the deep black
>> (tux) really doesn't pop next to that harsh white (dress)... Besides my
>> friends & family will know I did our album, who else would care to see
>> my wedding photos?
>>
>> Am I digging a hole here? Is $700 for 6 hours of work really insulting?
>>
>The problem here is that you are only seeing the photographer work for 6
>hours, but there is far more work involved than you see. My wife, who does
>all of our post processing, will spend 20-25 hours doing that, plus the
>meetings with the client, rehearsal, album consult, etc. All for
>$1000-$2000.
>

The problem here is people trying to figure out prices based on the
amount of effort they think it should take. While you happen to be
right about the amount of time, it does not matter if it only took the
5 hours. If he charges that much, he charges that much. If everyone
charges that much they charge that much. If you don't like the price
look for someone else, do it yourself, or give it up. If they are
making lots of money, then others will become photographers if they
can. (As it happens we should all pretty much know that it is very
difficult to make a living taking photos.)




--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 1:13:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:679l51dakgosfnam6ap3eiopc1ds2tp2b7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:07:56 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Skip M"
> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> in <ufq6e.45681$lz2.15573@fed1read07> wrote:
>
>>Skip Middleton
>>http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>"NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1113189847.678002.29900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> "--nope, go with VHS. "
>>>
>>> Bolshoy - I don't want to play them?! I want them to create my own
>>> album. This is the DIGITAL Photo group... You do understand the
>>> concepts of jpegs & CDs, right?
>>>
>>> "Have people see poorly printed and presented samples of his work
>>> detracts from his
>>> reputation. "
>>>
>>> Joey - I am a self-employed graphic designer, degreed in Fundamental
>>> Design not to mention the BRIDE. The CUSTOMER in this scenario... my
>>> wedding photographer will understand this just like I understand my
>>> part when I pursue my clients. I am fully capable of handling Photoshop
>>> and a watercolor pencil and do not need these services. However I am
>>> not capable of being a photographer (I tried it out in college) I
>>> recognize and respect the art of photography. I want someone to know
>>> the right light, the right moment the right attitude. As for ruining
>>> reputations - I bet that most wedding photographers, just like other
>>> working artists,
>>> would thrive on accolades of "adaptable" "caring" "understanding"
>>> believe me brides-to-be clients are not concerned with the deep black
>>> (tux) really doesn't pop next to that harsh white (dress)... Besides my
>>> friends & family will know I did our album, who else would care to see
>>> my wedding photos?
>>>
>>> Am I digging a hole here? Is $700 for 6 hours of work really insulting?
>>>
>>The problem here is that you are only seeing the photographer work for 6
>>hours, but there is far more work involved than you see. My wife, who
>>does
>>all of our post processing, will spend 20-25 hours doing that, plus the
>>meetings with the client, rehearsal, album consult, etc. All for
>>$1000-$2000.
>>
>
> The problem here is people trying to figure out prices based on the
> amount of effort they think it should take. While you happen to be
> right about the amount of time, it does not matter if it only took the
> 5 hours. If he charges that much, he charges that much. If everyone
> charges that much they charge that much. If you don't like the price
> look for someone else, do it yourself, or give it up. If they are
> making lots of money, then others will become photographers if they
> can. (As it happens we should all pretty much know that it is very
> difficult to make a living taking photos.)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>

Too true. We lose sight of that on occasion. What is being paid for here
is as much the intangibles of talent, skill and ability as it is for the
time and effort taken.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
April 12, 2005 1:18:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 10 Apr 2005 08:23:45 -0700, "NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com> wrote:

>I live and am getting married in the Philadelphia Area Saturday, July
>25, 2005.
>
>We would like to have a digital photographer take 5-6 hours of photos
>of our big day. We would prefer someone a bit more artistic and a bit
>less traditional. I want all the digital images (preferably on a CD) so
>that I can edit/create/print my own album.
>
>Are there any recommendations?

I'll do it - free. Just send return airline tickets from Melbourne, Australia.
Samples at www.splatco.com/david You'll get 10 or so 10x8's and 5x7's of my pick
in nice mounts, plus a DVD with all the files (300-400) in any format(s) you
want.

Seriously, you need to decide on the style of photography you want. I tend to be
better at candid, social shots, less capable with formal, posed groups. At a
friend's wedding recently the official photographer sat passively like a lump of
meat while the signing was done, while I was rushing around capturing the
action, expressions and loving glances from every angle. When it was over the
"pro" stepped in and posed them for ONE shot while I walked away bored.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:09:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stewy" <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:anyone4tennis-
> > >
> > Yep. I certainly would never give up my originals.
> > H.
>
> And what are you going to do with these *valuable* originals?
>
Use them to create prints for the adoring friends and relatives, what else?
Anyway, they're mine, not theirs.

> Why not make a deal - a high res printed set, a CDR of all the pics with
> a *Joe Bloggs, Photographer. www.XXX.com* print along the bottom and
> free up you HDD of pictures you're never going to look at, use or print
> again.
>
Because they would never pay as much for that deal as I can make from
prints, simple mathematics really. Haven't you heard of a number of other
ways of storing images apart from hard disk?

>
> What are the odds of your customer coming back in 5 years time and
> asking for another set?
>
Almost zero I imagine, but I've had orders about 2 and half years after the
event. And they paid my current price, not my 2 and a half years previously
price. I did very nicely indeed out of it, which I would not have done had I
given up my originals.

H.
April 12, 2005 6:52:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cc44f74e5cf5c1998999f@news.comcast.giganews.com...

>
> Believe it or not, this lady does a wedding a month on average (onc a week
> this time of year)
>
> Her price for this service was $700.00 (US).
>
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic

The price itself is no guarantee of quality. Many of my clients call
themselves "Professional Photographers" but you'd never know by their work.
My company runs a digital print centre and provides bureau services and
"packages" to wedding photographers, amongst other things.

Interesting description too... "Professional Photographer", I mean. Right
alongside "Accountants" and "Computer Technicians" and a plethora of other
occupation for which there is no (in Australia) legal requirement for any
formal qualifications before calling yourself one.

I wonder how many of the people calling themselves "Professional
Photographers" who post to this group can actually produce any formal
qualifications or a license, issued by a Government department. I can. I
know 3 others who can. An interesting thing is that of all the branches of
Photography, Wedding Photographers are the most likely to call themselves
"Professional" without any formal training or government issued
qualifications.

$700 (US) should get you a halfway decent coverage from the bride's home to
the ceremony and 2 albums with about 30, artistic photos. One nicely bound
album for the couple and a smaller "parents album".

Of course many packages don't include this many photos but provide loose
prints of all the images taken... Unless of course you have decided on an
album only wedding which some of my better customer's client do. Another
area of weddings now beginning to make inroads into the market is canvas
prints. We used to make one or two a month last year but now do three or
four a week. You are not likely to get one of these in a cheap package -
yet!

I always thought whenever a baby was born or a wedding celebrated, you got
some professional portraits taken. Somehow or another wedding photographers
have managed to make this occasion into an event of monstrous proportions
where every living moment, every blink and movement is captured on film and
sold as a 200 or 300 shot extravaganza for ridiculous amounts of money. It's
not until you ask for the portrait of the couple to hang on your wall that
the outrageous prices being charged by some become evident.

Basically good advise is to stay right away from photographers offering 100
photos or the like and offering to hand over negatives, files etc. The
reason is that taking the photos is one thing and creating an album of
memorable portraits for posterity is quite another thing altogether. The
original images are often nothing more than anyone with a P&S camera could
take. It's the work making a "wedding Photograph" which is unique to
particular photographers or the bureau they use.

And you all thought those shots with a "difference" were in the camera! Not
at my studio! They are all created by an editor. A graphic artist. Nothing
at all to do with the photographer except to follow instructions from the
artist. When they don't is when the packages go pear shaped!

Anyone looking to get cheap wedding photography should seriously consider
handing out throw away cameras to all the guests and choose their pictures
from the results. With low cost digital cameras freely available now, this
option could become highly practical. I've seen the results of just such a
wedding. I processed the images and enlarged some for a 'Kmart" album and
the results would put many "Professionals" to shame.

Douglas
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:15:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I wish you had read my original message...

I will state again that I want to edit/retouch/and watercolor my own
photos and create my own album... And do not need these services I am
a graphic designer and want to play with the images myself...

I however need the service of photography, the actual photo taking... I
want to do the rest myself it would be 6 hours of actual work. 4-5 at
the wedding and 1-2 transfering the files from the carmeras to the CD
or DVD...
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:27:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Douglas wrote:
> "Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cc44f74e5cf5c1998999f@news.comcast.giganews.com...
>
>>
>> Believe it or not, this lady does a wedding a month on average (onc
>> a week this time of year)
>>
>> Her price for this service was $700.00 (US).
>>
>> Larry Lynch
>> Mystic
>
> The price itself is no guarantee of quality. Many of my clients call
> themselves "Professional Photographers" but you'd never know by their
> work. My company runs a digital print centre and provides bureau
> services and "packages" to wedding photographers, amongst other
> things.

I agree. "Professional" only means they get paid for it, not that they
are any good. There are many very good amateur photographers and many poor
professionals. However I would have to suggest that they are not many good
amateur wedding photographers as it takes some special skills an amateur is
not likely to to have.

Amateurs can do an outstanding job of taking photos at a wedding, but
that is not the same as photographing a wedding. :-)

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:26:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

so i guess such events never happen where you reside? must be the moon.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:56:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Douglas" <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cc44f74e5cf5c1998999f@news.comcast.giganews.com...
>
>>
>> Believe it or not, this lady does a wedding a month on average (onc a week
>> this time of year)
>>
>> Her price for this service was $700.00 (US).
>>
>> Larry Lynch
>> Mystic
>
> The price itself is no guarantee of quality. Many of my clients call
> themselves "Professional Photographers" but you'd never know by
> their work. My company runs a digital print centre and provides
> bureau services and "packages" to wedding photographers, amongst
> other things.
>
> Interesting description too... "Professional Photographer", I
> mean. Right alongside "Accountants" and "Computer Technicians" and a
> plethora of other occupation for which there is no (in Australia)
> legal requirement for any formal qualifications before calling
> yourself one.
>
> I wonder how many of the people calling themselves "Professional
> Photographers" who post to this group can actually produce any
> formal qualifications or a license, issued by a Government
> department. I can. I know 3 others who can. An interesting thing is
> that of all the branches of Photography, Wedding Photographers are
> the most likely to call themselves "Professional" without any formal
> training or government issued qualifications.

I don't believe there is any *possibility* of government certification
for photographers or computer technicicians in the US. (Or software
engineers. Software engineering has been my main job for the last 35
years, with moderate amounts of "semi-pro" photo work, i.e. I get paid
for stuff fairly often, but it's never been a big portion of my
income.) Well, okay, I've known a few programmers who were probably
"certifiable" in the other sense (insane), but that's different :-).

> $700 (US) should get you a halfway decent coverage from the bride's home to
> the ceremony and 2 albums with about 30, artistic photos. One nicely bound
> album for the couple and a smaller "parents album".

And most weddings, I think, pay considerably more than that (and may
look for fancier results).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:01:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"NatalieLynn" <nsteager@gmail.com> writes:

> I wish you had read my original message...
>
> I will state again that I want to edit/retouch/and watercolor my own
> photos and create my own album... And do not need these services I am
> a graphic designer and want to play with the images myself...
>
> I however need the service of photography, the actual photo taking... I
> want to do the rest myself it would be 6 hours of actual work. 4-5 at
> the wedding and 1-2 transfering the files from the carmeras to the CD
> or DVD...

Well, if you're in or near Minneapolis MN you could get in touch with
me, but you probably aren't. More seriously, people who do weddings
as their mainstream activity are mostly going to be averse to letting
things that much out of their control. I somewhat sympathize with
their position; and I completely sympathize with yours as well.

Also remember that, to take on *your* wedding, a successful
(i.e. *busy*) wedding photographer will most likely have to pass up
another one. For him to want to do that, he'll have to expect to make
about as much money from yours, net, as he does from the others. The
fact that he spends much less *time* on yours may not matter; he may
not be able to *afford* the additional time off (or may at least
choose not to purchase it).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 6:55:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> It's a tough call - you might have to interview several to find one
willing
> to work in the way you are hoping for, regarding possession of the
> CD/negatives, etc.


And now we are back to my original point....hire a photojournalist. They are
used to working by the hour and not owning their own files. They are often
underpaid by the publications that employ them and $700 for a days work will
sound good. They shoot more than most pros and have a special eye...and a
body of work to prove it.

The down side, is that they won't pose and give orders. They are not looking
for dozens of shots...but for a few special ones. I have shot in situations
like this and it makes for a long day. But the results are satisfying. I
repeat though...hand out throw-a-way cameras. Then each family member will
make sure everyone gets into the album. The pro will make sure you have the
great shots you want for the main pages.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 1:53:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

with divorce at %50, everyone having a digital camera, and photogs
going out of biz and dropping dead like flies, I dont see it worth
while for photogs to store wedding negs or digital originals.

Could a real photog on this ng state what % of clients came back for
prints 2-10 years later?
And was the expense of storage worth while?
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 10:00:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mr.Bolshoy Huy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113411222.503654.146160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> with divorce at %50, everyone having a digital camera, and photogs
> going out of biz and dropping dead like flies, I dont see it worth
> while for photogs to store wedding negs or digital originals.


Sure it is. It can save a lot of time. You don't even need to go to
the wedding, just Photoshop the last two weddings. :-)

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit


>
> Could a real photog on this ng state what % of clients came back for
> prints 2-10 years later?
> And was the expense of storage worth while?
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:13:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mr.Bolshoy Huy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113411222.503654.146160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> with divorce at %50, everyone having a digital camera, and photogs
> going out of biz and dropping dead like flies, I dont see it worth

My business is booming. I can't keep up. There's more to a photographer's
life than weddings, which these days I only do as a special favour

> while for photogs to store wedding negs or digital originals.
>
You can bet that the day you delete them is the day the repeat order comes
in

> Could a real photog on this ng state what % of clients came back for
> prints 2-10 years later?

Very few in fact but certainly enough to make it well worth keeping the
origs

> And was the expense of storage worth while?
>
....how expensive do you think a hard disk or a blank DVD are these days?
I can get 300 or so RAWs on a DVD I think, can't remember. A blank is much
less than £1.
Hmm, maybe you're right - I can't afford the expense after all.

Hannah.
(Never ever yet deleted a single RAW, ever.)
!