Are wedding pictures really that important... [Archive]

JWright

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 15:33

tlc

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 15:49

Jim G

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 15:58

I think most photographers would be surprised by what they'd find out...

I don't know, I'd think a number of them would be married themselves and would know how often they look at their own photographs.. or even how often their own parents did! I don't know anyone who looks at them on a regular basis - heck, I only saw my parents' for the first time when I was about 21, it was never really something that came up...

In a way, though, it's pretty immaterial to the photographer what they do with them after the deal is done and you've been paid ;)

Jimbo24

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:00

I paid 3000 bucks for our wedding photographer 7 years ago... We got something like 6 hours of coverage, a 10 x 10 leather album, 16 x 20 framed bridal portrait and a few framed 8 x 10's but couldn't afford anything else.

3 years later, our photographer mailed us all of our negatives along with a copyright release letter. We ended up storing them in our closet and basically forgot about them.

Just recently while my wife was cleaning out our closet in our guest br, she came across our negatives and decided that she wanted to get a few of them developed. So I did, and paid for significantly less then what our photographer was charging back then. :)

coreypolis

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:02

coreypolis

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:03

the avg american wedding is 17-20k right now. If you drop that kinda cash on something don't you think the least you'd want is teh day photographed well for you to remember? Flowers last a week, you wear the dress once, but the images last forever.

EDIT, apparently more in the neighborhood of $26k

cdifoto

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:09

chs4

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:13

Let's see...married 12 years now. Other than the small collage hanging in our stairwell I probably haven't seen my wedding pictures since year two, and definitely couldn't tell you where to find them at this point. (though I'm sure my wife knows EXACTLY where they are!)

That being said, I would think that as keepsake they would be important for future generations. I know I get a lot more joy (laughter? ;) ) seeing my parents' wedding pictures than I do my own. Pardon the pun, but it is a "snapshot" in time that sort of immortalizes the day for your kids and grandkids. When we're all dead and gone those may very well be some of the only remembrances they have of us.

Now as for the video that we just had to have.... :rolleyes:

coreypolis

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:16

Averages don't mean anything considering the million dollar celebrity weddings help drive up that figure. Most people don't spend nearly that.
you'd be surprised ;)

cdifoto

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:20

you'd be surprised ;)

So would you.

gjl711

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:23

So much of what happens that day is for the ceremony. It’s the ritual, something to delineate moving from the being single phase, to another. I think that wedding pics are just part of the tradition of the day. Though I have only been married once, and had a professional photographer take pics, there is only one that we display and all of the others are sitting in an album somewhere. However, we have lots of pics taken by the guest. Those are brought out every once in a while and my kids especially like them. They are not good shots and most are taken with cheap hardware, but they have a more genuine quality about them and captured the people there more naturally.

coreypolis

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:25

So would you.
do you do any research at all? honestly some of the arrogance that comes out of you is sickening. people get paid quite well do find all this info out, and I can gurantee you in my area its well above that. **** we spent 10k just on food and it was cheep for around here and we didn't have than many guests. we spent 17k and had HUGE discounts on DJ, cake, photography, pastor, location etc because of our network and friends.

of course there are some that are less, and thats seems to be your target market.

but go pick up any publication on the subject and you'll see whats the norm :rolleyes:

picturecrazy

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:26

...However, we have lots of pics taken by the guest. Those are brought out every once in a while and my kids especially like them. They are not good shots and most are taken with cheap hardware, but they have a more genuine quality about them and captured the people there more naturally.

That is probably because you had your photos taken in the traditional way. Posed formals. Candids were unheard of. Now it's all about recording the entire day, and capturing the emotions that everyone is feeling that day. I think photos are much more significant now than they were 8 years ago.

coreypolis

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:27

cdifoto

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:28

do you do any research at all? honestly some of the arrogance that comes out of you is sickening. people get paid quite well do find all this info out, and I can gurantee you in my area its well above that. **** we spent 10k just on food and it was cheep for around here and we didn't have than many guests. we spent 17k and had HUGE discounts on DJ, cake, photography, pastor, location etc because of our network and friends.

YOUR area isn't every area. What YOU spent isn't what everyone spends. Reality isn't arrogance. I didn't want to sling personal insults as you have, but if anyone's being arrogant about it, it's you.

of course there are some that are less, and thats seems to be your target market.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me.

but go pick up any publication on the subject and you'll see whats the norm :rolleyes:

I could pick up any publication and I guarantee you it would all be averages. Big figures coming from areas like YOURS are what drive that average UP.

Maybe you don't know how averages work...

coreypolis

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:31

YOUR area isn't every area. What YOU spent isn't what everyone spends.

its a NATIONAL AVERAGE :rolleyes:

Thank you for finally agreeing with me.

do you understand how a average works :confused:

I could pick up any publication and I guarantee you it would all be averages. Big figures coming from areas like YOURS are what drive that average UP.

Maybe you don't know how averages work...
you have a lot of work to do in market research, thats all I have left to say on the subject.

Curtis N

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:34

We are certainly speaking in generalities here. I can only relate what I have experienced in my small corner of the world.

But in general, I think people still want pictures to remember the day, but perhaps are more interested in having the moments and the emotions captured. Hence the single use cameras on the tables at the reception, the popularity of the PJ style wedding shooters and reduced emphasis on formals. With this, there is also less interest in technical quality.

Hanging large blowups of bridal portraits in homes is not as customary as it used to be. I don't know if it's changing cultural values or just changing decorating styles.

cdifoto

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:34

its a NATIONAL AVERAGE :rolleyes:

do you understand how a average works :confused:

you have a lot of work to do in market research, thats all I have left to say on the subject.

Exactly...a national average. It appears you don't understand average enough to understand how one GIANT expenditure and/or a few select communities of not giant but still big budgets can skew the results.

You sound like Paris Hilton calling a Saab a cheap car...

I'm all for weddings and spending as much on me as possible! :D But I do have to be realistic for MY AREA and ignore the national AVERAGE because it certainly doesn't apply HERE. So I set my prices accordingly. ;)

Jonny

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:34

I'm just wondering... Are wedding pictures really that important? I realize that those that are getting married for the first time expect it to last forever, but the reality is the divorce rate is so high that lots of wedding picture have become insignificant.

They are important to the couple at the time of the wedding when they feel their love is eternal. You would not be able to convince a soon to be married couple that their photos will be pointless in a couple of years. Like their love it is everlasting and most important.

coreypolis

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:36

Exactly...a national average. It appears you don't understand average enough to understand how one GIANT expenditure and/or a few select communities of not giant but still big budgets can skew the results.

You sound like Paris Hilton calling a Saab a cheap car...
2006 Wedding Statistics & Wedding Market Estimates Report

Wedding Statistics & 2006 Wedding Market; 2.3 Million Weddings and Wedding Cost of $26,800

The 2006 U.S. wedding market can expect a 1% increase in the number of weddings over 2005 with 2,271,910 estimated weddings. Number of weddings could reach 2,268,500 by 2010. Expect a 4% increase in wedding cost with an estimated cost of $26,800.00. Wedding cost could reach $31,400 by 2010.

In 2006 consumers will spend $1,841.00 on Wedding Attire, $2,337.00 on their Wedding Ceremony, $1,104.00 on Wedding Favors & Gifts, $1,136.00 on Wedding Flowers, $1,739.00 on Wedding Jewelry, $922.00 on Wedding Music, $2,659.00 on Wedding Photography & Video, $13,692.00 on their Wedding Reception, $809.00 on Wedding Stationery, and $563.00 on Wedding Transportation

http://www.theweddingreport.com/

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Engaged couples can expect to hear more than the "bling bling" bouncing off the bride-to-be's ring -- they'll also hear the ka-ching of the cash register as the average cost of a wedding soars to $26,327, according to a new survey

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/20/pf/weddings/

http://www.weddingbrand.com/pdf/us_statistics_145852.pdf

But I suppose they must be only polling in beverly hills :rolleyes:

gjl711

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:40

That is probably because you had your photos taken in the traditional way. Posed formals. Candids were unheard of. Now it's all about recording the entire day, and capturing the emotions that everyone is feeling that day. I think photos are much more significant now than they were 8 years ago.
This is very true. I got married way more than 8 years ago and had the photog for the church part and some time after that. The pics are very formal and posed. However, my neighbor’s son and daughter both got married last year and their favorite shots are the ones from the table throw away cameras. It’s all about being at the right place at the right time. In either case, even though the pics are not something that will be looked at often, or maybe even ever again, it’s all part of the day and I can not imagine not have them.

Rick Rosen

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:51

the avg american wedding is 17-20k right now.

but the images last forever.

According to an industry recognized wedding report here is the real info:

In 2006:

US Estimated Weddings: 2,195,000 (only approx. 50% retain a professional photographer)

Average Wedding Price: $25,200

Photography: $2,000.00 (total with albums, etc.)

Historically, the percentage of the total budget spent on photography has remained constant over the years at 8%-12% of the total. 8% of the average of $25,200 is $2016.00.

Rick

coreypolis

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:53

According to an industry recognized wedding report here is the real info:

US Estimated Weddings: 2,195,000 (only 50% retain a professional photographer)

Average Wedding Price: $25,200

Photography: $2,000.00 (total with albums, etc.)

Historically, the percentage of the total budget spent on photography has remained constant over the years at 8%-12% of the total. 8% of the average of $25,200 is $2016.00.

Rick
yeah I just posted several different national surveys that actually showed it in the 26k range.

Rick Rosen

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:57

yeah I just posted several different national surveys that actually showed it in the 26k range.

Then why did you post earlier in this thread that the average wedding was $17-20K?

I am confused?

Rick

coreypolis

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 16:59

Then why did you post earlier in this thread that the average wedding was $17-20K?

I am confused?

Rick
thats what I've always read and gone off of, but then CDI seems to think the avg is like $5k, so I posted some new surveys based on some web searches from CNN and others.

Wilt

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:09

The typical bride today wants to pay more for a DJ or a videographer than she is willing to pay for a photographer. The typical bride today wants to sign up at Crate and Barrel more than she wants to register for fine china. The typical bride today wants cupcakes rather than a wedding cake. I know that values change over time, but my impression is that the bride of today is more likely to want some momentary passing fancy than anything lasting for a lifetime. She tosses away her husband somewhat in the same manner.

cdifoto

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:13

thats what I've always read and gone off of, but then CDI seems to think the avg is like $5k, so I posted some new surveys based on some web searches from CNN and others.

I said nothing about what the averages are, nor did I mention anything about $5,000 being spent.

There's a difference between a statistical average and a geo/demographic reality. Something I couldn't seem to get through to you. ;)

davidgr

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:16

coreypolis

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:18

I said nothing about what the averages are, nor did I mention anything about $5,000 being spent.

There's a difference between a statistical average and a demographic reality. Something I couldn't seem to get through to you. ;)
its a national average that you refuse to acknowledge. it may not be the norm for your town, but thats part of an average :rolleyes:

cdifoto

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:19

its a national average that you refuse to acknowledge. it may not be the norm for your town, but thats part of an average :rolleyes:

And here we come full circle. Like I said. National Averages, which you brought up in the first place, mean NOTHING!

coreypolis

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:22

And here we come full circle. Like I said. National Averages, which you brought up in the first place, mean NOTHING!
yes, yes they do.

thekid24

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:23

All this stuff about averages is interesting, but it's a little off-topic. :D

The original quesiton was...are wedding pictures really that important?

Importance, in this case, would be based on emotion and the perceived value of having the photographs to look at over and over to remember the events of the day. This will vary between individuals (more than likely the brides and not so much the grooms), so I would suggest asking all of the married women you know this question to get their input.

I can tell you that in our case, we spent around $500 back in 1981 to a family friend that was a professional for formals and ceremony coverage. We got some great images back then, but I haven't even seen the album in the past 15 years. I'm sure my wife would enjoy showing people what we looked like back then...if she even knows where the album is. :D

That will be something you see alot.

I think wedding photos are important. Regardless of if/when a divorce happens. I dont think a couple would want pictures knowing they were going to get a divorce. Like some have said, they are there to remember. Mush like DVDs or any kind of collection someone has, when you dont have them is when youll want them, despit it may be years or decades when you last saw them. It may be off topic and off the price value/list but still the same in a way.

coreypolis

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:26

Papaw

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:32

My father-in-law already had a shotgun, so it just cost a little tip to the JP.:lol:

Rokkorfan

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:38

Averages don't mean anything considering the million dollar celebrity weddings help drive up that figure. Most people don't spend nearly that.

Well I am having a small wedding for about 70 people in Alabama (not the most expensive place in the USA) and it is costing about $25K, or $27K if you include the rehearsal dinner. This is not excessive, it is just reality.

Think about it: Dress, suit, shoes x 2, shirt, bridesmaids gifts x 8, groomsmen gifts x 7, ties for the groomsmen, 2 x cakes, reception centre costs (inc. food), booze, security, bus to transport folks to the hotel, flowers, table decorations, place cards, invitations, thank-you cards, postage, photography, videography, entertainment, accommodation for the wedding night for you and often the photographer, costs for the minister or celebrant, hair, makeup, tanning sessions, I could go on and on.

litwinphotography

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:40

geting back to the topic . . .stealing aline from another photographer, "creating an emotional attachment to the images is key". Get them the images right away and make them feel a part of the proccess. Sitting on them for 9 months before they get an album doesn't do anything for anyone. Having a slideshow ready to view the next day or monday is huge for this. They can then send it to all the friends and family they have, both who came and those that missed it. Free advertising and branding for you, and they get to make sure that everyon else gets to be a part of the day that they didn't see all of.

THIS IS 100% TRUE!! People make decisions based on thier emotions, this includes PURCHASES! You buy the true religion jeans because they make your butt look hot and in turn you feel good, sure, you could go to walmart and buy Jeans for 15 bucks and save $200, but do they make you feel as good?

Emotion is the key to selling ANY photography. Our studio motto is "We capture what you feel".

samnz

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:44

Are wedding pictures really that important?

11 years this July and not one photo to show for it!

We "decided" to get married off-the-cuff when the out-laws were down.

We were both in the services at the time so we asked our padre to marry us.

Spent the first part of the morning post-hole digging while the girls went dress shopping. Got married at lunch time in the living room, dogs were the ring-bearers... best man as well as brides maids!

For the dinner we went to our favourite steak house in Christchurch, and spent the night in a honeymoon suite.

But no photos - maybe a Nokia pic of the feed somewhere.

If we did have a photographer I think I'd be paying more attention to the photographer's gear - than my wife!!!:)

Wilt

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 17:47

And here we come full circle. Like I said. National Averages, which you brought up in the first place, mean NOTHING!

Guys, guys, all of this almost hostile debate over 'nothing'! ;) ....

I just made 5000 entries in an Excel spreadsheet....I made 85% of them $2000 (about the 'national average'); I made 10% of them $750 (to represent cdifoto's well-below average demographic area), and I made 5% of them (about in proportion to the national IRS statistic of '% of households with income over $200k) spend $20000 for their wedding photography. That resulted in an average of $2778.:cool:

Permagrin

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 18:16

Guys, guys, all of this almost hostile debate over 'nothing'! ;) ....

I just made 5000 entries in an Excel spreadsheet....I made 85% of them $2000 (about the 'national average'); I made 10% of them $760 (to represent cdifoto's well-below average demographic area), and I made 5% of them (about in proportion to the national IRS statistic of '% of households with income over $200k) spend $20000 for their wedding photography. That resulted in an average of $2778.:cool:

Nice spreadsheet info Wilt ;)

sblais

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 18:21

Stat 101 by Sebastien

The mean ("average") doesn't give all the information about a given set of data points. It gives only that, the average. Like Wilt demonstrated, a very small number of very different value can change the value of the average significantly. If Britney and other "superstars" marry a few times each during a given year, spending millions on each of their weddings, they, as a small group of individuals, may bring your 26k$ average closer to 30k$ or even higher. Does this means that Mr. and Mrs Bride and Groom across the country decided to spend more on their wedding that given year? The answer is no.

The mean is by no means (no pun intended) the only measure used to describe a set of data points. In certain cases, the variance, the standard variation and the distribution function are far more useful. If you understand the definition of all these measures, then you have quite a better understanding of a given market (for example). Limiting one's discussion to the mean and only the mean can lead to misinterpretations and false expectations. I think that this is what cdifoto is trying to get across. Not that I want to take any side in this argument.

mmahoney

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 18:21

"People are willing to pay more for photography when they feel connected to something bigger than themselves—by buying into an experience, they are investing in their family legacy".

The above quote from the folks at LaCour, who have a waiting list at $15,000 per wedding.
Mike

mizuno

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 19:03

But no photos - maybe a Nokia pic of the feed somewhere.

They had camera phones 11 years ago!?

MagicallyDelicious

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 19:05

when i get married id like to think it was forever so the pics would be important yeh! maybe 2nd or third time i might learn not to spend so much money on em!

Wilt

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 19:09

If people got married, thinking (from the start) that it will not last, the marriage ceremony and the divorce would be one huge foolish expense that they could forgo, saving the money for just living together in greater luxury!

It otherwise means $20000+ for the wedding which does not last, a whole lot more money to pay the lawyers to have the whole thing negated...stupid, stupid, stupid!

Claire

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 19:10

i think women are more into the pics than the guys. but if your going into a wedding wtih the forethought that it will end soon in divorce, then your not going into it with the right frame of mind. and surprisingly with the divorce rate so high these days, couples still want good quality photos from their day.

I personally find the prices for anything wedding related absolutely horrible when looking at some American weddings. Ugh. The cost for a good photographer in the US is sometimes the cost what a Swedish wedding would cost. I want good pictures and I'm willing to pay for quality, but I may not be willing to part with an insane amount of cash that is similar to a downpayment of a flat.

And as for the whole divorce thing. Then one shouldn't bother having a relationship period. Every relationship, married or not runs the risk of breaking down. We are all aware of it, but if that's the only thing we focus on, then there's no point in getting into a relationship at all. Don't buy a house together. Don't have kids. Don't get involved.

That will be something you see alot.

I think wedding photos are important. Regardless of if/when a divorce happens. I dont think a couple would want pictures knowing they were going to get a divorce. Like some have said, they are there to remember. Mush like DVDs or any kind of collection someone has, when you dont have them is when youll want them, despit it may be years or decades when you last saw them. It may be off topic and off the price value/list but still the same in a way.

Agree.

MALI

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 20:55

I once watched a commercial for a Dodge truck. Driver was doing incredible tricks with the vehicle fighting a ranging bull in a Spanish bull fighting arena. At the end, these words popped on the screen: " Not that you would, but you could." to suggest the "potential" the truck has.

I do not agree with this "wedding photography may be overrated or even unnecessary because we do not look at them that often" idea that seems to come out of these discussions here.

Of course, you will not look at them regularly; that would probably mean an obsessive behavior if you did indeed look at your wedding pictures every day. They serve more of an archival purpose, documenting a very special day in your lives. Yes, they will collect dust, most archives do, and when it is the right time you will bring them out and sit in front of your house in a rocking chair with your now elderly spouse and reminisce. And then I will ask you how much they mean to you.

MALI

davidgr

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 21:44

Mali,
You're right, wedding pics would not be something looked at frequently, but it sure would be nice to know where they are! :D Heck, we have snaps of the kids from 15 years ago in an album on a shelf in the family room (along with all the snaps since then) basically at our fingertips.

Claire,
You're right too, things over here probably look expensive to you, but $2000 might be enough for a downpayment on a low priced car...if you have good credit. :D

leilay

16th of April 2007 (Mon), 22:39

Women *love* wedding photos. ;) With the scrapbooking trend, you may have more families that drag out those wedding 4x6s than would in the past, though I'm not entirely sure about that. We had 65 or so people at our wedding. Total of $2000, including hotel rooms. It *can* be done. ... needless to say, though, our photos were horrid, and I'm getting a pro to take ours for our five year anniversary. :lol:

neil_r

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 02:58

This "National" average stuff is getting boring for us rest of the worlders, lets go for "International" average and really have some fun.

Claire

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 03:08

This "National" average stuff is getting boring for us rest of the worlders, lets go for "International" average and really have some fun.

:lol: :lol:

grego

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 03:37

Averages don't mean anything considering the million dollar celebrity weddings help drive up that figure. Most people don't spend nearly that.

If it's a median average, then its not skewed by serverly high numbers or low numbers. It's just cut down the middle.

The U.S. National average income is measured by using the median. That's why it's not skewed by the many really poor and many really rich like Bill Gates(wouldn't be $50k a year if it were done using the mean). Of course, if you know statistics, you can use them to your advantage in manipulating the numbers.

The mean is by no means (no pun intended) the only measure used to describe a set of data points. In certain cases, the variance, the standard variation and the distribution function are far more useful. If you understand the definition of all these measures, then you have quite a better understanding of a given market (for example). Limiting one's discussion to the mean and only the mean can lead to misinterpretations and false expectations. I think that this is what cdifoto is trying to get across. Not that I want to take any side in this argument.
I just want to jump on the comments to add more. :)

Mean is a good average as it encompasses all the values in a set of data. However, when you have extreme numbers, the best measure is the median, to gain the central tendency. With extreme numbers, your mean would have a positive skew or negative skew.

Standard Deviation and Variance are the same thing basically. Variance is the (SD)^2. Or SD is the square root of the variance. Standard deviation is the easier one to read though and more commonly represented.

The standard deviation would give an idea of how extreme you are(above average/below average) in relation with the central tendency(mean, median, mode[which would be horrible to use]).

I'm a stat nerd... :lol:

Bobster

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 05:13

on our wedding day, the photographer, who i thought was a really decent one, cocked up our wedding pics - my wife was in tears for days..

gheesom

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 06:19

The album is on top of the wardrobe (don't get it out alot don't want to damage it), plus we have all the pics on cd. we have 3 10 x 8s in the house plus a few 7 x 5s as well. they have pride of place.
The photos mean alot, the day goes so fast for the bride and groom, its almost a blur. so its great to have the photos there as a reminder.

Meaty0

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 06:45

Well of course wedding photos are still important! It gives you something to ceremoniously burn after the divorce. :-) Perhaps the question should be, "Are wedding photographers still as important?" (I'm guessing they are since there are still large amounts of money being spent on them.)

samnz

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 06:53

They had camera phones 11 years ago!?

Metaphorically speaking eo...I'm still yet to get a camera phone :o

Banbert

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 07:50

Imagine your house got burnt down, its terrible but all your family and pets got out safely but youve lost all your worldly posessions. Thankfully your covered by insurance so they can all be replaced ..... but whats the things you cant replace.... photos and home video footage! ... unless youve got them backed somewhere else or somone has got copies of them youve just lost all your reminders for years worth of memories.

Photos and Videos are snapshots of time, you can never recreate them if they are lost, virtually everything else can, thats why I think they are important and tghe more important the day or memory is to then the more important the photographs of that day.

Southswede

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 09:58

We had a "professional" take pictures at my first wedding. We were given a book of 4X6 proof, to take so people could place orders (this was back in 1989). My X and I got our book, with 8X10's. The "professional" skipped town, with everybody elses money and never provided anything beyond my album. And I wish I could remember her name!

My second wedding was very small and we didn't hire a photographer. I took the pictures, where I could and set things up for the shots I was in. My wife and I are coming up on 14 years together.

So are the pictures really that inportant? Just depends on how you look at it.....

Claire

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 10:46

Hm, for some strange reason I think that when if I get married I will care about the wedding photos. If I ever divorce and remarry, then I probably wouldn't fork out as much money on the wedding as the first one.

Wilt

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 10:52

If it's a median average, then its not skewed by serverly high numbers or low numbers. It's just cut down the middle....
Mean is a good average as it encompasses all the values in a set of data. However, when you have extreme numbers, the best measure is the median, to gain the central tendency. With extreme numbers, your mean would have a positive skew or negative skew.

I just made 5000 entries in an Excel spreadsheet....I made 85% of them $2000 (about the 'national average'); I made 10% of them $750 (to represent cdifoto's well-below average demographic area), and I made 5% of them (about in proportion to the national IRS statistic of '% of households with income over $200k) spend $20000 for their wedding photography. That resulted in an average of $2778.:cool:

And using the Median (rather than the Mean) would result in "$2000" using my sample set, completely neutralizing the arguments by cdifoto about biased results not indicative of his area.

gjl711

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 11:14

I wonder if there is a gender thing happening here as well. My wedding was a day I had to tolerate and not something I was looking forward to. Don’t get me wrong, it had nothing to do with my wife to be and I was fully committed to being married. It’s just that I had little desire to go through the ritual. All the silly stuff, the pomp and circumstance, the cake, the garter, the flowers, the costumes. Face it, it is not a day designed for guys. It’s all about the bride. So, any photos of that day are pretty meaningless to me. Thus there is little that happened that day that I want to remember. I asked my wife last night about it and was surprised at her answer as well. She felt pretty much as I did and was not looking forward to the day either. She said that it was what was expected of her by her mom, her grandmothers and aunties being the only girl in a family of boys. So last night we took out the album and paged through it.

sapearl

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 14:57

Averages and costs aside, there is one HUGE advantage of wedding photograpy that nobody has yet mentioned. On that day, you usually get a lot of very nice pictures of relatives that the B&G may not see too often, let only have pictures of.

I've lost track of the number of weddings I've shot where my photos were the last nice, formal pictures of very elderly grandparents, friends and other relatives of the B&G. When people get up in age it's often difficult to get out and socialize. It takes a lot of energy and extra effort. But many will do that for a wedding, and that's when people tend to be happy and look their best.

I normally get the finished albums to the client in a timely fashion - couple of months - but at least once a year the B&G tell me when they pick up their book that "Grandpa Joe" is either no longer with us, or in a nursing home, etc. So even though it's all about the Bride & Groom on that special day, it's NOT ALWAYS about just them. We serve a pretty good purpose here and manage to make a few bucks at the same time;) .

gheesom

17th of April 2007 (Tue), 15:41

I don't think you can say its a gender thing, as I said alot of my pics have pride of place. we weren't EXPECTED. we didn't have to get married, we both wanted to. My wife loves the pics and so do I.

The Median Average cuts of the abnormally high and low figures, so yeah it gives an average....but again that average is not relevant to all areas! you have to think about what these abnormally high and low figures are. say the average is $2000 on a photographer...thats an average of how many weddings in the US??? therefore the range of the price paid would go from around $800 to $4000, you would lose anyone paying less than $800 as well as anyone paying over $4000. it still has very little geographical relevance unless you live in an area that spends about the average as there will be some places that the average hits spot on.

grego

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 03:29

And using the Median (rather than the Mean) would result in "$2000" using my sample set, completely neutralizing the arguments by cdifoto about biased results not indicative of his area.

I missed your post, but if I knew anyone would break it down, it had to be Wilt! Good job.

The Median Average cuts of the abnormally high and low figures, so yeah it gives an average....but again that average is not relevant to all areas! you have to think about what these abnormally high and low figures are. say the average is $2000 on a photographer...thats an average of how many weddings in the US therefore the range of the price paid would go from around $800 to $4000, you would lose anyone paying less than $800 as well as anyone paying over $4000. it still has very little geographical relevance unless you live in an area that spends about the average as there will be some places that the average hits spot on.

Nerd talk is so exciting!! :lol:
Anyway, it's not the central tendency you look at alone. You take the standard deviation into account to see how all the raw data is distributed(to find out if it's all spread apart or if its in a tight range, etc.)

Claire

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 05:54

I have only seen one wedding shot from my parent's wedding. One posed shot. Very sepia coloured. It's a nice shot though and fun to see what they wore... Dad his usual suit and mom wore some white Thai dress with gold embroidery. She also wore some very Thai designed golden belt. Pretty fun to look at.

gheesom

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 05:59

Nerd talk is so exciting!! :lol:
Anyway, it's not the central tendency you look at alone. You take the standard deviation into account to see how all the raw data is distributed(to find out if it's all spread apart or if its in a tight range, etc.)[/quote]

exactly you can't look at the average alone!!! you need to see the spread of the figures to be able to guage any sort of true basis for the average. (yes I wear glasses, and work at a computer all day!!! ;) ) you gotta love nerd/geek talk.

PIXI_666

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 08:44

My parents wedding photo's are still up and in fact i copied a couple of their poses with a young traditional couple a year back, they loved those shots too.
Anyway i guess what i am saying is yes divorce rate is up high....but then again there are still a lot of couples out there still together and definately cherish their wedding photos.
I have only been married 18mths but i couldn't see myself with anyone else, i took vows for a reason and i intend on sticking to one husband. BUT under circumstances i guess a lot of people these days give up easily - back in the day there was a lot of hard work...and MAYBE a lot of unhappiness that we do not realise?
Either way...my parents have been married 35yrs and they are still very in love :) And i intend on being this way in 33 and a half years time
Del

MrsOpie

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 09:45

Since I'm a newly wed I'll share my experience. We got married 6 months ago and here is a break down of our wedding costs:
Location Rental: $2,600
Food: $4,000
Dress: $2,000
Brides Maid Dresses: $1,200
Flowers, $2,300
Photographer: $1,000
Jazz Band: $900
Solo Violinist:$200
Judge: $200
Hotel Room: $200
Rings: $4,000

Approx Total: $18,600

We paid for the whole wedding ourselves and we didn't go on a honeymoon because we ran out of money. We ended up with a personal loan of $5,000 the rest was paid in cash.

We never purchased a wedding album but we have our wedding pictures on our computer and I look at them at least once a week. We are computer nerds so we like to have the pictures on the computer instead of an album.

SuzyView

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 09:53

$4000 for rings. Wow. My mother bought my ring and my husband's ring, we were so poor. No fancy wedding for me, but I had a friend who charged me $50 to take pictures. They were okay, nothing really exciting, but at least, I have them. There are 2 8x10's in my family room of two very young, almost too young to be getting married. Worth every cent we paid at the time. Glad I have them.

Now, my oldest is getting married in August. I asked if he wanted a pro to shoot it. He said I would be paying for it, so it is up to me. I have a couple of people already offering to shoot it. I am a wedding photographer, shooting one on Friday, from bride getting ready to leaving the reception in the limo. Is it worth it? You bet! Get what you can afford, put disposables around the room, if you must, but don't give up the chance to keep memories from the 1 day you waited for all your life. Also, the day goes by so quickly, the pictures show the events of the day that might have escaped you.

sapearl

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 09:56

That's actually quite a good deal you got on the Jazz band for only $900 ) easily $2500+ in my area) and your food cost was pretty decent.

At $1k your photographer was about $1000 less than the average $2K package in the Cleveland area. Your food wasn't bad either, although I don't know how many guests you had.;) I'm impressed that you decided to delay the honeymoon rather than go into deeper hock. I hear so many horror stories of young B&G's taking out massive high interest loans for honeymoons that are WAY beyond their means. It ends up taking years to pay off and makes it difficult to buy a home for those who want one. - Stu

Since I'm a newly wed I'll share my experience. We got married 6 months ago and here is a break down of our wedding costs:
Location Rental: $2,600
Food: $4,000
Dress: $2,000
Brides Maid Dresses: $1,200
Flowers, $2,300
Photographer: $1,000
Jazz Band: $900
Solo Violinist:$200
Judge: $200
Hotel Room: $200
Rings: $4,000...........

MagicallyDelicious

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 09:58

I still actually look at my parents wedding photo's!

Im always amazed at how utterly beautiful my mother is! She is a cross between demi more and catherine zeta jones in them!

SuzyView

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 10:00

I still actually look at my parents wedding photo's!

Im always amazed at how utterly beautiful my mother is! She is a cross between demi more and catherine zeta jones in them!

My kids always say, "Mom you were so skinny. What happened?"

My response: "You! That's what happened." :lol: "Go eat your vegetables!"

SBCmetroguy

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 10:10

Who cares? You make your money whether the marriage lasts or not. Just do your best job and build a referral base, and keep making your money while not worrying whether the bride and groom will make it. That's their problem.

SuzyView

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 10:12

What happened to that thread about the bride and groom drinking too much and the bride going nuts? The pro got the shots of the whole thing. Can't judge. Take the shots, duck and hope for the best.

Wilt

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 10:12

That is probably because you had your photos taken in the traditional way. Posed formals. Candids were unheard of. Now it's all about recording the entire day, and capturing the emotions that everyone is feeling that day. I think photos are much more significant now than they were 8 years ago.

Gee, guys, photojournalistic style was not invented within the past 5 years, as you all seem to make it appear! I was doing photojournalistic coverage almost 15 years ago!... the posed shots were the altar shots; at the cake cutting, I paused them with knife poised over the cake, but then all the action after that first shot was candids. I would also pull B&G aside for a brief 5-10 minute bridal portrait series during a lull in the reception. But all the rest was candid style. And later, quite often both the B&G commented spontaneously, "I hardly noticed you were there!", in spite of the hundreds of previews (shot on film, when additional shots cost real money!) delivered.

Wilt

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 10:18

This is very true. I got married way more than 8 years ago and had the photog for the church part and some time after that. The pics are very formal and posed. However, my neighbor’s son and daughter both got married last year and their favorite shots are the ones from the table throw away cameras. It’s all about being at the right place at the right time. In either case, even though the pics are not something that will be looked at often, or maybe even ever again, it’s all part of the day and I can not imagine not have them.

And I have had three daughters marry in the last 7 years, and it is a RARE event when there is anything worth keeping, from the disposables set out on the tables! We are not alone in that experience, as the mother of the husband of one of our daughters also has a daughter of her own who married about 5 years ago, and few keepers from her wedding disposable cameras resulted, too!

Claire

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 12:02

$4,000 rings? Sigh, I want that! hehe Let's hope I marry a man who knows the value of good jewellery... ;)

Seriously, for me the most important things would most likely be the rings, dress, and photos. I don't need to marry in a posh venue, just a cosy one. I know food and drinks will cost, so I'll just have to accept that. I will care about the dress, but it'll be a tough decision to spend all that cash on a dress, when I will keep thinking "I could have bought an L for this money!" lol

sapearl

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 12:43

Agreed, and with you Wilt. I think it's called "marketting hype" when folks try to make it look like something just new and fresh :lol: .

I did my first serious shooting for college newspapers - PJ style was the only thing I knew when I was asked to do my first weddings 33 years ago. I guess I missed my golden marketting opportunity to be the first kid on my block doing it back then ;)

Gee, guys, photojournalistic style was not invented within the past 5 years, as you all seem to make it appear! I was doing photojournalistic coverage almost 15 years ago!... .........in spite of the hundreds of previews (shot on film, when additional shots cost real money!) delivered.

Wilt

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 13:20

I did my first serious shooting for college newspapers - PJ style was the only thing I knew when I was asked to do my first weddings 33 years ago. I guess I missed my golden marketting opportunity to be the first kid on my block doing it back then ;)

A fellow 'junior photojournalist' turned wedding photog! I cut my teeth in the darkroom at about 11. By 15 I was on the high school newpaper photo staff and the yearbook staff. In my senior year I was photo editor on the newspaper, and we did feature inverviews with sports and entertainment celebrities and political activists and other notable figures of the day...I wonder if 'the kids' would recognize names like Bill Cosby, Janis Joplin, Mort Sahl, Harry Edwards, (and several sports celebs whose names are forgotten to me) Listening to Denis Reggie pitch photojournalistic weddings over a decade ago made me think, "So...what's new about that approach?" Of course, he had the $15k wedding jobs, I didn't, so I had a reason to listen!

coreypolis

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 13:31

Location Rental: $2,600
Food: $4,000
Dress: $2,000
Brides Maid Dresses: $1,200
Flowers, $2,300
Photographer: $1,000
Jazz Band: $900
Solo Violinist:$200
Judge: $200
Hotel Room: $200
Rings: $4,000

Approx Total: $18,600
.
Thats pretty good! We got married a little over a year ago:

Location Rental: $0 (But you had to use their caterer)
Food: $9,000
Favors/Decorations $500
Dress: $1,000
Brides Maid Dresses: $0 They paid
Tuxes $0, again they paid, and with so many rented I got mine free
Flowers, $1,000 (Personal Friend owns a flowershop)
Photographer: $1,000 (Personal Friends again, would have been about $8k - an album/PP time, just gave a cd of images)
DJ: $400 Another close friend
Violinist/Pianist: $0 Bridesmaids and more friends played
Minister: $100 Another friend
Hotel Room: $160 (wedding gift)
Rings: $4,250 (her ring had to be at least equal to a Mark II was the deal :lol: )
10 days in Puerto Rico $6500 (wedding gift)

Approx Total: $24,000

Claire

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 15:19

Rings: $4,250 (her ring had to be at least equal to a Mark II was the deal :lol: )

I love this!!! haha

JWright

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 17:27

And I have had three daughters marry in the last 7 years, and it is a RARE event when there is anything worth keeping, from the disposables set out on the tables! We are not alone in that experience, as the mother of the husband of one of our daughters also has a daughter of her own who married about 5 years ago, and few keepers from her wedding disposable cameras resulted, too!

Think the amount of alcohol served at weddings might have something to do with that?:rolleyes:

Wilt

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 19:30

Think the amount of alcohol served at weddings might have something to do with that?:rolleyes:

It has SOME of the responsibility, but it does not account for the fact that the photos taken early in the reception when people are still sober are not much better than the ones in the middle or end, when people are drunk.

The fact that parents also give the cameras to the kids at the table, as an expensive toy to keep them amused, is also a large part of it.

mrslevite

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 22:28

And I have had three daughters marry in the last 7 years, and it is a RARE event when there is anything worth keeping, from the disposables set out on the tables! We are not alone in that experience, as the mother of the husband of one of our daughters also has a daughter of her own who married about 5 years ago, and few keepers from her wedding disposable cameras resulted, too!
Hehehehe!!!! Did anyone else have to read that . . . well, more than once :rolleyes: . . . for it to make sense? :p

Wilt

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 23:00

Hehehehe!!!! Did anyone else have to read that . . . well, more than once :rolleyes: . . . for it to make sense? :p

It was as difficult for me to write, as for you to understand!!! Our daughter...her husband is our son-in-law, but his mother is not a relationship of ours by the marriage! She has a daughter, who isn't a relationship of ours by the marriage either!

Western relationships do not describe what some eastern cultures have well defined!

SuzyView

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 23:13

I didn't get a ring, but just got one on my 25 this year. $4000+, I can't even imagine trying to get one while attending college. My son now is looking for a ring for his girlfriend and he's in shock.

Maureen Souza

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 23:21

When I got married a long time ago ;), we were really poor. I made my dress, no flowers, we made our buffet luncheon and my MIL made our wedding cake. Total cost was $380, including rings. We had no photographer and have only a few snapshots of the day. But we are still married:)

Time Thief

18th of April 2007 (Wed), 23:29

4000+ for rings. I'm a poor fool and paid 300 for the engagement ring and we paid about 150 for the two pieces of crap 10K gold bands. After complaining for about two years, as my band looked like an egg it got bent so bad, my wife finally broke down and bought me another band for our anniversary this year. I had her go with titanium this time as maybe it won't bend as easy. Even that one was only 250. If we had 4000+ rings they would have been pawned by now. HEHEHE :)

Claire

19th of April 2007 (Thu), 02:15

I still like coreypolis' deal with his wife that it had to match a Mark II....hehehe

Wilt

19th of April 2007 (Thu), 10:00

A somewhat different perspective on ring cost...

As hobbyists we might spend over $2000 for a single dSLR FF body that will become figuratively obsolete in the public mind in less than 5 years, and then do it again, and again, and again...yet that level of expense for the wedding ring -- something that is a one-time expenditure for a (hopefully) lifetime -- is hard to fathom ???

ekie

19th of April 2007 (Thu), 10:22

Claire

19th of April 2007 (Thu), 10:40

speaking of wedding costs, not sure about other nationalities or cultures but typically guests at vietnamese weddings give money as gifts instead of actual presents. so sometimes, the bride and groom ends up getting back what they spent on the wedding or sometimes, even more. like when my sister got married a few years ago. the wedding costs them about $30k but they got almost 40K as gifts which was some was used for the honeymoon :lol:

In Sweden majority of couples who get married have already lived together for some time (often years). They already have a lot of the typical household gifts etc, so some actually just wish for a contribution towards the wedding costs or towards the honeymoon. Not sure how many do it, but I know it's being done. I'm shooting a wedding 21 July, and that's what this couple wants.

As for the wedding ring costs, yep, I'd rather invest in a nice ring compared to a Vera Wang dress. The ring(s) will be worn every day and hopefully for a lifetime. I want to have a nice one and I want him to have a nice one.

louiep83

19th of April 2007 (Thu), 11:38

:) I have asked the same question myself many times and my photo partner has an answer:
'It's better to love and fail than not love at all'.

Wedding pics are important, it record a moment of history. Unlike most other recording of history, which are usually something bad or sad (War, disasters etc), wedding pictrues are records of a happy moment.

Let me preface my comments by saying that I occasionally shoot weddings, and when I do, I do the best job I am capable of.

I'm just wondering... Are wedding pictures really that important? I realize that those that are getting married for the first time expect it to last forever, but the reality is the divorce rate is so high that lots of wedding picture have become insignificant.

I've been married three times and I have no idea what happened to the pictures from my first two marriages. In fact, I don't even remember having a photographer at the first and the pictures for the second were snapshots taken by friends. I've been married 6½ years this time and when I went to look for the pictures it took me ten minutes to find them and then I had to blow the dust off the album.

It would be interesting if wedding photographers could go back and follow-up with their former clients and find out how many are still together and if they are, do they even look at the pictures 5, 10 or 15 years after the wedding? I think most photographers would be surprised by what they'd find out...

PixelChick78

19th of April 2007 (Thu), 23:31

The photos from my wedding are probably the most precious item I own. I would run in to my burning home to save them! Thats why I keep them in a fireproof safe;)

Papaw

20th of April 2007 (Fri), 15:52

The photos from my wedding are probably the most precious item I own. I would run in to my burning home to save them! Thats why I keep them in a fireproof safe;)
Yea, I would probably grab my wife on the way out also.

SuzyView

20th of April 2007 (Fri), 16:48

While I was shooting today, someone at the wedding offered me $1000 to restore the pictures that were taken at her wedding. None of them turned out well. She did pay the photographer, he wasn't a pro, just a friend. She said if she had known that a pro would do a good job, much better than a friend, she would not have hesitated to pay the extra. When will people learn.

I am not taking her work. She said it wasn't exposure, it was composition of the shots. There were only a few that had everyone smiling or people were out of place, etc. I told her photographers may be pushy, but if we don't get what we want from the party, the customer won't get what they want. :) Thought I'd share.

sapearl

20th of April 2007 (Fri), 20:18

Quite an interesting story Suzy, thank you for sharing. There is that fine line between benevolent dictator and pushy photographer. But most of us do have the client's interests at heart.

JWright

20th of April 2007 (Fri), 23:51

Thats pretty good! We got married a little over a year ago:

Location Rental: $0 (But you had to use their caterer)
Food: $9,000
Favors/Decorations $500
Dress: $1,000
Brides Maid Dresses: $0 They paid
Tuxes $0, again they paid, and with so many rented I got mine free
Flowers, $1,000 (Personal Friend owns a flowershop)
Photographer: $1,000 (Personal Friends again, would have been about $8k - an album/PP time, just gave a cd of images)
DJ: $400 Another close friend
Violinist/Pianist: $0 Bridesmaids and more friends played
Minister: $100 Another friend
Hotel Room: $160 (wedding gift)
Rings: $4,250 (her ring had to be at least equal to a Mark II was the deal :lol: )
10 days in Puerto Rico $6500 (wedding gift)

Approx Total: $24,000

Since we've digressed from my original question to what weddings cost these days, I might as well lay out mine from six years ago:

Location: $170.00 (At the local Zoo; discount because my wife is an employee)
Food: $140.00 (Cold-cut platters from Costco)
Flowers: $75.00 (Done by a friend, bouquet made by us at Michael's)
Photographer: Free. (A friend who is a working pro.)
Bridesmaids: None
Groomsmen: None
Dress: $100.00 (Simple white dress by mail order)
Tux: None. (Slacks, dress shirt and tie)
Music: None
Rings: $200.00
Minister: $200.00
Hotel Room: None... (We went home afterwards.)
Total: $885.00

A real simple affair...

razyl

27th of April 2007 (Fri), 09:21

Wow, what a great thread, plenty of contentious opinion here!

I think the answer to the OP is this: what is anything worth? The most simplistic answer is this: what someone is prepared to pay for it. If clients believe photography of their wedding is worth $X then that's a reasonable price. How can you put a value on anything? What is anything really worth?

Sure the number of marriages that end in divorce is high, but just because every car that you buy will one day be scrap metal gathering dust doesnt mean it's completely worthless when you buy it. All things fade my friend.

I truly believe that an image captured at a wedding can stand in time, beautiful and resolute. It can move people, it can excite such emotion. The world we know and live in will surely fade, but if we can create something (a photo) that speaks of the absolute beauty in a single moment, then I think that's pretty special....and well worth paying for.

Darryn

sapearl

27th of April 2007 (Fri), 09:59

Some photos do stand the test of time even if the actual event does not. Last night I was doing some volunteer PR photography at our local PBS Television Station - they have an annual fund rasing auction this time of the year - and I started chatting with one of their videographers. She recognized me first. Turns out I'd shot her wedding 17 years ago.

I asked how things were going. "Well, it didnt' last... we got divorced, which was actually a good thing."

"So did you burn the wedding photos?" I jokingly asked.

"No!" she replied, "You really got some nice pictures of family and friends. Those are worth keeping."

I thought that was a very nice thing she said to me and it made me feel pretty good. So even with divorce, we provide an appreciated and respected service. I have no doubt that various grandparents and other elderly friends are no longer with her, but at least there is some small photo rememberance of them in all their finery that I was able to capture and place for her in a nice album.

What's that old joke? "Take a picture, it will last longer." Well sometimes this applies to marriages too. ;)

..........Sure the number of marriages that end in divorce is high.........

I truly believe that an image captured at a wedding can stand in time, beautiful and resolute. It can move people, it can excite such emotion. The world we know and live in will surely fade, but if we can create something (a photo) that speaks of the absolute beauty in a single moment, then I think that's pretty special....and well worth paying for.

Darryn

staciecd

27th of April 2007 (Fri), 10:29

OMG, Are you serious???? Sorry that I am a bit late, but I have to respond. I am getting married in 44 days and EVERYTHING is centered around the photos. I hired a great photographer and when I look at something, like flowers I think - I love this, but THIS would be better in the pictures. My finace is sick of me begging him to loose weight - for the pictures, but it's all about the pictures at this point.

To add, we broke a 20k budget and are working on 25k. But that includes the rehearsal dinner and expensive rings.

NanC

28th of April 2007 (Sat), 04:24

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just wondering... Are wedding pictures really that important? I realize that those that are getting married for the first time expect it to last forever, but the reality is the divorce rate is so high that lots of wedding picture have become insignificant.

They are to me! The reason that I am a portrait and wedding photographer is because I feel like those images are so important. As a child, I loved to look through my parents album. It was special, interesting and amazing. My parents looked so young. The hairstyles and outfits were fascinating. I liked to look at the group shots and talk about all of my relatives.

As an adult, I don't like albums anymore. We have what could best be described as a rotating gallery in our home. I'm always changing out our personal pictures.

I have a unique perspective on the question about the importance of wedding pictures with the divorce rate... are they insignificant? No, not to me. I'm sure some people throw them out... but, mine are important... oh, and the stories they tell.

We have photos of loved ones that have passed. My dad recently died of cancer. I pulled them out and to see if we had some shots of him all dressed up. I cried when I saw how proud he was walking me down the aisle. I remembered what he told me during our dance. There were so many good memories.

I laughed when I saw my ex's family shot. There it is, the bride and groom (us) with the whole family... oh, and wait, is that another bride? Two brides! His crazy cousin had gotten re-married that year. She apparently thought it would be a good idea to wear HER wedding dress to the wedding. Yes, it was white and lacy and everything you would imagine a wedding dress to be. Funny, but true.

I have a daughter from my first marriage. I have not showed her the photos, but she has seen some framed at my parent's house. She loves them. I think, when she is older, she will like having them. I always get all of our family's old photos. I love the old black and whites - especially some of the serious looks and poses. Pictures define the time.

Now, my fiance and I are planning to be married in October. When we were talking about what was important, this was the ranking: 1)Us 2)Beach 3)Photographer 4)Officiant 5)Cake/Food/drinks

Even though we are having a small wedding on the beach, I want professional photos of our day. We don't have a lot of money, but what we do have will go to the photographer.

HTH ... just one person's perspective on the importance of wedding photos

DocFrankenstein

28th of April 2007 (Sat), 04:37

Are wedding pictures really that important?
They're very important... to the professional wedding photographers whose living depends on it.

It would be interesting if wedding photographers could go back and follow-up with their former clients and find out how many are still together and if they are, do they even look at the pictures 5, 10 or 15 years after the wedding? I think most photographers would be surprised by what they'd find out...
Do you really want to disappoint them with the truth? That's too painful.

tlc

28th of April 2007 (Sat), 06:13

mcmadkat

28th of April 2007 (Sat), 07:46

My mum and dad only got their wedding photos put in an album a couple of years ago....25 years married. There was some pictures that were not great quality so they phoned the photog who still had the negs, and did them some great new prints.

The main reason they love their wedding pics is for all the friends and family in them, many of whom have now died.

They did something that I though was a great idea, they went round the tables and got a photo with each couple/person so they have a pic of everyone! You really appreciate the pics in years to come.

Personally I love looking over them to nick ideas on composition and lighting :D

Cheers,

Sam

Gatorboy

29th of April 2007 (Sun), 10:06

Forget the AVERAGE, does anyone know what the MEDIAN is? That would be a much better number to use.

DocFrankenstein

29th of April 2007 (Sun), 10:18

I'd think that even remotely proper statistical analysis would throw out the deviants like celeb weddings.

Rick Rosen

29th of April 2007 (Sun), 12:58

Forget the AVERAGE, does anyone know what the MEDIAN is? That would be a much better number to use.

The median fee paid for wedding photography in the US is $2500.

Rick

sapearl

30th of April 2007 (Mon), 10:03

PEACHMAN

30th of April 2007 (Mon), 11:37

Let me preface my comments by saying that I occasionally shoot weddings, and when I do, I do the best job I am capable of.

I'm just wondering... Are wedding pictures really that important? I realize that those that are getting married for the first time expect it to last forever, but the reality is the divorce rate is so high that lots of wedding picture have become insignificant.

I've been married three times and I have no idea what happened to the pictures from my first two marriages. In fact, I don't even remember having a photographer at the first and the pictures for the second were snapshots taken by friends. I've been married 6½ years this time and when I went to look for the pictures it took me ten minutes to find them and then I had to blow the dust off the album.

It would be interesting if wedding photographers could go back and follow-up with their former clients and find out how many are still together and if they are, do they even look at the pictures 5, 10 or 15 years after the wedding? I think most photographers would be surprised by what they'd find out...
They are looked at by relitives 60 or 100 years after the event....I know I haven't seen mine for 25 years or so. My wife had a big photo up in the house and after about 7 years it came down , never to be seen again...Something I said?? I always got a kick out of the fact that the "Oil Painting" photo had been air brished/modified to include hair on my bald head !!

suefoto

7th of May 2007 (Mon), 23:20

I don't mind charging what I consider a reasonable price for a wedding ($1,200. - $1,500.)because it's something I enjoy doing. My assistant and I call it our "adventures". We travel to all kinds of places, meet great people, eat good food and get paid! You can't beat it..and all the compliments I receive make it all worthwhile. I'd rather be happy and make people happy than make tons of money. Another photographer in my area charges $3,000. but only gets do a few weddings a year. I've only been living here for 4 years and I get most of the weddings. I've shot hundreds of weddings since I started 20 + years ago and I enjoy it just as much now if not more. Digital photography has really opened up doors...we can offer so much more now. I love this business!

NickSimcheck

28th of August 2007 (Tue), 11:57

I gotta rase this one from the dead...

After reading about Cory and CDI going at it I have one thing to say...

My wedding was exactly $26,000!! (Photography was free though, grandfather is a photographer.)

canoned

28th of August 2007 (Tue), 14:39

That sounds more realistic, although in the Midwest it might even be dropping a bit more to around $2,000. Annecdotal information had this figure at around $4k about five years ago.

I'm from Toledo and the same thing is happening here and yet people don't think twice about spending a grand for a half hour ride in a Hummer . Or $700 for a DJ to play for 5 hours. It's very frustrating to be a photographer and watch the perceived value plummet for images that will last forever.

sapearl

28th of August 2007 (Tue), 15:37

Understand where you are coming from..... feel your pain :cry:.

I still get calls for bookings on a semi-regular basis, but the potential clients are looking at the cheaper packages. I also do Bar Mitzvah's and if it were not for that trade my volume would be waaaaay down. Fortunately the parents of those young men and ladies are reasonably set, so they are often better able to afford a standard package than a young couple just starting out on a limited budget.

I'm from Toledo and the same thing is happening here and yet people don't think twice about spending a grand for a half hour ride in a Hummer . Or $700 for a DJ to play for 5 hours. It's very frustrating to be a photographer and watch the perceived value plummet for images that will last forever.

DocFrankenstein

28th of August 2007 (Tue), 17:41

I'm from Toledo and the same thing is happening here and yet people don't think twice about spending a grand for a half hour ride in a Hummer . Or $700 for a DJ to play for 5 hours. It's very frustrating to be a photographer and watch the perceived value plummet for images that will last forever.
Yes, why have DJ? The best man call just yell his speech to 200 guests. ;)

canoned

28th of August 2007 (Tue), 18:24

Bobster

28th of August 2007 (Tue), 18:49

DocFrankenstein

28th of August 2007 (Tue), 18:49

That's basically what you get for $700. Just kidding. A friend of mine owns a dj business here and he is planning an alternative to a live dj by offering pre-programed music on I-pod. He delivers sound system with i-pod in place you push the button and away you go. The event announcements are there and 5 hours worth of your favorite tunes. Aw, isn't technology wonderful?
My current part time job is a caterer in a banquet hall.

Not only do I get to watch the photographers, but I get to experience the DJs the hire.

Honestly, I don't see much difference. It's all much louder than a human being can reasonably tolerate. The really expensive guys have better defined lows and highs... but that's about it.

sapearl

28th of August 2007 (Tue), 19:56

Quite interesting..... any idea what he'll charge for that?

......A friend of mine owns a dj business here and he is planning an alternative to a live dj by offering pre-programed music on I-pod. He delivers sound system with i-pod in place you push the button and away you go. The event announcements are there and 5 hours worth of your favorite tunes. Aw, isn't technology wonderful?

canoned

28th of August 2007 (Tue), 20:40

Quite interesting..... any idea what he'll charge for that?

No, he hasn't established that yet. My brother-in-law is also a dj. He charges around $495. He programs everything in advance on his laptop. I've worked weddings with him where the only time he is at the dj stand is to make an announcement. Or he will sit there and watch a movie. It's a tough job but somebody has to do it. He usually has 2 or 3 other guys at gigs. He pays them a couple hundred bucks. So basically he's making a liittle over a thousand bucks most weeks of the year for very little effort and stress. It's a good thing we love photography. Or are we gluttens for punishment?

DocFrankenstein

1st of March 2009 (Sun), 22:52

I think it's important for future generations the most. We'll be the old fossil by then and the grandkids can laugh at the stuck up posing styles or the idiotic "trash the dress" sessions full of harsh flash... grandma wanted to be unique. :lol:

Papaw

1st of March 2009 (Sun), 23:00

I agree Doc, you must lurk in dark hallways - I had forgotten this thread.

DocFrankenstein

1st of March 2009 (Sun), 23:04

I agree Doc, you must lurk in dark hallways - I had forgotten this thread.
Doh

Chris&jess

2nd of March 2009 (Mon), 02:08

We paid exactly 12k for our wedding which included an Oregon photographer. Although three shooters showed up, neither of them got any shots that are worth the canvas to print them on. Thankfully, we did end up with a couple of good photos from our engagement shoot. But, to answer the OP's question: YES, WEDDING PHOTOS (not pictures) ARE REALLY THAT IMPORTANT.

sapearl

2nd of March 2009 (Mon), 08:14

Good bump Doc and good to see 'ya.;) I completely agree. My dad is now gone but I look back on how good he looked in that tux 30 years ago...... - Stu

Karizmatik

2nd of March 2009 (Mon), 08:24

I don't think anyone who is serious about their marriage goes into it thinking "Well, this wont last forever and the divorce rate is that high we may aswell just skip any memories from it, because lets face it, we'll be split up soon anyway!"

"Your right honey, screw the memories!"

I can't believe someone would be so daft to think this lol.

The whole point of marriage is to be everlasting, when your in the mind state of getting married, this intention is good and set and adamant. Otherwise you simply wouldn't be getting married.

sapearl

2nd of March 2009 (Mon), 10:41

Wise thoughts Karizmatik and words to live by. At least that's where my head was at 30 years ago. Oh, it's had its bumps and hills and valleys, but most things are possible if you make the effort ;).

.....The whole point of marriage is to be everlasting, when your in the mind state of getting married, this intention is good and set and adamant. Otherwise you simply wouldn't be getting married.

Wilt

2nd of March 2009 (Mon), 10:44

Wise thoughts Karizmatik and words to live by. At least that's where my head was at 30 years ago. Oh, it's had its bumps and hills and valleys, but most things are possible if you make the effort ;).

Yup, the wedding may have long deteriorated into bitter divorce, but both families have photos of their relatives and friends, which endure far past the marital link! Great grandma Ruth and great grandpa Ben kicking up their heals brings pleasant memories back of them, well after they have passed on.

sapearl

2nd of March 2009 (Mon), 12:55

Very true Wilt - the parents may split, but the kids don't get divorced from their grandparents and other relatives.

Yup, the wedding may have long deteriorated into bitter divorce, but both families have photos of their relatives and friends, which endure far past the marital link! Great grandma Ruth and great grandpa Ben kicking up their heals brings pleasant memories back of them, well after they have passed on.

Karl Johnston

2nd of March 2009 (Mon), 13:07

Let me preface my comments by saying that I occasionally shoot weddings, and when I do, I do the best job I am capable of.

I'm just wondering... Are wedding pictures really that important? I realize that those that are getting married for the first time expect it to last forever, but the reality is the divorce rate is so high that lots of wedding picture have become insignificant.

I've been married three times and I have no idea what happened to the pictures from my first two marriages. In fact, I don't even remember having a photographer at the first and the pictures for the second were snapshots taken by friends. I've been married 6½ years this time and when I went to look for the pictures it took me ten minutes to find them and then I had to blow the dust off the album.

It would be interesting if wedding photographers could go back and follow-up with their former clients and find out how many are still together and if they are, do they even look at the pictures 5, 10 or 15 years after the wedding? I think most photographers would be surprised by what they'd find out...

I suppose it's all a matter of opinion. To me, having a 4 storey house isn't that important as having one that's cozy and environmentally efficient, but some beg to differ.

Having a truck isn't important to me, either, but to some it is essential.
Different people different tastes. I suppose it would be interesting to do a follow up, though albeit a little bit creepy ..in my honest opinion I'd find that creepy if the wedding photographer from one of my marriages called to me asking if I was still with my wife ("Wtf?! Who the **** is this? What the hell would you ask that for!!?") :lol:

JCam07

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 08:35

Wedding photos are important not only to the B&G. They are important to parents and grandparents. Who are also, much of the time, the ones paying the tab. They will have photos of their childrens weddings on display even after those children have gone through a divorce. Seems odd to me but I've seen it more than once.

AlexMoPhotography

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 13:55

sapearl

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 15:16

It varies around the country - Midwest is about $25K depending upon city. My daughter was able to do it very nicely last summer for 117 people at about $15K.

For those still interested in the average price, from the thousand brides who signed up to goto Bridal Spectacular here in Las Vegas, the average was $30,000. And I think that's not including the rings and the honeymoon.

Wilt

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 17:37

For those still interested in the average price, from the thousand brides who signed up to goto Bridal Spectacular here in Las Vegas, the average was $30,000. And I think that's not including the rings and the honeymoon.

As has been debated on POTN before, the 'mean' price can be significantly swung by a few very high ticket weddings by sports and entertainment celebrities and the 'old money' rich and the 'new money' entrepreneurs. The 'median' price is what should matter, not the 'mean' (average).

geo1976

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 18:10

Do you suppose there's any money in divorce photography?lol

form

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 18:30

Even though I'm a photographer, I'm not really a picture person. Many of the grooms are like me in that regard: The photos are more for her satisfaction than for his. I frequently run into apathetic or disdainful grooms who are only letting a photographer come along just because the bride wants the photos.

The photos are, strictly speaking, documentation; the only time that's ever a requirement for anything is when rules or laws are considered, which are obviously not the circumstances of a wedding. Therefore, the photos are an arbitrarily chosen and preferred form of documentation, for those people who wish to have long-term, readily-available, fresh visualizations of an occasion that had particular significance to them. That's their base value for weddings.

Now, if the photos capture important people or emotions that evoke strong emotions, that's a second (and important) value of wedding photos.

Finally, if the photos are astoundingly good artistically, then it gives another value to the wedding photos: aesthetic appreciation.

I'm sure I miss lots of stuff with my comments, but I just isolated three aspects of the potential value of photos during a wedding. The crappy shots typically either have none of the above or only the first trait. The good shots have the first trait plus one of the others. The really great shots have all three traits mentioned. To get the really great shots you need to hire someone who can see those additional values and either draw them out or catch them when they come along.

If you don't care about the photos, that's fine; you probably just don't have a preference for holding onto or renewing those memories with pictures as your aid.

In general, it's not surprising to me for the photos to be seen as unimportant by someone if they are 1. male, 2. divorced multiple times, or 3. both. I don't completely understand why most males don't care too much (perhaps because the women are more about the feelings than us guys are), but I can completely understand not wanting to hold onto memories past of past relationships that have since faded.

Wilt

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 21:53

In general, it's not surprising to me for the photos to be seen as unimportant by someone if they are 1. male, 2. divorced multiple times, or 3. both. I don't completely understand why most males don't care too much (perhaps because the women are more about the feelings than us guys are), but I can completely understand not wanting to hold onto memories past of past relationships that have since faded.

It remains surprising to me the emphasis put on a DJ, compared to the amount of thought given to choice of photographer. After everyone goes home, nobody remembers anything about the DJ (except maybe the poor choice of songs), whereas many guests get individual photos or even mini albums as keepsakes. I have a set of photos from two daughters' weddings...I remember nothing about the DJ chosen!

form

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 22:16

The DJ is important to the photographer as well as the entire wedding attendance. Crappy songs mean less enjoyment of the reception, which means worse photos.

sapearl

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 22:30

Yeah, it's called PI surveilance photography :lol:.

Do you suppose there's any money in divorce photography?lol

sapearl

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 22:36

You shouldn't have to depend upon the DJ as a factor in determining how good your work is; that implies something about the quality of your work and your abilities as a photographer. I hope that's not what you really meant.;)

The DJ is important to the photographer as well as the entire wedding attendance. Crappy songs mean less enjoyment of the reception, which means worse photos.

form

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 22:51

I recognize the value and significance of good music to lighten up the mood and keep things cheery. Just like a stoic, non-smiling couple can make life hard for any photographer, a bad dj can make fewer good photo ops available.

And for the record, I never claimed to be a good photographer.

sapearl

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 22:54

True - it just forces us to work a bit harder and dig a little deeper into our "creative toolkit.";)

I recognize the value and significance of good music to lighten up the mood and keep things cheery. Just like a stoic, non-smiling couple can make life hard for any photographer, a bad dj can make fewer good photo ops available.

form

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 23:49

Mine has one wrench and a pair of pliers.

DocFrankenstein

4th of March 2009 (Wed), 23:52

Do you suppose there's any money in divorce photography?lol
In some country you can't divorce unless there's evidence of adultery. So some couples had to make arrangements with both a third party and a photographer to get the evidence.

sapearl

5th of March 2009 (Thu), 07:01

Now THAT'S interesting Doc.... you learn something new everyday ;). Such an arrangement could lead to some very interesting "production and directing" activities :rolleyes:.

In some country you can't divorce unless there's evidence of adultery. So some couples had to make arrangements with both a third party and a photographer to get the evidence.

sunnygirl

7th of March 2009 (Sat), 04:53

sapearl

7th of March 2009 (Sat), 17:37

I WISH I had my old hairstyle from back then...... at least it would be hair :lol:. Now my style is absolutely "brilliant" if you know what I mean Sunny. Your budget of $200 is only $5 more than what we paid for our photog in 1979 ;).

After 25 years mine have faded (really only snapshots afterall don't geto to much on total wedding budget of $200. - thank goodness I can't believe the hair styles of early to mid eighties - what were we all thinking. I personally want to hide mine.

Wilt

7th of March 2009 (Sat), 22:51

After 25 years mine have faded (really only snapshots afterall don't geto to much on total wedding budget of $200. - thank goodness I can't believe the hair styles of early to mid eighties - what were we all thinking. I personally want to hide mine.

The guy used a very poor lab! Probably went to the local discount drugstore to print them.

I have an album full of color prints from 26 years ago (trip to Japan and Australia and Tahiti), the prints look to be fresh from the processor still, and the negs still scan in with nice color rendition, too. And the photos were snapshots, not a job done by a pro lab.

JWright

10th of March 2009 (Tue), 19:47

sapearl

10th of March 2009 (Tue), 23:43

My bookings and inquires for 2009 are certainly down - I'm still pretty busy filling orders for albums and additional enlargements from '08 contracts, but deposits for complete 2009 packages are less. I can only assume it's the economy since I have not raised my prices and I offer the same level of service.

Now that my thread has surfaced from the land of the dead, I wonder how the current state of the economy is effecting wedding photography. Certainly, there is a lot less money available to put out on a wedding and I can imagine more couples going the Justice of the Peace routine because of the cost.

cdifoto

11th of March 2009 (Wed), 11:48

Now that my thread has surfaced from the land of the dead, I wonder how the current state of the economy is effecting wedding photography. Certainly, there is a lot less money available to put out on a wedding and I can imagine more couples going the Justice of the Peace routine because of the cost.
Oddly enough, I'm having an easier time selling engagement sessions. Most of the time it was just the wedding and nothing more. Certainly not more quantity but most definitely more service per client. I'm not high end though so its possible that those who would normally have had a bigger budget are now looking at me, a lower priced option. Who just happens to still kick ass. :D