Why should photographers charge so much?!?!?!

[bnlearle]

I just read this on a current thread and thought it deserved its own post...

I've never understood that. What'd you do for 300 $ and what did you do for 6 000 that justified the price difference? How did you do a wedding for 300? That said, what do you do to justify 6 grand ?
Last year this exact time my average wedding was $1500. Now it's about $7k. What is my client paying for now? What am I offering more of now as opposed to over a year ago? Simple.

Confidence. Peace of mind. Consistency.


With a good photographer, you aren't just paying for an end product. Anyone can provide clients with albums and prints. You can buy that anywhere. What you can't buy anywhere is confidence that NO MATTER what lighting, how nice or not that nice your location is, or if it rains on your wedding day - your photos are going to still be incredible. You can't buy the peace of mind that comes with that from just anybody. And you can't buy consistently great photographs from just anybody. This comes from talented, experienced, established pros.

This is why you hear so many "the photos on their website looked so good but mine aren't good at all :(" Experienced, established pros are able to show recent, full weddings. This gives clients confidence that they can expect the same thing for their wedding day. These types of clients decide "I don't want to gamble with our wedding photos" and they end up paying not for just albums or prints - but for the confidence that they WILL get great photos.

And that's why I charge WAY more than I did a year ago. Am I expensive? You bet. Heck, I get more expensive with nearly every wedding I shoot - no problem admitting that. But I sincerely believe that I'm worth it.

Wedding photography is priceless, as far as I'm concerned. It's not in everyone's view - and that's where Uncle Bob and the low end market comes in. Nothing wrong with them, in my opinion.

Bobby

p.s. there's NOTHING wrong with spending $500 for your wedding photography. It's all based off of priorities. If that's where wedding photography fits on the priority scale, that's totally fine. Photography was a $400 priority when I got married (I was 20 and had under $2k for my whole wedding budget - dress and all!). I got the consequences of my priorities. I couldn't even tell you how much I'd pay to be able to go back and time and have a talented photographer. We'd go back and buy a t-shirt dress and spend the rest on photography. No lie.

[form]

I'm the budget photographer you mention, and I generally agree with your opinion. I imagine that I'm not as consistent as someone who has been doing it longer and knows how to get great shots every time, and so I only charge a comparatively low amount. I am inexpensive because I can't morally justify charging more.

Odds are I'll get some good shots most times, but I won't necessarily get great shots every time.

[bnlearle]

Awesome that you posted. And I'm really glad you saw that I'm not at all belittling other photographers. Up until a year ago, I didn't have the confidence to feel okay with charging what I do now either.

Every level of wedding photography out there is legitimate, in my view, and has its own market to reach :)

[lil_miss]

Very well said and I completely agree with you... :)

[Paul J McCain]

Charge what you're worth! More power to you, and excellent writeup.

[form]

It would be nice to be able to afford all that equipment. I can't imagine what I'd do with it. Actually I have 2 of those zoom lenses and one of the primes, and I'm hoping to be able to afford a 5D II over the next month...

[bnlearle]

Nearly everything except for the primes and the 5DMKII's are for sale :) I only have the rest as I've been to lazy to list it. But the 1DMKIIN, 40D, 5D, and 24-70 are up on the chopping block in the next few days!

[_Jo_]

I agree.

And after 20+ weddings over 3 years, I still get nervous beforehand and charge between $1000 - $1600 (full album).

I never feel like the money is worth it and at the end of the day I am exhausted. I literally can't think straight!

[form]

I do volume weddings by comparison then; I've done well over 30 in the past year's time. However in most cases I am also tired after the job and sometimes I feel like the money isn't worth it. When I get event coverage jobs I often make more doing them because they hire me for multiple days or more hours, and I don't do as much post processing for the money.

[sapearl]

You'll get there Jo.... it's only been three years which is a relatively short period of time in the scheme of things.;)

The thing is to keep shooting all kinds of things: parties, anniversaries, corporate events, coming of age parties, special attractions - anything with people and around people. The more comfortable you become with them, with managing and directing them, the more you will be able to relax in time.

I agree.

And after 20+ weddings over 3 years, I still get nervous beforehand and charge between $1000 - $1600 (full album).

I never feel like the money is worth it and at the end of the day I am exhausted. I literally can't think straight!

[_Jo_]

You'll get there Jo.... it's only been three years which is a relatively short period of time in the scheme of things.;)

The thing is to keep shooting all kinds of things: parties, anniversaries, corporate events, coming of age parties, special attractions - anything with people and around people. The more comfortable you become with them, with managing and directing them, the more you will be able to relax in time.

yep...lol...in saying that I do not advertise (word-of-mouth) and I have turned down bookings as I have 4 children aged 15, 12, 8 and 1 year old...so I am mum first and foremost and still see photography more as a hobby/part-time job which I intend to upscale as my youngest gets older.

I find the post-processing time consuming and do it between everything else! lol

I am lucky that my husband fully supports us and my photography is just a little extra. Although, I tend to invest it straight back into equipment. *sigh*

I would love one day to become a full-time photographer...time will tell.

[lil_miss]

I'm in a similar boat to you Jo - only been doing it three years etc and similar pricing bracket, and also not advertising... Whilst I am tired sometimes at the end of the day - I find weddings so much fun and love doing them even when I get a difficult bride (as happened last week including a 12 hour day)... :)

My plan is also to build it up to be full time etc, at which time prices will definately go up.. I'm just enjoying building a client base at the moment.. I'm starting to see people more than once for weddings, portraits etc...

[collierportraits]

Succinct and on target. Well said, Bobby. ;)

[tim]

You'll get there Jo.... it's only been three years which is a relatively short period of time in the scheme of things.;)

The thing is to keep shooting all kinds of things: parties, anniversaries, corporate events, coming of age parties, special attractions - anything with people and around people. The more comfortable you become with them, with managing and directing them, the more you will be able to relax in time.

I think i've been doing wedding photography three or four years, I can't remember exactly though. Price has gone from $500 to packages between $3000 and $6000, and most people upgrade their package after their wedding. So it CAN be done.

I posted why I think some photographers are worth this much in another thread, but to sum it up it's a few things:
- Ability to create great photos no matter what the situation
- Investment of time in learning, and to a lesser extent money in equipment
- Professionalism and reliability
- Creating great products like albums

[_Jo_]

Yes, I expect if I devoted more time and made it my living I would have increased my prices by now or gone 'under'.

As it stands, I only work the wedding season (with the odd portrait in between) and even then I only take on 4-6 weddings per year. I can't wait until my kids are older and I can devote more time to my photography...patience is a virtue!! lol

(In saying that I always have my camera out, capturing moments throughout the year and have even won a few awards!).

[tim]

Once you photograph a wedding every weekend it's just about a full time job, and keeping track of everything becomes... challenging. Keeping track of what stage of the processing you're in, who you've sent proofs to or met, who's seen their album design, who you're waiting for, print orders, etc, becomes much more challenging when you have 20 active customers. That's why I try to get things done ASAP, most of the time I have the wedding album designed and the high res CD made 3-5 days after the wedding, after that it's just album changes from the customer.

[RLJSlick]

I asked the same question to a professional wedding photographer, and she said one thing "insurance" I looked into it, to get insurance to protect you from law suits if a photo shoot goes horribly wrong isn't cheap. That's why I just stay a amateur when I shoot weddings.

[tim]

I asked the same question to a professional wedding photographer, and she said one thing "insurance" I looked into it, to get insurance to protect you from law suits if a photo shoot goes horribly wrong isn't cheap. That's why I just stay a amateur when I shoot weddings.

Mine costs NZ$800/year, that covers equipment and professional liability. Because people can sue pretty much anyone for pretty much any reason in the US insurance there probably costs a LOT more.

[elysium]

Good post. Totally agree that a confident and consistant tog is something I would be willing to pay for rather than someone cheap.

I would want to have assurance that im getting what I have enquiried about or where I have seen previous work. :)

[randplaty]

Absolutely. Consistency is KEY. If you take 3000 photos at a wedding, 10-20 of them are bound to be decent to good. If you shoot two or three weddings for your friends, you'll have enough decent photos to make a website and start sellling yourself. Does that mean you'll be able to produce 500-1000 good quality photos... not necessarily.

One thing I do when evaluating the quality of a photographer is to look at their blog. Do they post 10 STUNNING images on their blog every wedding? If they have 10 stunning images on their blog, then they probably have 50 great images and 300 good images... and 1000 decent images. While a photographer who is just starting out might only have 50 decent images. That's a huge difference and that's why Bobby can command the $$$ he does. Cuz his work is STUNNING. Check out his blog and you'll see 10 or more STUNNING images EVERYTIME he posts. That's consistency.

[bnlearle]

That's a huge difference and that's why Bobby can command the $$$ he does. Cuz his work is STUNNING. Check out his blog and you'll see 10 or more STUNNING images EVERYTIME he posts. That's consistency.
Way too kind :) Not to mention humble... you guys are RIPPING it up every wedding, as well!

[Karl Johnston]

I can agree with you, bobby, though if peace of mind, consistency and expectance of a good job is all that fuels the pricing scheme .. what happens if someone in your area is just as good as you, though doesn't hold that in mind and offers such a competitive package that you have no choice but to deal with what some would call the low end market (1500-3000$)?

A lot of people, esp. in the city tend to think that just because their competition is doing it, they should put the same price on their work too. I guess that's up to the consumer to decide who's good and who's not good to go to, but I couldn't stomach putting 5 grand on a package I knew only took me 10% in total to put together and develop. Maybe that's just me, though. But the problem is people aren't stupid - they want to know what they're getting. And to explain to someone you get paid 100 $ an hour for what you do would make the average couple go "Er...later."

Maybe I'm too humanitarian for the cutthroat business of wedding photography :lol: and should stick to northern lights instead, people tend to think I'm number 1 at that and should charge higher because of it.

[bnlearle]

I can agree with you, bobby, though if peace of mind, consistency and expectance of a good job is all that fuels the pricing scheme .. what happens if someone in your area is just as good as you, though doesn't hold that in mind and offers such a competitive package that you have no choice but to deal with what some would call the low end market (1500-3000$)?

A lot of people, esp. in the city tend to think that just because their competition is doing it, they should put the same price on their work too. I guess that's up to the consumer to decide who's good and who's not good to go to, but I couldn't stomach putting 5 grand on a package I knew only took me 10% in total to put together and develop. Maybe that's just me, though. But the problem is people aren't stupid - they want to know what they're getting. And to explain to someone you get paid 100 $ an hour for what you do would make the average couple go "Er...later."

Maybe I'm too humanitarian for the cutthroat business of wedding photography :lol: and should stick to northern lights instead, people tend to think I'm number 1 at that and should charge higher because of it.
No, you're just ignorant of what goes into wedding photography and you don't believe in the value of consistency and confidence (don't mean that to sound mean). If you think that 10% goes into it, you're just like all the new people who get into wedding photography thinking "all I do is take some pictures, burn a disc, and get paid how much?!?!" It's just not realistic. I sure know I'm not being paid for 10% of effort.

And I get quite the opposite reaction from clients. I recently shot a wedding out in Thailand. The groom from Canada and the bride from San Francisco. They originally intended on spending MUCH less on wedding photography. I shot their friend's wedding, they saw the finished product, and decided "we want THAT!" They went on a search for "that" but just cheaper. They couldn't find it (for that $1500-$3000 mark). They decided to fly two photographers out to Thailand, put them up at the resort, and pay them their fees - something they originally were NOT budgeting for - because wedding photography was too important to them and they couldn't find anyone cheaper where they could find equal confidence/consistency. I am upfront, open, and honest that there are people out there who are talented and less money. However, once you start adding talent with consistency, confidence, and the ability to make the client have a great time? That's where you start finding less and less photographers who foot the bill.

And as far as the humanitarian bit, I was one full time (made 2 bucks an hour) for 4 years. Will transition in again once I can get work settled into to half a year (with the other half back at my humanitarian work). That has nothing to do with you not liking the pricing structure. Like I said, you understate the value of consistency and confidence (mixed with the ability for your client to have a great time - I left that out). Believe me, I live in the oversaturated wedding photography capitol of the world! If I was overcharging and there were all these 1k-3k photographers who did the same as me, I'd be out of biz ;)

[Karl Johnston]

What do you do, exactly, in your 10k wedding package? What does the client get for that and where does the money go? What is the breakdown of that day?

I'm called ignorant because nobody seems to be able to illustrate the justification...so I've read your thread, it's interesting, it's meritable but come on! Value, consistency .. all of that .. suppose you have all of that, but so does your competition, what do you do ? There's nothing you can do, you're a victim of the market and have to flow with it.

So just tell me what it is that you do to combat that and then hopefully my ignorance will be sedated.

Also..I'm curious, do you do your own printing or do you send out for it?

Not trying to sound like a dipstick :lol: either

[bnlearle]

What do you do, exactly, in your 10k wedding package? What does the client get for that and where does the money go? What is the breakdown of that day?
You know, I just spent a bunch of time writing out everything I offer and what the client ends up getting. But you know what? That's not what my clients are paying for. My clients are paying me because (odds are) they saw a wedding of mine, their friends told them how fun it was with me, they wanted my photos, tried to find it elsewhere for cheaper, and were unable. That's it. My pricing has NOTHING to do with product per dollar. This might not be satisfying for you as it seems that that is where you will find the justification. You can say it's bullocks but the fact is that money goes to me, it's a lot of money, and my client no longer worries about their wedding photos - but now is extremely excited about how great they are going to be. If that's not worth anything to you, that's fine. Some people who love their Chevy's think it's INSANE to pay six figures for a luxury car. That's fine. They don't see the value in it (or just can't afford it). Luxury cars are for those who see the value in it - not for those who think "I could save WAY more if I just drove a Ford." Same goes for wedding photography, my friend ;)

I'm called ignorant because nobody seems to be able to illustrate the justification...so I've read your thread, it's interesting, it's meritable but come on! Value, consistency .. all of that .. suppose you have all of that, but so does your competition, what do you do ? There's nothing you can do, you're a victim of the market and have to flow with it.
That's a HUGE suppose. Show me, in my market, a bunch of photographers that can offer an equal product with consistency and confidence that are also charging $1500. You won't find them. Orange Turtle are the ONLY people I know of in the $3k range that offer great, consistent photographs. They are also only a matter of time away from stepping into the high end market. So, I don't know what you're wanting me to do? Are you wanting me to tell you what would happen if the reality that I know got replaced by your sort of fictional story (where there are all these photographers who do what the high-end guys do but for way less)? If that were the case, I'm sure it would effect me somehow. Still, there is more to wedding photography than just images. Personality and making people want YOU specifically to shoot them is key. Hopefully I'd have the edge on others with that. But then if you're going to take it to its end and say "well what if there were clones of you who charged half what you charge?" Well then, yes. I'm sure I would be affected. But this has little to do with the reality of my market ;)

So just tell me what it is that you do to combat that and then hopefully my ignorance will be sedated.
Make sure that my clients have a great time.
Make sure that their images being simply average isn't even a thought in their mind.
Make beautiful wedding images.
Blogging like crazy to show that I'm a fun person who takes fun photos.
Shoot photos that go over their already high expectations.

That's it ;) I really don't "combat" the competition, however. If you read my blog, you'll see that I do everything I can to HELP my "competition." I only shoot 20 weddings a year. There's plenty to go round.

Also..I'm curious, do you do your own printing or do you send out for it?
I have NO clue how a full time, working wedding photographer would have the time (or desire) to do his own printing. I also think it would be borderline unethical unless I owned some HUGELY expensive, professional machine considering what I charge. I print with WHCC.

Not trying to sound like a dipstick :lol: either
You don't sound like a dipstick ;) You sound like a person who owns a camera, probably takes great pictures, and thinks "I take good pictures. I could take good pictures at a wedding. Those guys who charge a bunch of money are rip offs." There's people like that in EVERYTHING. One of my acoustic guitars is over $3k. People that ask tell me they got their guitar for a couple hundred bucks and can't understand why mine costs so much more. My best friend is a renowned violinist. His violin is a 6 figure violin. He never tells anyone this because he's SICK of people who know nothing of violins telling him "it's just wood!"

Same goes for wedding photography. If you can compile a big list of photographers that charge $1500 that offer the same product as the big guys, start a website where brides can find these people, charge a small fee, and you'll be rich in no time. Fact is, you wouldn't be able to start such a website. Are there overpriced photographers that don't have the talent to match the price tag? You bet. Are there low end photographers who are as talented as some of the big guys? Totally. Are they both the exception and not the rule? Absolutely. Therefore, they are of little consequence ;)

Remember, if the high-end market dropped down to $1500-$3k, the photographers in that market would be out of jobs. The current system works great and allows people to move up in congruence to how business savvy they are and how beautiful and consistent their work is.

[Karl Johnston]

Thanks for your time :) I learned what I needed to.

Cheers bobby!



Though, just a word; if you look at my gear list you'll be shamefully surprised you're mistaken on what the position of my character is. But that's okay, no offense taken, sometimes one needs to step on toes and sensitive subjects in order to get what they need.

[bnlearle]

Thanks for your time :smile: I learned what I needed to.

Cheers bobby!

Though, just a word; if you look at my gear list you'll be shamefully surprised you're mistaken on what the position of my character is. But that's okay, no offense taken, sometimes one needs to step on toes and sensitive subjects in order to get what they need.
This is honest confusion on my part - nothing loaded. I'm not sure what any of this means. I don't know if it's a brick covered in velvet or if you're trying to be nice? I just don't get it...

I don't know know how I'm to be "shamefully surprised" that I'm "mistaken on the position of" your "character" if I look at your gear list... I don't know what that means and I never was aware that your character was being discussed (if that's what you're referring to?). We were talking about why some photographers charge more - not anyone's character ;)

And I don't know what sensitive toes you stepped on. Certainly not mine. Healthy exchange of ideas is what I thought was happening... Was it not?

Really, I don't want to sound mean. I just don't understand your post ;)

[Karl Johnston]

Huh.

No it was sincerity, and the comment about checking out my gear list was funneled from this;
You don't sound like a dipstick You sound like a person who owns a camera, probably takes great pictures, and thinks "I take good pictures. I could take good pictures at a wedding. Those guys who charge a bunch of money are rip offs.

It was kind of offensive, considering It makes me sound like I just picked up a camera and decided I take good pictures, but I suppose in all fairness I am picking at your business and asking sensitive questions and that in itself is rude of me. BUT you did clear up the one essential question I wanted answered was how the high end market really worked.

I'm not sure why you would think it's a brick coated in velvet or wrapped in velvet :lol: or silk or polyester or what have you I can't see anything mean in the way I sounded nor you...misunderstanding?

[randplaty]

Lemme add some numbers here.

First of all, we need to start with the assumption that wedding photography is a full time profession. If you don't believe that, then let me know and we'll back up.

But assuming it's a fulltime profession... and assuming that a photographer shoots maybe 25 weddings a year at 5000 (must be an excellent photographer to charge that price), how much does he actually make?

25 x $5000 = $125k gross

A photographer who brings in 5k per wedding usually has a large marketing budget in order to compete and create brand equity. He needs to establish a high end reputation by advertising in high end wedding magazines. A full page color ad costs $4000 depending on the publication. A full spread costs $8000. Lets say the photographer advertises in 2 magazines. That's $16k already. Lets say he takes out 4 online advertisements at places such as the knot.com or mywedding.com. Those cost 750-1000 a year. Let's say it's 750. That's another 3k right there. Lets say he attends a bridal show. Good ones cost $1000 just to get a booth and a lot more to set up the booth nicely... probably around $2000. That's $3000 for one bridal show. The guy is already up to $21K for his marketing budget. Now what about that kick ass blog and website? A custom website costs $5k plus and a custom blog costs $2k. That's another $7k right there. So the total marketing budget is $28k.

Next is materials. If he's shooting 25 weddings and needs to make 25 albums, it costs $500 to print and bind and another $500 to outsource the design (top quality design and album companies). That's $1000 per wedding just for albums. That's $25k in materials already. Not to mention consultation materials, sample albums, business cards, letterhead, etc. That's probably another $2000 on top of that. That's $27k in materials.

Now on to travel. Some of the weddings will be out of town and the photographer would need to fly for that. Some of them will be in town and he pays gas. Let's assume only 5 are out of town.... so it costs him $1000 for roundtrip plane ticket and hotel and car. That's $5000. The other 20 weddings require $50 for gas and mileage, so that's only $1000. So travel costs $6000.

Now on to equipment. Lets say the photographer buys 1 new body every year, 1 new lens, 1 new flash and 1 new computer. That's not out of the ordinary. In fact, most photographers buy a lot more than that every year in order to keep up to date and in order to not have to worry about old gear dying on them during weddings. 1 new body is $2500. 1 new lens is $1000. 1 new flash is $300. 1 new computer would be $2000. Throw in an extra $1700 for miscellaneous stuff like light stands, umbrellas, batteries, grips, fong dongs, CF cards, bags or whatever... you're up to $7500 a year for equipment.

What about his studio? A photographer that charges $5000 per wedding usually needs at least a studio to meet with his clients in order to maintain that high end image. A small 1000 square foot studio in San Diego would probably cost $2000 a month. That's $24K per year.

Then there's business insurance, health insurance, professional memberships and conventions/workshops etc. A single workshop these days costs $1000 on average. Let's say he goes to 2 workshops and 1 convention per year. The convention costs another $1000. That's $3000 already. Health insurance for a family of 4 costs $500 per month. That's $6000. The business insurance and memberships probably total to $1000 per year. That's a total of $10K.

Okay so let's total all of that up:

Marketing - $28K
Materials - $27K
Travel - $6000
Equipment - $7500
Studio - $24K
Insurance & Memberships - $10K

That's a total of $102500 in expenses.
Granted, not everyone has a studio and not everyone spends that much in marketing ... So let's assume this photographer is a very good business person and is able to minimize expenses. So let's generously lop off $40K off of that in expenses.

That's still $62500 in expenses.
So the photographer would gross $125k but only net about $65K per year with no 401K or stock options or anything like that. That's also putting away 0 for the business.

Is that really too much to pay for someone who produces excellent work? I don't think so. I don't think there's any "humanitarian" aspect involved here. A photographer who produces excellent work deserves to make that much AT LEAST. I wouldn't begrudge a photographer for charging 6k or 7k or 8k because really the people who are excellent and at the top ... very top of their profession DESERVE to make at least six figures... and the truth is, in wedding photography they are not.

Then what about the photographers who are only charging 2k or 3k per wedding but produce excellent work? 1) They're just starting out and will get to the 5K range eventually, or 2) They haven't discovered enough about their business to pay themselves a decent salary. 3) They're not good marketers or have a poor personality.

[bnlearle]

It was kind of offensive, considering It makes me sound like I just picked up a camera and decided I take good pictures, but I suppose in all fairness I am picking at your business and asking sensitive questions and that in itself is rude of me. BUT you did clear up the one essential question I wanted answered was how the high end market really worked.
It might have seemed that way to you, but I never actually said anything like that ;) I said the following...

"You sound like a person who owns a camera, probably takes great pictures, and thinks 'I take good pictures. I could take good pictures at a wedding. Those guys who charge a bunch of money are rip offs.'"

If you notice, I assumed that you took great pictures and then assumed that you weren't arrogant by stating that you only thought you took "good" pictures ;) That is VERY different from assuming that you just recently picked up a camera and YOU think you take good pictures. In fact, it assumes you're talented AND you aren't arrogant :lol: And I never said you were that person - just that you sound like you very well be (which leaves room for you to correct me).

Also, I never thought you were rude, stepping on toes, asking sensitive questions, or anything like that. I simply thought you were ignorant (meaning you just didn't know - not stupid) about all that goes into wedding photography and the value of consistency and client confidence. I saw your photographs early on (which are BREATHTAKING by the way. Truly beautiful stuff you got there!) and knew you had skill - but just that you might not be aware that taking landscape shots, heck even people shots, is very different from shooting weddings. Honestly, your questions never bothered me. I just disagreed with where it seemed you were going with them, is all. :)

[bnlearle]

Wow, Daniel. INCREDIBLE post. Not surprised.

[tim]

randplaty most of your expenses are higher than i'd expect, some aren't things I spend money on, and a couple like albums are too low for high end products.

[randplaty]

randplaty most of your expenses are higher than i'd expect, some aren't things I spend money on, and a couple like albums are too low for high end products.

Granted everyone runs their business differently which is why I lopped 40K off the end.

[gheesom]

Daniel that was a great post. Costings will vary place to place
But it makes a good point that many people seem to think everything we charge is profit.
usually more than half is taken up with expenses, ok maybe not directly attributable to each individual wedding, but an expense that comes out of the income from the weddings.

Good thread, and good replies.

[bluesmap]

thanks. great read on the first post, i have not read the replies

[sapearl]

Then you're missing a lot of other great information that some good people posted here .....:lol:

thanks. great read on the first post, i have not read the replies

[bnlearle]

Then you're missing a lot of other great information that some good people posted here .....:lol:
Nah... if he read the first bit he' good. The OP is a SUPER smart guy ;) :lol:

[sapearl]

True enough..... but we're not chopped liver either :lol:.

Nah... if he read the first bit he' good. The OP is a SUPER smart guy ;) :lol:

[bnlearle]

True enough..... but we're not chopped liver either :lol:.
Alright, alright... I'll give you that...

(just so others know, I am the OP and am TOTALLY joking! :lol:)

[gheesom]

yeah yeah Bobby you're so full of yourself ;)

twas a good thread.

[airfrogusmc]

I agree.

And after 20+ weddings over 3 years, I still get nervous beforehand and charge between $1000 - $1600 (full album).

I never feel like the money is worth it and at the end of the day I am exhausted. I literally can't think straight!

And theres NO WAY you could support a family on 32,000 GROSS a year. NO WAY and have any standard of living. The only way I could see someone making a full time go at it charging only 1200 or even 2100 per wedding is VOLUME. In my opinion or for my life style at 2100 you would have to shoot 100 + wedding a year. Thats a bunch of weddings and if you're doing it yourself thats burn out waiting to happen. You would have to be booking 2 a weekend. How many would you be turning away?

Its exhausting both physically and emotionally. Its a job that you CAN'T call in sick and you've got to be on your game. Its a young persons game. I thought after all the years I'd miss it. I did miss the $$$ at first. But I'm glad I decide to make a switch when I did.

I started at $5500 over 10 years ago and my average was about $9000. If I were still doing it I would have to be charging almost double that. I didn't have packages , everything was ala carte. With all the changes and from everything I've been reading here I'm glad that I'm not shooting weddings anymore. Also wanted to add I was working full time as a staff photographer for a hospital. I charged becasue I knew what I was doing every weekend (saturdays) the last 2 weeks of Sept and the first two weeks of Oct and almost all of June 3 years in advance and to spend that time AWAY from my family especially after working 40 + hours during the week had to be worth it.

I used to get nervous before every wedding. A good nervous though. The kind that gets you up for the game. I still get that nervous edge before every shoot. Goes away immediately once the shutter starts firing.

[airfrogusmc]

Lemme add some numbers here.

First of all, we need to start with the assumption that wedding photography is a full time profession. If you don't believe that, then let me know and we'll back up.

But assuming it's a fulltime profession... and assuming that a photographer shoots maybe 25 weddings a year at 5000 (must be an excellent photographer to charge that price), how much does he actually make?

25 x $5000 = $125k gross

A photographer who brings in 5k per wedding usually has a large marketing budget in order to compete and create brand equity. He needs to establish a high end reputation by advertising in high end wedding magazines. A full page color ad costs $4000 depending on the publication. A full spread costs $8000. Lets say the photographer advertises in 2 magazines. That's $16k already. Lets say he takes out 4 online advertisements at places such as the knot.com or mywedding.com. Those cost 750-1000 a year. Let's say it's 750. That's another 3k right there. Lets say he attends a bridal show. Good ones cost $1000 just to get a booth and a lot more to set up the booth nicely... probably around $2000. That's $3000 for one bridal show. The guy is already up to $21K for his marketing budget. Now what about that kick ass blog and website? A custom website costs $5k plus and a custom blog costs $2k. That's another $7k right there. So the total marketing budget is $28k.

Next is materials. If he's shooting 25 weddings and needs to make 25 albums, it costs $500 to print and bind and another $500 to outsource the design (top quality design and album companies). That's $1000 per wedding just for albums. That's $25k in materials already. Not to mention consultation materials, sample albums, business cards, letterhead, etc. That's probably another $2000 on top of that. That's $27k in materials.

Now on to travel. Some of the weddings will be out of town and the photographer would need to fly for that. Some of them will be in town and he pays gas. Let's assume only 5 are out of town.... so it costs him $1000 for roundtrip plane ticket and hotel and car. That's $5000. The other 20 weddings require $50 for gas and mileage, so that's only $1000. So travel costs $6000.

Now on to equipment. Lets say the photographer buys 1 new body every year, 1 new lens, 1 new flash and 1 new computer. That's not out of the ordinary. In fact, most photographers buy a lot more than that every year in order to keep up to date and in order to not have to worry about old gear dying on them during weddings. 1 new body is $2500. 1 new lens is $1000. 1 new flash is $300. 1 new computer would be $2000. Throw in an extra $1700 for miscellaneous stuff like light stands, umbrellas, batteries, grips, fong dongs, CF cards, bags or whatever... you're up to $7500 a year for equipment.

What about his studio? A photographer that charges $5000 per wedding usually needs at least a studio to meet with his clients in order to maintain that high end image. A small 1000 square foot studio in San Diego would probably cost $2000 a month. That's $24K per year.

Then there's business insurance, health insurance, professional memberships and conventions/workshops etc. A single workshop these days costs $1000 on average. Let's say he goes to 2 workshops and 1 convention per year. The convention costs another $1000. That's $3000 already. Health insurance for a family of 4 costs $500 per month. That's $6000. The business insurance and memberships probably total to $1000 per year. That's a total of $10K.

Okay so let's total all of that up:

Marketing - $28K
Materials - $27K
Travel - $6000
Equipment - $7500
Studio - $24K
Insurance & Memberships - $10K

That's a total of $102500 in expenses.
Granted, not everyone has a studio and not everyone spends that much in marketing ... So let's assume this photographer is a very good business person and is able to minimize expenses. So let's generously lop off $40K off of that in expenses.

That's still $62500 in expenses.
So the photographer would gross $125k but only net about $65K per year with no 401K or stock options or anything like that. That's also putting away 0 for the business.

Is that really too much to pay for someone who produces excellent work? I don't think so. I don't think there's any "humanitarian" aspect involved here. A photographer who produces excellent work deserves to make that much AT LEAST. I wouldn't begrudge a photographer for charging 6k or 7k or 8k because really the people who are excellent and at the top ... very top of their profession DESERVE to make at least six figures... and the truth is, in wedding photography they are not.

Then what about the photographers who are only charging 2k or 3k per wedding but produce excellent work? 1) They're just starting out and will get to the 5K range eventually, or 2) They haven't discovered enough about their business to pay themselves a decent salary. 3) They're not good marketers or have a poor personality.

Exactly what I was getting at in an earlier post over in the sister 2100 thread. I couldn't agree more and you need to ad insurance both business and health. Figure another 15 G for that. OPPPS sorry I see the insurace part in there.

If your doing this full time and not charging a decent price you don't respect your work so how are your potential clients going to respect you and take you or your work serious.

[babuszka]

Great thread, definitely worth reading.
Thanks for sharing and starting this thread!!

[harroz]

+1
It's the first potn thread I've ever book marked.

Thanks everyone for all of your input. Interesting reading.

[bnlearle]

Yay! So happy this turned out to be a good one :D

Bobby

[daletu]

This is a great thread! Thanks for posting Bobby. And I love your works, and I think your work is worth $10K for sure.

I just want to say that a lot of people forgot to mention that the first two even three years of time, we are actually losing money.
I started shooting weddings about 1.5 years ago, I still remember posted my first two weddings up here to get comments. I charged $400 for my first wedding to get experience and to see if I like the job or not. I remember I spend almost a week (hey! I was just a novice) to edited and touched up all 800 images. Half year later, I rasied my price because I realized I will never survive if I charge this little. I now charge between $1800-$5000 (average about $2500) for my packages and I am only making a little, this little money will definitely not be able to support a family or even myself if I don't have other sources of income. Like randplaty have wrote... after advertising, albums, equipments, time...etc... I am actually still losing money. I would say majority of wedding photographers who charge $5000 below are actually not making money, unless you don't advertise, you don't use high end album, you don't buy equipments.
Who would trust a photographer who charges over $5000 that has only 1 year of experience? So I believe most of us started our packages price low for the first 2 years and not making any money or even losing money. So spend $10K for an experienced photographer is actually not much.

[bnlearle]

Thanks for the kind words, Dale :) Awesome post/perspective. You make a much needed point about the start up of photography. I too lost money for a while before I made money.

Bobby

[airfrogusmc]

I to didn't make any money for the first couple of years.

One thing to think about is its very hard to move up once you've established a client base in weddings. To go from charging 1000 to 10,000 and I'm talking base not top package or price. Sometimes its a good idea to work for someone for a while in the market that you want to get into. That way you get all the experience on his dime and your ready to go when you the time is right.

Also if its a high end photographer you'll meet/have met all the consultants (most high end wedding clients use them) all the high end orchestra leaders, videographers, hotel catering managers and florists. I can't stress enough how important connections are.

[gh patriot]

stick to northern lights instead, people tend to think I'm number 1 at that and should charge higher because of it.


I just checked out your site and WOW!!!

You have some amazing talent!

[gh patriot]

This is a great thread! Thanks for posting Bobby. And I love your works, and I think your work is worth $10K for sure.



Worth 10K, sure, you do fantastic work!!!

It is kind of sad that your average American cant affort 10k on pictures and have to settle. Im not sure on this next figure but I would guess that someone spending 10k on a photographer (worth it) is probably spending 50k+ on the entire wedding.

Considering the average income in the U.S. is about 45k, it seems that the ability to hire a fantastic photog for their wedding would be limited to the wealthy when you figure the entire cost of the wedding.

Or maybe Im wrong and people put second mortgages on their house to fund a wedding. Who knows.

I do wish I could have hired a Top of the line photog for my wedding but my entire wedding budget was about the rate of that one top rate photog.

In the end its my fault that I only make 40k a year and cant afford the "Luxury"photographer.

[cdifoto]

I wish I could move up the ladder of success at the speed most of you magicians seem to move...

Here in Rural Nowheresville, it's just not that easy. You HAVE to do the low end stuff just to hook people and get yourself out there. You can't just wake up one day and say "hey, I think I'll be an internationally known wedding photographer."

And $1500 is mid-range in Rural Nowheresville. That's not the low end. The difference is, in Rural Nowheresville, rent doesn't cost $5000 a month. You can live off $32,000 a year AND support a family. People do it all the time. You won't be driving a new BMW, but you'll be comfortable.


I think it ultimately depends on where you start out. If you're urban (LA, SF, Boston, NYC), you can put on a show and charge more...or at the very least move up the ladder fast. It's expected. But nobody hires a redneck from the farm to shoot their premium wedding. The redneck has to get away from the farm and reinvent himself so that people have no idea he ever was rural. Short of that, he stays rural and gets rural clients...the same clients that would scoff if he had a BMW and not hire him on the basis that he's overpaid.

[gh patriot]

So spend $10K for an experienced photographer is actually not much.


That made me laugh.

It may be worth it, but its still a crap load of money.

[gh patriot]

I wish I could move up the ladder of success at the speed most of you magicians seem to move...

Here in Rural Nowheresville, it's just not that easy. You HAVE to do the low end stuff just to hook people and get yourself out there. You can't just wake up one day and say "hey, I think I'll be an internationally known wedding photographer."

And $1500 is mid-range in Rural Nowheresville. That's not the low end. The difference is, in Rural Nowheresville, rent doesn't cost $5000 a month. You can live off $32,000 a year AND support a family. People do it all the time. You won't be driving a new BMW, but you'll be comfortable.


I think it ultimately depends on where you start out. If you're urban (LA, SF, Boston, NYC), you can put on a show and charge more...or at the very least move up the ladder fast. It's expected. But nobody hires a redneck from the farm to shoot their premium wedding. The redneck has to get away from the farm and reinvent himself so that people have no idea he ever was rural. Short of that, he stays rural and gets rural clients...the same clients that would scoff if he had a BMW and not hire him on the basis that he's overpaid.


I agree. A decent 1700 sq/ft house In my town costs about 125-150k. Lots of people (including me) live of of an income in the 30-40k range. These same people just cant afford to drop 10k (50k on wedding) for a wedding photog, or spend 5k a month on rent.

Im curious to see the average anual income of someone who spents 10k on a photog for a wedding ( again, not saying that its not worth it).

[cdifoto]

I agree. A decent 1700 sq/ft house In my town costs about 125-150k. Lots of people (including me) live of of an income in the 30-40k range. These same people just cant afford to drop 10k (50k) for a wedding photog, or spend 5k a month on rent.

Im curious to see the average anual income of someone who spents 10k on a photog for a wedding ( again, not saying that its not worth it).
No doubt. And the people that could afford 10K photographers are dropping like flies. There are, and always have been, more people at the bottom than at the top.

[randplaty]

I agree. A decent 1700 sq/ft house In my town costs about 125-150k. Lots of people (including me) live of of an income in the 30-40k range. These same people just cant afford to drop 10k (50k on wedding) for a wedding photog, or spend 5k a month on rent.

Im curious to see the average anual income of someone who spents 10k on a photog for a wedding ( again, not saying that its not worth it).

Wow... a decent 1700 sq/ft house in my neighborhood of San Diego costs 300K-325K still and its dropped off a lot already. The average household income here is 78K and we're not in a posh neighborhood by any means.

[bnlearle]

I wish I could move up the ladder of success at the speed most of you magicians seem to move...

Here in Rural Nowheresville, it's just not that easy. You HAVE to do the low end stuff just to hook people and get yourself out there. You can't just wake up one day and say "hey, I think I'll be an internationally known wedding photographer."


Ha! I wish it was easy for me :) Making the jump was difficult and required a good year or two 60-80 hour weeks. This last season for me had 12 hour days feeling like days off. Not exaggerating.

I don't know anyone who woke up and said "I'll be an internationally known wedding photographer" and it just happened. Artistic skill, personality, business "savvyness", and a succeed or die mentality is what gets people there (for the most part). That is far more indicative of high end success than location is. I've been surprised with how many $5k and up wedding photographers I met on DJ's Free To Succeed tour out in Nashville. Most Nowheresville citizens have a "Nashville" within a couple hours of them. Many aren't willing to shoot on a regular basis that far away, however.

One key? Open your photography beyond your local market. That helped me HUGE.

Bobby

[bnlearle]

It is kind of sad that your average American cant affort 10k on pictures and have to settle. Im not sure on this next figure but I would guess that someone spending 10k on a photographer (worth it) is probably spending 50k+ on the entire wedding.

Thanks so much for the kind words!

I have a different experience. I had several (close to half) clients last year where I was there biggest expense. One couple I was more than 50% of the wedding. A couple where I was right there at 50%. People pay for what they feel is most important. For many, photography comes behind the location, dress, cake, catering, reception hall, and even flowers/tablesetting/planning. Nothing wrong with that, by the way. But I don't feel sorry for anyone when it comes to wedding stuff. There are people that have unbelievably small budgets (my wife and I got married off about $1500 6 years ago - dress, location, photographer - EVERYTHING). But most people have at least a $10-$20k budget. If I could do it all over again, a wedding in a friend's backyard with $5 pizzas, Lindsay in a cheap tshirt dress, me in a button up, homemade cake, and the photographer of my dreams. Why? That's where wedding photography would lie on my priority list.

All in all, you needn't have a $50k budget in order to have a $10k photographer :)

Bobby

[sapearl]

I wonder how he and all the other high end "Free to Succeed" folks are currently doing in the "new" economy. Btw, is DJ still shooting or giving seminars full time? Was he the one who coined the term Nowheresville?

...... I've been surprised with how many $5k and up wedding photographers I met on DJ's Free To Succeed tour out in Nashville. Most Nowheresville citizens have a "Nashville" within a couple hours of them. Many aren't willing to shoot on a regular basis that far away, however.......

[harroz]

That, and producing what your local market doesn't have. ie creating images that are different to others in your area. With those 2 I think you have more of a chance. Thats what I'm tyrying anyway :-)



One key? Open your photography beyond your local market. That helped me HUGE.

Bobby

[gh patriot]

Wow... a decent 1700 sq/ft house in my neighborhood of San Diego costs 300K-325K still and its dropped off a lot already. The average household income here is 78K and we're not in a posh neighborhood by any means.


That sucks.

[airfrogusmc]

And $1500 is mid-range in Rural Nowheresville. That's not the low end. The difference is, in Rural Nowheresville, rent doesn't cost $5000 a month. You can live off $32,000 a year AND support a family. People do it all the time. You won't be driving a new BMW, but you'll be comfortable.

32,000 gross? HMMM lets do the math. health insurance for the family 1,000 a month thats 12,000 and year. Now we're down to 20,000....Business insurance 4,000 a year. Now we're down to 16,000. What about albums, prints, whatever else you might need to spend $$$ on... OH and then theres income tax. Man not much left huh, even for nowheresville. Crap where can you live on less than 15,000 net anywhere with a family?

[bnlearle]

No doubt. And the people that could afford 10K photographers are dropping like flies. There are, and always have been, more people at the bottom than at the top.
I keep hearing people say this, but all the high end photographers I know are having GREAT business. Not sure if it's true...

I wonder how he and all the other high end "Free to Succeed" folks are currently doing in the "new" economy. Btw, is DJ still shooting or giving seminars full time? Was he the one who coined the term Nowheresville?
Again, I think they're doing quite well. Lloyd (picturecrazy), for example, recently said he's got 3 spots left for '09 before he closes out his year. I just had a pretty big meeting with "Free to Succeed" photographers at DJ's. Jasmine Star, Chris Humphreys, Dane Sanders, Tim Hahlberg, Josh Newton... they all seemed to be doing great this season. If you are simply targeting rich people, yeah, your business might struggle a bit this year. If you are targeting people who absolutel cherisch great photography? Well you'll do just fine, imo.

Nowheresville was coined (as far as I know) in this thread by cdiphoto. Not DJ. Not sure why you'd think that :) And DJ doesn't do seminars OR shoot full time. He's got showit that keeps him pretty busy.

That, and producing what your local market doesn't have. ie creating images that are different to others in your area. With those 2 I think you have more of a chance. Thats what I'm tyrying anyway :-)
GREAT point! I noticed a lack of SUPER wide open shooting in my area. I already loved shooting wide open and decided, heck, why not do what I love all the time? Now I shoot all L primes (24L, 50L, 135L) all wide open. Not some's taste, I'm sure, but I love it, my clients seem to like it, and it sets me apart in some degree.

Bobby

[ipsum43]

in any occupation, there are many different tiers of earners...

[LeesaB]

Even during the great depression not every state or city was depressed. So by making yourself open and available to more then just your "nowhereville" I think is a key.

There will always be 10k weddings and I think there will be just as many.

Bobby has a clue there, it's finding people who want Great Photography, not just snapshots.

I run into a lot of people who don't care if they get a snapshot, for those people there are even the 500 dollar photographer. I leave it there.

I love what I do, and I want to do more of it and learn as much as I can and be the best that I can, it takes a LOT of work and time and energy and changing what you've done and then changing it again and searching yourself and finding out who you are and being a leader, not a follower! (I'll always follow a few photogs :-)

Making it, does not always mean money, you have to be happy with what you do.

How many times do I hear a photographer say "I want to shoot weddings, that's where the money is" pick up a camera and proclaim "I am a pro wedding photographer" They have no clue as to the work and time that happens before and after the CLICK. Eventually they either get sued or back out after realizing they are in over their heads, prayerfully the latter!

With all that said. Why should photographers charge so much? Why not? How much is a cake and food for a wedding, a venue, the florists (that sometimes costs as much as my photography) all these things are gone after the wedding, but my pictures are a lasting memory of their very special day and it's the only thing besides their marriage that will last and they can look back on and relive that special day....

SO why not charge "so much"

I personally don't think I charge "so much" but I charge according to the work that will be put into their special day and moment!

When I first started out, I did my free weddings and my $500, but as I grew and learned and acquired more to make their images better, my prices grew as I grew.

And Bobby Earle, you are rare! Your not sponsored (as far as I know, and I better be at least 10th to find out when you are) and you are unique in your style and your personality and I so appreciate and value your opinion. I know you've traveled a path to get to the road you are on! You're real and I know that is one thing people appreciate in the days we live in!

[airfrogusmc]

I keep hearing people say this, but all the high end photographers I know are having GREAT business. Not sure if it's true...


Again, I think they're doing quite well. Lloyd (picturecrazy), for example, recently said he's got 3 spots left for '09 before he closes out his year. I just had a pretty big meeting with "Free to Succeed" photographers at DJ's. Jasmine Star, Chris Humphreys, Dane Sanders, Tim Hahlberg, Josh Newton... they all seemed to be doing great this season. If you are simply targeting rich people, yeah, your business might struggle a bit this year. If you are targeting people who absolutel cherisch great photography? Well you'll do just fine, imo.

Nowheresville was coined (as far as I know) in this thread by cdiphoto. Not DJ. Not sure why you'd think that :) And DJ doesn't do seminars OR shoot full time. He's got showit that keeps him pretty busy.


GREAT point! I noticed a lack of SUPER wide open shooting in my area. I already loved shooting wide open and decided, heck, why not do what I love all the time? Now I shoot all L primes (24L, 50L, 135L) all wide open. Not some's taste, I'm sure, but I love it, my clients seem to like it, and it sets me apart in some degree.

Bobby

Bobby I shot high end weddings for years both working for others and then doing them on my own. I switched to shooting all corporate/commercial some years back but I still have a very good friend (old boss) thats still shooting and he's not hurting either. You and harroz made a very good point about not shooting like the herd. Its so important to find your own look/style. You need to have something that makes your work different than all the rest. And the work has to be there.

Also that niche is usually the last to feel the pinch in hard times if at all.

When you work for someone else you meet people like consultants (most really high end weddings all have consultants and a good deal of your business will revolve around their recommendations) orchestra leaders, florists, videographers, hotel catering managers and most important you learn how to deal with those clients and all on someone elses dime. You don't have to start like that but it can make the road a bit easier.

[cdifoto]

32,000 gross? HMMM lets do the math. health insurance for the family 1,000 a month thats 12,000 and year. Now we're down to 20,000....Business insurance 4,000 a year. Now we're down to 16,000. What about albums, prints, whatever else you might need to spend $$$ on... OH and then theres income tax. Man not much left huh, even for nowheresville. Crap where can you live on less than 15,000 net anywhere with a family?
Nowhere did I say $32,000 gross.


I'm not knocking ANYONE who makes the big money shooting weddings, or shooting anything else for that matter. However, while everyone's trying to charge a lot of money just because a few marketing gurus told them to, since it works for them of course, there are a lot of smaller budget people going without quality photography.

Y'all keep saying that anyone who values photography enough WILL come up with the 10 grand, and anyone who does not come up with 10 grand simply doesn't value photography. That's simply not true. If the money isn't there despite the desire, then the money simply isn't there. That doesn't mean the bride doesn't deserve beautiful images.

[harroz]

It is described as overall, so the wedding album is incorporated into the price, in which case it is added and taken from the overall income.

[airfrogusmc]

Nowhere did I say $32,000 gross.


I'm not knocking ANYONE who makes the big money shooting weddings, or shooting anything else for that matter. However, while everyone's trying to charge a lot of money just because a few marketing gurus told them to, since it works for them of course, there are a lot of smaller budget people going without quality photography.

Y'all keep saying that anyone who values photography enough WILL come up with the 10 grand, and anyone who does not come up with 10 grand simply doesn't value photography. That's simply not true. If the money isn't there despite the desire, then the money simply isn't there. That doesn't mean the bride doesn't deserve beautiful images.

If you notice it was in the form of a question. And what makes you think a marketing guru told them to charge and I never said that anyone that values photography would come up with 10 G. What I am saying and will continue to say is if you're charging that kind of money its better to shot 30 weddings at 10 grand than 100 weddings at 1000. Not only because of the financial freedom but also the creative freedom clients like that will give you. In fact insist on. No cookie cutter photography for them.

I also still can't see how anyone can make a decent living only charging 1200 per wedding if thats the only source of income unless they still live with mommy and daddy or are doing 50+ weddings a year.

[cdifoto]

If you notice it was in the form of a question. And what makes you think a marketing guru told them to charge and I never said that anyone that values photography would come up with 10 G. What I am saying and will continue to say is if you're charging that kind of money its better to shot 30 weddings at 10 grand than 100 weddings at 1000. Not only because of the financial freedom but also the creative freedom clients like that will give you. In fact insist on. No cookie cutter photography for them.

I also still can't see how anyone can make a decent living only charging 1200 per wedding if thats the only source of income unless they still live with mommy and daddy or are doing 50+ weddings a year.

No, it wasn't a question. You put a question mark there of course but continued to crunch numbers. That's NOT asking a question. That's assuming I said something I did not say.

"Decent living" is relative. To some people, a decent living is based on having a new BMW every three years. To others, it's based on having a job they enjoy and a family that loves them. Financially, you can do ok around here on $1200 a wedding, depending what you actually include with that $1200. It's not going to get a premium album though if anyone's trying to make a living from it. That should be quite obvious.

[bnlearle]

However, while everyone's trying to charge a lot of money just because a few marketing gurus told them to, since it works for them of course, there are a lot of smaller budget people going without quality photography.
Interesting point of view... Definitely sounds a little negative/condescending. The problem with many photographers is that they think the high end guys (not just the famous ones - I'm talking about high end people that aren't big names as well) are there because of some stunt or bit of luck. Not saying YOU think that - but it seems a lot of lower end photographers like to downplay or minimize the success or sort of hate on the high end guys.

Y'all keep saying that anyone who values photography enough WILL come up with the 10 grand, and anyone who does not come up with 10 grand simply doesn't value photography. That's simply not true. If the money isn't there despite the desire, then the money simply isn't there. That doesn't mean the bride doesn't deserve beautiful images.
I don't know where you heard that ;) What I am saying is that there ARE people who value photography so much that they spend half their wedding budget on it. About half of my clients last year told me that I was either half (some more than half) of their budget or I was the biggest expense of their wedding. Outside one wedding where the wedding was full of doctors (the groom owning his own practice), most of my clients were average incomed - with a few being straight low income.

And this $10k number is sort of being focused on as if it's the ONLY way to get great photography. Becker is one of the most famous photographers out there and you can get him for $6k. Image is Found, Amelia Lyon... many of my favorite photographers can be booked significantly under 10k. For many, the 10k package is there for the people who have more money - while the smaller packages are very much so within many peoples' reaches. Just depends on where photography fits on the priority scale.

And I'm not saying either you spend over half your budget on photography or you don't value it. I am saying, however, that the person who has a limited budget and spends 40% of their budget on photography does in fact value photography more than the person who has the same limited budget but wants the big chunks of their wedding budget to go to the location, cake, decorations, planner, etc. They still can value photography, of course. No one is saying differently. But the point is that those that make the sacrifice value it more and tend to end up regretting it less ;)

Bobby

[cdifoto]

Nope I think it's awesome that some photographers can make the money they do. I just get tired of seeing and hearing high end photographers/gurus telling everyone to raise their rates because clients will thank them for it. (David Jay said those exact words not too long ago).

What happens in the real world is the photographers without the golden touch get NO work and the higher end photographers' positions are reinforced further still.

And to clarify...I'm not talking about what you said specifically just like I'm not talking about what airfrog said specifically. I'm talking about the entire mantra that raising your rates is what every photographer should be doing. And yes, the marketing gurus DO say that. The REASON they say that is not to make the world successful but rather to make themselves even more so. They sell books, videos, seminars, etc to get every person on the planet buying into that way of thinking...as if a rate increase is THE answer, when it is not. It's what I call Carleton Sheets marketing.

If I were to raise my rates, I would get NO work whatsoever, because I'm a redneck. No one hires a redneck when they have money to spend...they hire a name. You're a name. You say you aren't but you are. David Jay is a name. Amelia Lyon is a name. Image is Found is a name.

Will I raise my rates? Sure. If I get booked up solid at my current rates and have no dates left. That means it's time. However, I don't have the golden touch, so I know it's going to be a little while before that time comes. It also means I'll be incremental. I won't jump to $5000 or $6000 right off the bat. I'd again have no work. Will I get to $5000+? Who knows. I can't predict the future. If I do, will I say that you can't make it on $1200? No. I will never say that. Because you CAN make it on $1200. You just have to be financially intelligent and not live where it's obscenely expensive. :D

[bnlearle]

Nope I think it's awesome that some photographers can make the money they do. I just get tired of seeing and hearing high end photographers/gurus telling everyone to raise their rates because clients will thank them for it. (David Jay said those exact words not too long ago).
Your clients WILL thank you for it. I shot weddings this last year for very large amounts and a few weddings at the same time for $1500 (what I was charging in Jan. of last year). You might have thought the $1500 clients would have thought "man! we're getting this guy for that much!! Awesome!" They knew about my price increases. Guess what. The only weddings where I was mistreated last year were weddings that booked me BEFORE my price increases.

What happens in the real world is the photographers without the golden touch get NO work and the higher end photographers' positions are reinforced further still.
I went from $1500 to where I am now in less than a year. I know that's not typical, but where is my golden touch? There are SO many $5k+ wedding photographers that people have never heard of. Most of them don't have a golden touch. They have exceptional skill that sets them apart from others, great personality and people skills, and some business instincts.


And to clarify...I'm not talking about what you said specifically just like I'm not talking about what airfrog said specifically. I'm talking about the entire mantra that raising your rates is what every photographer should be doing. And yes, the marketing gurus DO say that. The REASON they say that is not to make the world successful but rather to make themselves even more so. They sell books, videos, seminars, etc to get every person on the planet buying into that way of thinking...as if a rate increase is THE answer, when it is not. It's what I call Carleton Sheets marketing.
Who is this whole mantra that says this? And are they simply saying "raise your prices and all is well!"? People tend to hear the flashy, better sounding clips and forget or don't pay attention to the content or context. I really think your painting people with too broad a brush.

I don't know who you're referring to, but since you named DJ, I'll talk on that. DJ qualifies his statements by a couple things. His main point (and I don't remember the exact numbers) is that wedding photography gets about 6% of the wedding budget. Do you think that's right? I know I don't. And DJ also advised on the FTS tour for photographers to raise prices SMALL amounts every wedding or two. That makes the market dictate your increases. If you're not offering something that others can get elsewhere for cheaper (and I don't just mean photography - I mean the whole experience for the client), then you should likely increase.

Either way, I can't tell you how many times I was payed less than the cake person my first year. That, in my opinion, shouldn't happen.

If I were to raise my rates, I would get NO work whatsoever, because I'm a redneck. No one hires a redneck when they have money to spend...they hire a name. You're a name. You say you aren't but you are. David Jay is a name. Amelia Lyon is a name. Image is Found is a name.
I am slightly a name now. Yes. Very little, imo, but I acknowledge that there is something to that. However, many people think that DJ made my name because we're friends and he's blogged about me a bunch. Guess what, first time I met DJ was spring of last year. We talked about how awesome it was that I had 5 weddings booked at that point for $5k. I started booking better weddings BEFORE I was a (slight and small) name. I've got a little recognition with photographers thanks to DJ and a few other sources. Clients, however, were no golden touch. I worked my fingers to the bone and was intensly critical of my photography. I raised my rates because a switch flipped for me. I finally believed that I wasn't ripping people off for providing them with beautiful photographs that I felt were unique. I believed that I was exceptional (for my area) for charging $1500, raised my prices to fit my area (for the level of photography I felt I was at) to $3k. I then had a business decision to raise my prices every wedding. At that point I'm letting the market dictate my prices. If I book less, I raise less.

Remember, no one is saying "triple your prices tomorrow!" DJ suggests that people raise their prices a small amount every wedding. If THAT stops you from succeeding, my hunch is that you (not you personally :)) are in the wrong business or should move back to AM and switch to pro when you get some more weddings under your belt (or improve however).

Will I raise my rates? Sure. If I get booked up solid at my current rates and have no dates left. That means it's time. However, I don't have the golden touch, so I know it's going to be a little while before that time comes. It also means I'll be incremental. I won't jump to $5000 or $6000 right off the bat. I'd again have no work. Will I get to $5000+? Who knows. I can't predict the future. If I do, will I say that you can't make it on $1200? No. I will never say that. Because you CAN make it on $1200. You just have to be financially intelligent and not live where it's obscenely expensive. :D
No one said you can't live off of $1200 alone. He said if you want to live off of $1200 you have to shoot 50 weddings. That, in my opinion, is generally a reasonable statement. And note, you talked about incrimental price raises. That's what the golden touchers say, as well ;)

Side note. I really don't want to sound like I'm attacking you in any of this, Cdiphoto. I really like you and fully respect your situation. I mean that sincerely. Just throwing in my two cents :)

Bobby

[cdifoto]

That's alright Bobby. I don't see any insult, just discussion. I'm not afraid to admit that I AM putting myself back into a pro-am sitation (not complete amateur as I do know what I'm doing), but I'm going to find a day job to be my primary income since the economy has hit my area really hard (people don't have extra money to spend but fortunately there are a still few jobs opening - mostly gov't positions specifically to combat the recession). I'm targeting the world with my services, but as you know, being a globetrotter doesn't happen overnight. And my rates will be placed at a higher level when I have a day job simply because I can then take the stance that one a year pays for the car and more than that is a bonus.

[sapearl]

Yes, I remember that thread..... I think it was within the last year or so.

I must be dense because I never really understood the statement he made. I asked for an explanation - he did respond - but it just sounded like a lot of smoke and mirrors; something on the order of the Emperor's New Clothes.

...... I just get tired of seeing and hearing high end photographers/gurus telling everyone to raise their rates because clients will thank them for it. (David Jay said those exact words not too long ago).

.......

[bnlearle]

Yes, I remember that thread..... I think it was within the last year or so.

I must be dense because I never really understood the statement he made. I asked for an explanation - he did respond - but it just sounded like a lot of smoke and mirrors; something on the order of the Emperor's New Clothes.
Maybe you missed my post...

"Your clients WILL thank you for it. I shot weddings this last year for very large amounts and a few weddings at the same time for $1500 (what I was charging in Jan. of last year). You might have thought the $1500 clients would have thought "man! we're getting this guy for that much!! Awesome!" They knew about my price increases. Guess what. The only weddings where I was mistreated last year were weddings that booked me BEFORE my price increases."

So obviously the clients don't walk up to you and thank your for charging them more. I doubt one thinks that's what DJ means (and if it is, hopefully that's corrected now). Clients will "thank" you by appreciating their purchase more, respecting you as an artist, and not considering you on a similar level as the servers. If that's smoke and mirrors to you, then I'm not sure what smoke and mirrors means.

And again, it's SO easy to take something someone like DJ says, not pay attention to the context, and act like we've got another infomercial guy on our hands. Fact is, DJ talks about raising prices in SMALL amounts each wedding or two. Again, if you aren't able to raise your prices by that method, then you are either not a good enough photographer, lacking in people skills/personality, have poor business skills, just have plain bad luck, or you were priced accordingly before and you should go back down.

I don't understand it sometimes. Do you want key figures in wedding photography to say "charge less!"? Honestly, I see more smoke in mirrors in saying "sounds like smoke and mirrors" than I do in a method like that ;)

Bobby

[cdifoto]

If that's really what he meant, maybe he should have said "the more you charge, the more respect you get." If two reasonably intelligent human beings (as I consider Stu and myself to be) were confused by his statement, I wonder how many others were as well.

[bnlearle]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, so I can't really say how coherent it was. However, I can say that I doubt most people would think that DJ means people will literally walk up to you and say "thank you so much for charging me more money." I've heard a lot of DJ critiques - but that's not one of them.

Honestly, what did you think he meant by that? And I think I'd need a link to that thread ;)

Either way, as I explained (and as DJ has explained - every time I've heard him talk about it, at least), if you're having trouble raising your prices with a method that allows your market to determine your pricing, it's more likely something you're struggling with than the method.

I really think more photographers should be more critical, open, and objective about their photography - skill and uniqueness mainly. I think a lot of people raise their prices, it doesn't pan out well (many times because they raise them in chunks), and instead of wanting to accept that it might be because they aren't that good they want to blame an outside source. Someone like DJ becomes an easy target at that point. I haven't looked at EITHER of your photos yet, so I promise that isn't a loaded statement ;)

[cdifoto]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, so I can't really say how coherent it was.
bw!

[cdifoto]

I haven't looked at EITHER of your photos yet, so I promise that isn't a loaded statement ;)
Hey now. I've taken more than two photos, thankyouverymuch! :mad: :p

[cdifoto]

I really think more photographers should be more critical, open, and objective about their photography - skill and uniqueness mainly.
I agree. I'm super-critical of my images. I'm NOWHERE near your level. Nor that of DJ, or a lot of people on this forum for that matter.

[bnlearle]

Hey now. I've taken more than two photos, thankyouverymuch! :mad: :p
HA! I didn't even see that :oops: :lol:

[airfrogusmc]

No, it wasn't a question. You put a question mark there of course but continued to crunch numbers. That's NOT asking a question. That's assuming I said something I did not say.

"Decent living" is relative. To some people, a decent living is based on having a new BMW every three years. To others, it's based on having a job they enjoy and a family that loves them. Financially, you can do ok around here on $1200 a wedding, depending what you actually include with that $1200. It's not going to get a premium album though if anyone's trying to make a living from it. That should be quite obvious.

Now your telling me what I'm saying HOW ARROGANT is that. Heres where I assumed you got that price # from. And I rounded up to 1 year.
Originally Posted by _Jo_ http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7063887#post7063887)
I agree.

And after 20+ weddings over 3 years, I still get nervous beforehand and charge between $1000 - $1600 (full album).

I never feel like the money is worth it and at the end of the day I am exhausted. I literally can't think straight!

"And theres NO WAY you could support a family on 32,000 GROSS a year. NO WAY and have any standard of living. The only way I could see someone making a full time go at it charging only 1200 or even 2100 per wedding is VOLUME. In my opinion or for my life style at 2100 you would have to shoot 100 + wedding a year. Thats a bunch of weddings and if you're doing it yourself thats burn out waiting to happen. You would have to be booking 2 a weekend. How many would you be turning away?"

You just DON'T GET IT !!!! You keep making blanket statements like all artist are pretentious and you hate art. All gallery owners are pretentious etc. Well a good deal of those high end clients COLLECT ART and LOVE ART. Do you always hate what you don't understand? If you deal with these clients you need to SPEAK THEIR LANGUAGE. You talk of what a great business man you are but would refuse to put a tux on the get the big jobs...Sounds like good business to me. With an attitude like that you'll always be on the outside looking in fighting the world. Oh yeah and all the porn talk will go over BIG with the high end crowd to :lol::lol::lol:. Yep you got it all figured out....

[cdifoto]

Now your telling me what I'm saying HOW ARROGANT is that. Heres where I assumed you got that price # from. And I rounded up to 1 year.
Originally Posted by _Jo_ http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7063887#post7063887)
I agree.

And after 20+ weddings over 3 years, I still get nervous beforehand and charge between $1000 - $1600 (full album).

I never feel like the money is worth it and at the end of the day I am exhausted. I literally can't think straight!

"And theres NO WAY you could support a family on 32,000 GROSS a year. NO WAY and have any standard of living. The only way I could see someone making a full time go at it charging only 1200 or even 2100 per wedding is VOLUME. In my opinion or for my life style at 2100 you would have to shoot 100 + wedding a year. Thats a bunch of weddings and if you're doing it yourself thats burn out waiting to happen. You would have to be booking 2 a weekend. How many would you be turning away?"

You just DON'T GET IT !!!! You keep making blanket statements like all artist are pretentious and you hate art. All gallery owners are pretentious etc. Well a good deal of those high end clients COLLECT ART and LOVE ART. Do you always hate what you don't understand? If you deal with these clients you need to SPEAK THEIR LANGUAGE. You talk of what a great business man you are but would refuse to put a tux on the get the big jobs...Sounds like good business to me. With an attitude like that you'll always be on the outside looking in fighting the world. Oh yeah and all the porn talk will go over BIG with the high end crowd to :lol::lol::lol:. Yep you got it all figured out....
I don't talk of being a great business man. I say how I do things, plain and simple. Does everyone like it? Heck no. But I'm not going to please everyone no matter what I do or how I act.

As for the tuxedo...that's just not me, and they make it impossible for me to be comfortable and sell myself honestly. I'd rather not get a job because I was who I am than get a job based on a facade. A tuxedo would be out of place, at least in my area. I live in a small town and don't have a studio. We don't have 5 star restaurants in which to meet. We just have bars, coffee shops, and casual restaurants. Even if it's a high end client, I'm not going to wear a tux to meet since I wouldn't wear a tux to shoot. I move around and sweat too much to wear a tux. I'm about the same age as most of my clients, and if I was getting married & in the process of meeting photographers, I don't think I'd hire one if he met me in a tuxedo. I'd think he was stuck in the 80s.

Bobby, do you wear a tuxedo at any point? Does David Jay?

[airfrogusmc]

Attacking me doesn't make you look very good. I never attacked anyone here. You don't know me at all.

I don't even talk of being a great business man. I say how I do things, plain and simple. Does everyone like it? Heck no. But I'm not going to please everyone no matter what I do or how I act.

As for the tuxedo...that's just not me, and they make it impossible for me to be comfortable and sell myself honestly. I'd rather not get a job because I was who I am than get a job based on a facade.

There was no attack on you personally, just statements you've previously made. And shouldn't those be open for discussion? You were trying to tell everyone what I was saying. I would say thats arrogant. And wearing a tux if all the guests are in black tie and the consultants you work with require it isn't a facade. Its just dressing appropriately. The fact that those clients might higher you not only because of your photographic skill but your ability to look and act appropriately with there guests and family is not a facade.

[cdifoto]

Well, if it was required, I'd oblige of course. I'm not a total yutz. My experience with high end stuff is limited obviously, but the few I've done haven't had any specific requirements for photographers. My usual black slacks/maroon button down always went over fine. It's classy enough not to stand out but gives me freedom of movement.

I thought you've been talking about the initial meeting though. I would NEVER wear a tuxedo for that. Or even a suit for that matter. I've always felt that dressing up too much can be counter-productive in that it makes you look stuffy, unfriendly, and corporate instead of warm, inviting, and personal.

I have no desire to do stuffy black tie weddings just for the money though. I have a feeling that Bobby and David Jay do very few, if any, of those either. They've always come across as pretty casual to me. Give me a $1200 wedding with friendly, open people over a $6500 stuffy pretentious wedding any day of the week. And before you jump to conclusions...this is NOT a blanket statement saying ALL black tie weddings are stuffy and pretentious.

[yanchula81]

I'm doing my sisters wedding free of charge. Then again I am a Deputy Sheriff by trade, not a photographer.

[cdifoto]

I'm doing my sisters wedding free of charge. Then again I am a Deputy Sheriff by trade, not a photographer.
What a coincidence! I'm watching you on DVD (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NA21YA/) right this minute. :D :p

[airfrogusmc]

Well, if it was required, I'd oblige of course. I'm not a total yutz. My experience with high end stuff is limited obviously, but the few I've done haven't had any specific requirements for photographers. My usual black slacks/maroon button down always went over fine. It's classy enough not to stand out but gives me freedom of movement.

I thought you've been talking about the initial meeting though. I would NEVER wear a tuxedo for that. Or even a suit for that matter. I've always felt that dressing up too much can be counter-productive in that it makes you look stuffy, unfriendly, and corporate instead of warm, inviting, and personal.

I have no desire to do stuffy black tie weddings just for the money though. I have a feeling that Bobby and David Jay do very few, if any, of those either. They've always come across as pretty casual to me. Give me a $1200 wedding with friendly, open people over a $6500 stuffy pretentious wedding any day of the week. And before you jump to conclusions...this is NOT a blanket statement saying ALL black tie weddings are stuffy and pretentious.

Sure sounds like a blanket statement. You'd be surprised at how much CREATIVE FREEDOM you have and the incredible ENVIRONMENTS you can create in at those stuffy pretentious weddings. Are there pretentious people that spend a ton of money on their weddings YES but there are also some very unpretentious people that spend and ones that really appreciate fine photography. Just like there are pretentious people and bridezillas that don't spend. So you'd rather work shot 108 wedding to make the same amount as you could if you only shot 20. Tell me that when you're 40 years old.

[cdifoto]

Sure sounds like a blanket statement. You'd be surprised at how much CREATIVE FREEDOM you have and the incredible ENVIRONMENTS you can create in at those stuffy pretentious weddings. Are there pretentious people that spend a ton of money on their weddings YES but there are also some very unpretentious people that spend and ones that really appreciate fine photography. Just like there are pretentious people and bridezillas that don't spend. So you'd rather work shot 108 wedding to make the same amount as you could if you only shot 20. Tell me that when you're 40 years old.
Could you try, at least once, to read EXACTLY what I type, WITHOUT skimming and/or reading into it?

Bobby gets what I'm saying. Why can't you? Generational gap maybe? Perhaps Bobby is closer to my age.

[yanchula81]

What a coincidence! I'm watching you on DVD (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NA21YA/) right this minute. :D :p
Yup i keep one in the pocket just in case. :p

[airfrogusmc]

Could you try, at least once, to read EXACTLY what I type, WITHOUT skimming and/or reading into it?

Bobby gets what I'm saying. Why can't you? Generational gap maybe? Perhaps Bobby is closer to my age.

I get what you're saying. Its in almost every post that you make here. Maybe if you opened your mind and quit shutting doors before you know whats behind them more doors would open. ;)

[cdifoto]

I get what you're saying. Its in almost every post that you make here. Maybe if you opened your mind and quit shutting doors before you know whats behind them more doors would open. ;)
Right. Let's make a pact. From here on out, I will ignore your posts and you return the favor by ignoring mine.

[cdifoto]

Yup i keep one in the pocket just in case. :p
:-D

[airfrogusmc]

Right. Let's make a pact. From here on out, I will ignore your posts and you return the favor by ignoring mine.

Now theres a real solution in a forum. All that have a different opinions should avoid one another. :lol::lol::lol:

That way we can all sit around and say how right we are.

Aren't open discussions with different points of view what makes forums interesting? :confused: ;)

[cdifoto]

Now theres a real solution in a forum. All that have a different opinions should avoid one another. :lol::lol::lol:

That way we can all sit around and say how right we are.

Aren't open discussions with different points of view what makes forums interesting? :confused: ;)

The following does not fall under "open discussion." It's more like "parental derision." IMHO of course.

You just DON'T GET IT !!!! You keep making blanket statements like all artist are pretentious and you hate art. All gallery owners are pretentious etc. Well a good deal of those high end clients COLLECT ART and LOVE ART. Do you always hate what you don't understand? If you deal with these clients you need to SPEAK THEIR LANGUAGE. You talk of what a great business man you are but would refuse to put a tux on the get the big jobs...Sounds like good business to me. With an attitude like that you'll always be on the outside looking in fighting the world. Oh yeah and all the porn talk will go over BIG with the high end crowd to . Yep you got it all figured out....

I'm an adult. I prefer to be treated as one. I felt that I had a pretty good discussion going on with Bobby, until you came into the thread.

[airfrogusmc]

The following does not follow under "open discussion":

You keep making BLANKET statements that you then back down from and that is VERY RELEVANT because you should be able to defend your position in a debate. I challenge you on statements like high-end wedding are all pretentious or art is pretentious or gallery owners are pretentious. These are BLANKET statements are just as bad as saying all_______ are ignorant or all_______ are this or that or what ever.

[airfrogusmc]

The following does not fall under "open discussion." It's more like "parental derision." IMHO of course.



I'm an adult. I prefer to be treated as one. I felt that I had a pretty good discussion going on with Bobby, until you came into the thread.

Then treat others in such a fashion.

[cdifoto]

You keep making BLANKET statements that you then back down from and that is VERY RELEVANT because you should be able to defend your position in a debate. I challenge you on statements like high-end wedding are all pretentious or art is pretentious or gallery owners are pretentious. These are BLANKET statements are just as bad as saying all_______ are ignorant or all_______ are this or that or what ever.
I don't recall saying high end weddings are all pretentious. I do remember saying I prefer a low end friendly wedding to a high end pretentious one, despite the higher payout. Heck I even said, specifically, that it was NOT a blanket statement saying that all high end weddings are pretentious. That was just a couple posts ago.

[cdifoto]

Then treat others in such a fashion.
How have I not? You came in and twisted my words. I try to clarify but to no avail. I'm pretty sure Bobby and I are seeing where each other really comes from, despite disagreeing on some points. I'm not sure why you're still misunderstanding. You may not get my sense of humor at times, and I certainly do not sugar coat, but that doesn't mean I'm treating others as children.

[airfrogusmc]

I don't recall saying high end weddings are all pretentious. I do remember saying I prefer a low end friendly wedding to a high end pretentious one, despite the higher payout. Heck I even said, specifically, that it was NOT a blanket statement saying that all high end weddings are pretentious. That was just a couple posts ago.

This line all started with you calling me on the statement

"And theres NO WAY you could support a family on 32,000 GROSS a year. NO WAY and have any standard of living."

You called me on it and I defended it.

[cdifoto]

This line all started with you calling me on the statement

"And theres NO WAY you could support a family on 32,000 GROSS a year. NO WAY and have any standard of living."

You called me on it and I defended it.
I called you on it because you're trying to tell me it's impossible to do what people are doing.

[airfrogusmc]

How have I not? You came in and twisted my words. I try to clarify but to no avail. I'm pretty sure Bobby and I are seeing where each other really comes from, despite disagreeing on some points. I'm not sure why you're still misunderstanding. You may not get my sense of humor at times, and I certainly do not sugar coat, but that doesn't mean I'm treating others as children.

HHMM plenty of threads around these here parts that might show different.;)

[harroz]

for crying out loud airfrogusmc, will you just leave cdifoto alone! you're ruining a high quality, inspirational, and intelligent thread.

[LeesaB]

You guys are STILL here? lol

Do you guys enjoy what you are doing? Shooting? Are you having fun?

[bnlearle]

Cdiphoto AND Airfrog - you BOTH aren't being very charitable to the other, in my opinion.

I see why both of you are bothered by the other. It does seem like you came on a bit strong, Airfrog, and it does seem like you are kind of bent on high end guys in some way, Cdiphoto. That might not be the case for both of you - but because of you guys' lack of charity with eachother, that's how it's coming across. Let's start over, shall we?

In response to Cdi, I've never worn a tux. If it were required for a wedding? I'd do it.

As for meeting up, I go dressed normal. I'm a 26 year old skateboarder. I dress somewhat like that - typically jeans and a tshirt. I make sure my tattoos are visible. I believe my personality and work are strong enough to where I can make people choose me off of that - and disregard tattoos. I also want clients who don't see a suit upon meeting up to be the same as professionalism. Professionalism in wedding photography, imo, is a great personality, tact, NEVER being late, and providing great photos. And if someone prioritizes how I dress on a normal day and the fact that I have tattoos over how I act, treat my clients, and what my work looks like - then I honestly feel there is someone else out there who will be able to make them happier than me.

DJ was similar. He never even had a sample album when he would meet up with clients!

And there are two types of high end clients. The one who wants the most expensive person so they can brag about it, and the one who wants the best photography they can get and they're willing to pay for it. The former would likely be more prone to be what you were describing, Cdi. The latter is the best client in the world. I'd like to add that since I've moved up in pricing, I've had nothing but the latter client - some of which were low income families ;) The high end client that you're describing (the bratty snob) is usually more cheap with photography than anything else - and therefore doesn't really exist in the big picture. I was so afraid that I would deal with those people when I moved up, but I've found that they just don't really exist in my experiences.

Bobby

[cdifoto]

That's good to know, and that approach is in line with my own way of thinking. I want people to hire me based on ME and my IMAGES, not my clothing or my car. At 26, you're actually a year younger than I am, and that's why we're on the same page as far as our attitudes/presentation. I just can't see myself in a suit or tux talking to a couple my own age. It just wouldn't be me at all, and they would see that. I do put on some dress slacks and a button up but I too am most comfortable in jeans. I'm thinking about going that way, since the last time I did that I booked a very expensive engagement session (higher than yours actually Bobby - not bragging, just sayin'). In fact, that couple had me over to their house for beer afterwards. Even showed me the remodeling they were doing on their home...bedroom and all!

Now I'm not saying I'll suddenly be a $6000 photographer just by wearing jeans, but it'll sure be more like me.

[bnlearle]

Awesome man! Congrats on that Esession!!! E sessions aren't easy to book for high amounts, so good on you for that ;)

That's exactly what I think photographers should do! Be themselves. If your images are on point (for your price range) and you are the type of person people enjoy being around, don't feel the need to add too much more other than that. Now there's nothing wrong with those who want to tux it up - not at all. But there's also nothing wrong with those who don't - provided they are doing great with their images (again, in their price range - not compared to Jeff Ascough or Mike Colon) and they are good with people.

Being good - or great, actually - with people is almost more important than your images. Your images will get you low end weddings. Your personality on top of those images is what can get you to the higher end.

Also, blogging is key. Give your clients something to get them constantly excited about. Sort of build the anticipation. If you see my blog - I haven't posted a new wedding in months. I don't have a wedding for another few months, either. It doesn't have to just be wedding stuff. (this is directed at you, cdi, since I see you haven't blogged since August!!! :))

But yeah, I'm with you on this one. I don't think it's a good idea (especially when you're in your first couple years or not fully established yet) to show up in a mohawk, tank top, and cargo shorts with anarchy patches - but overdoing it can definitely come across as odd. Also, the more established you become the more leeway you have here. And it's important to be willing to do what it takes until you get established. I did things I did NOT want to do in '06 and '07. '08 was the year where I started getting to do things my way (not my way in a bad sense. My way meaning the way I can shoot best without explaining myself).

Bobby

[airfrogusmc]

Always should be about the work first. But the real high end work will also include (most of the time) a consultant that the brides family has hired to help with the logistics. To get the high end work CONSISTENTLY you need these consultant to recommend you or at least to NOT recommend you. Plus if all the guests are in black tie you really need to be dressed appropriately. More than 70% of the weddings I shot had a consultant. When you're dealing with those clients its not only the work. The work at that level for the most part is all VERY GOOD. Its about service, how you carry yourself and NOT picking up brides maids. Not being dressed and acting appropriately is not the way to stay in those circles. ;)

The consultants have 3 or 4 photographers they work with mostly. When a brides family hires the consultant they will give them recommendations of which photographers, florists, orchastras, hotels, etc the family should check out. If the work is not there you're not even on the list. What most of these clients then look for is something that is unique and not cookie cutter. If your work looks like everyone elses it wont fly at the high end. If you are lucky enough to have a consultant recommend and you show up not dressed appropriately it wont happen again because their reputation is on the line also.

[bnlearle]

Not saying you're wrong, airfrog, but I've had a COMPLETELY different experience. Every wedding - except maybe one or two - last year (for me) was from a past client.

And I really think clients are maturing in their idea of what "professionalism" means. So long as you don't look bad, they are starting to see realness as strength and confidence. Dressing up (at least in my area - with my type of clients) can likely lead to coming across as a used car sales men who is doing things that don't matter (vis a vis your photography skills) in order to hook a bride. Because of so many great blogs these days, they are realizing all they need is a photographer they CONNECT with who shoots the way they like and can do so consistently.

How one dresses at a casual meeting just doesn't really mean much these days and can, at worst, come off like you dress up because you need to in order to book. Again, this is what I notice for MY clients - which are not just from SoCal but all over (as a bunch of my weddings/clients are outside my local area). Just throwing it out there :)

Bobby

[cdifoto]

I'd wear a tux if I had to but I really don't even see a black tie wedding expecting the photographer to dress that way. I mean, how can you work in a tuxedo? Unless you never leave the upright standing position I just don't see how it's possible. And I'm rarely ever standing upright. I'm constantly moving around...leaning over, squatting, kneeling, climbing on a chair, etc. I also sweat like mad from the physicality of it even in light clothes. A tuxedo would cause DTP (Death to Photographer).

The highest end wedding I've done so far was at the Park Hyatt in downtown Philadelphia. I don't know if that was technically a black tie, but I didn't wear a tuxedo and I don't recall being glared at. Everyone seemed too busy having a good time. In fact, the groom found out about my camera tumbling onto concrete earlier and offered me a beer in consolation. He and his brother were doctors, for what it's worth.

[form]

I always wear slacks and a button up shirt for weddings. For the high school shoot I did last Sunday, it was black tshirt and jeans.

I am just like that; I dress appropriately for the occasion.

[airfrogusmc]

I'd wear a tux if I had to but I really don't even see a black tie wedding expecting the photographer to dress that way. I mean, how can you work in a tuxedo? Unless you never leave the upright standing position I just don't see how it's possible. And I'm rarely ever standing upright. I'm constantly moving around...leaning over, squatting, kneeling, climbing on a chair, etc. I also sweat like mad from the physicality of it even in light clothes. A tuxedo would cause DTP (Death to Photographer).

The highest end wedding I've done so far was at the Park Hyatt in downtown Philadelphia. I don't know if that was technically a black tie, but I didn't wear a tuxedo and I don't recall being glared at. Everyone seemed too busy having a good time. In fact, the groom found out about my camera tumbling onto concrete earlier and offered me a beer in consolation. He and his brother were doctors, for what it's worth.

You keep missing the point. If you want to do them CONSISTENTLY most of the HIGH END weddings have CONSULTANTS and they will NOT recommend you if they're not comfortable with you and its not just the work and it can take years for them to take a chance on you. At the high end level all the photographers are good. Its like most things in life its not just the work its the entire package. And in those high end circles you are working with the same 3 or 4 videographers, florists, orchestras (that usually provide continuous music, no breaks, during dinner and throughout the evening) and consultants.

Bobby, almost all of my business was repeat clients or friends of clients the big days were usually booked 3 years out. But all of these people ran in the same circles and would use the same consultants, orchestras, florists, videograpers etc but I've seen it, screw up and the consultant will suddenly send the clients in a new direction and they're paying big $$$ for the consultants advice so if the consultant wants tux and it gets you the big jobs crazy not to wear one. Also the tux is tax deductible. I still have corporate functions I have to wear them to.

Also wanted to say when I would meet with a client it was as much me interviewing them as they were me. Most of the time it was the brides mom, dad and B&G and if any one of those elements made me uncomfortable I would POLITELY tell them "its maybe one of the most important days of your lives and I think that maybe you would be best served by using another photographer" and then give them the name of one of my competitors. I still get calls from past clients and up until this new year might take a wedding and actually shot all the commitments I had when I changed directions.

[harroz]

oh no we're on the 'what you wear' thing;-)
I think it is a case of 'like being like' in a way. I have to agree with Bobby here, my last wedding I wore black and white chequered shoes, very casual almost hippie type linen pant(very comfortable!) and a white/blue short sleeved light collered shirt. too casual? no, because like Bobby is a skater, I'm a surfer & skater and have been for somewhere around 20 years, so my dress sense portrays that and that is what I'm most comfortable in. Bare in mind some might think I dress too casually, while others don't. The last 2 weddings I've done 1 was for a graphic designer, the other for a photography teacher, they hired me because I fit their style; I'm not conservative in a pair of slacks and a collered shirt with black shoes. Not that there is anything wrong with dressing like that, it's just around here thats how everone dresses, so I'm the one who stands out as the more unconventional photographer, which gives the impression my images will be unconventional, which is what my clients want, they want different to everyone elses wedding photos. So back to like attracts like- be it doctors, lawyers, CEO's, etc, etc. some of them look down their nose, while others were hippies through their earlier years and appreciate a little uncomformity. Apple and Microsoft CEO's for example. There are farmers who are worth millions here who have never worn a suit in their life, there are surfers who have built empires but they're still the same people and love breaking out of the box. To hire a wedding photographer who fits that bill accentuates who they are. obviously there are the others who are more conservative and 'stiff' who also want a good photographer, thats where my competition comes in, they can have them, I'm happy for them to have them. I want my bride and groom to feel free and happy to let lose and have some fun, if I'm dressed conservatively I think it would be harder to get that from them.

My last meeting with a couple I was dressed in a black T-shirt with a band on it, a pair of Billabong shorts and I think I even might have had bare feet(god forebid!) I also have a tatoo and it was showing. The couple didn't blink an eye because we were doing what we do. I'm no great wedding photog, but one day I will be ;-)

thats not to say that I wouldn't dress up if I'm asked to, but I have some pretty spiffing gear so I can always fit the bill and look like a creative no problem;-)

[cdifoto]

You keep missing the point. If you want to do them CONSISTENTLY most of the HIGH END weddings have CONSULTANTS and they will NOT recommend you if they're not comfortable with you and its not just the work and it can take years for them to take a chance on you. At the high end level all the photographers are good. Its like most things in life its not just the work its the entire package. And in those high end circles you are working with the same 3 or 4 videographers, florists, orchestras (that usually provide continuous music, no breaks, during dinner and throughout the evening) and consultants.

Bobby, almost all of my business was repeat clients or friends of clients the big days were usually booked 3 years out. But all of these people ran in the same circles and would use the same consultants, orchestras, florists, videograpers etc but I've seen it, screw up and the consultant will suddenly send the clients in a new direction and they're paying big $$$ for the consultants advice so if the consultant wants tux and it gets you the big jobs crazy not to wear one. Also the tux is tax deductible. I still have corporate functions I have to wear them to.

Also wanted to say when I would meet with a client it was as much me interviewing them as they were me. Most of the time it was the brides mom, dad and B&G and if any one of those elements made me uncomfortable I would POLITELY tell them "its maybe one of the most important days of your lives and I think that maybe you would be best served by using another photographer" and then give them the name of one of my competitors. I still get calls from past clients and up until this new year might take a wedding and actually shot all the commitments I had when I changed directions.


If I can't get into a clique and work in that clique consistently because of my clothes, I'll still sleep at night. I didn't get to sit at the preppy lunch table in high school either but I was friends with some of them and still graduated with pretty damned good grades.

[airfrogusmc]

If I can't get into a clique and work in that clique consistently, I'll still sleep at night.

Didn't say you needed to. Talk to me when you've been at 15 maybe 20 years. I always said it's better to make more money shooting 30 weddings a year than making less shooting 50+ (if you could book that many). If it means working in a tux and in cliques the money all looks the same. With one scenario you get more creative freedom, better locations and more money.

[cdifoto]

Didn't say you needed to. Talk to me when you've been at 15 maybe 20 years. I always said it's better to make more money shooting 30 weddings a year than making less shooting 50+ (if you could book that many). If it means working in a tux and in cliques the money all looks the same. With one scenario you get more creative freedom, better locations and more money.

Well, I know more casual photographers doing fabulous work and raking in big bucks than tuxedo wearing photographers doing fabulous work and raking in big bucks.

I seriously doubt I could last long working in cliques...I'd be fake ALL the time. There's nothing more difficult and stressful than pretending to be someone you're not. Because of that, I would last longer doing 50 weddings a year at the local VFW. At least I'd be having fun.

That's the difference between you and me. I don't judge success on money alone. I could be poor for the rest of my life but if I'm making ends meet and LOVING MY LIFE, I'm successful.

[randplaty]

You keep missing the point. If you want to do them CONSISTENTLY most of the HIGH END weddings have CONSULTANTS and they will NOT recommend you if they're not comfortable with you and its not just the work and it can take years for them to take a chance on you. At the high end level all the photographers are good. Its like most things in life its not just the work its the entire package. And in those high end circles you are working with the same 3 or 4 videographers, florists, orchestras (that usually provide continuous music, no breaks, during dinner and throughout the evening) and consultants.



Every photography business is different. There are thousands of different types of brides and probably hundreds of different types of "high end" brides. Each photography business can cater to a different type of bride. There are the "high end" brides that book really expensive venues and spend about 4-6K on a photographer and go with pretty much everything the venue recommends. There are "high end" end brides that fly halfway around the world to have a small wedding and pay their photographer 15K to travel with them and do photos for multiple days. There are brides that are not necessarily "high end" brides but pay 6-10K for photography because they LOVE photography and MUST have great photography. There are "high end" brides that have very particular tastes so they will hire their own photographer and not trust consultants. There are younger brides whose parents are rich and parents are making all the decisions. There are younger brides with rich parents that are letting her make all the decisions.

The point is, there are hundreds of different types of "high end" brides and there's no such thing as "most of the high end..." Bobby could do one thing and be successful, you could do the complete opposite and be successful, and DJ could do a third thing and be successful. This is not to say that you can do absolutely anything and be successful. Of course not.

There are probably a thousand ways to run your businesses, 900 of them might lead you to failure. But that still leaves 100 different ways you could run your business and be successful.

[harroz]

yes yes yes, thats what I meant.;-)
Every photography business is different. There are thousands of different types of brides and probably hundreds of different types of "high end" brides. Each photography business can cater to a different type of bride. There are the "high end" brides that book really expensive venues and spend about 4-6K on a photographer and go with pretty much everything the venue recommends. There are "high end" end brides that fly halfway around the world to have a small wedding and pay their photographer 15K to travel with them and do photos for multiple days. There are brides that are not necessarily "high end" brides but pay 6-10K for photography because they LOVE photography and MUST have great photography. There are "high end" brides that have very particular tastes so they will hire their own photographer and not trust consultants. There are younger brides whose parents are rich and parents are making all the decisions. There are younger brides with rich parents that are letting her make all the decisions.

The point is, there are hundreds of different types of "high end" brides and there's no such thing as "most of the high end..." Bobby could do one thing and be successful, you could do the complete opposite and be successful, and DJ could do a third thing and be successful. This is not to say that you can do absolutely anything and be successful. Of course not.

There are probably a thousand ways to run your businesses, 900 of them might lead you to failure. But that still leaves 100 different ways you could run your business and be successful.

[bnlearle]

You keep missing the point. If you want to do them CONSISTENTLY most of the HIGH END weddings have CONSULTANTS and they will NOT recommend you if they're not comfortable with you and its not just the work and it can take years for them to take a chance on you. At the high end level all the photographers are good. Its like most things in life its not just the work its the entire package. And in those high end circles you are working with the same 3 or 4 videographers, florists, orchestras (that usually provide continuous music, no breaks, during dinner and throughout the evening) and consultants.
I have to say, I think now you're overstating the importance of wearing a tux (if that's what you're saying?). You simply need to look good - that's all. Don't look like you got your outift at mervyns (even if you did). Look like you know you look good and you'll be fine. NO ONE here is saying shoot a wedding in jeans. A perfect example is the Oscars. You've got a bunch of people dressed up for a VERY high end event. Some guys wear full on tuxes and some where slacks with a white button up, no tie, and the top two buttons undone - everyone looks like they fit in. So long as they look good - it works! Same goes for weddings ;)

Your idea of high end weddings also sounds a little too "platinum brides" on TV, for my experiences. You might very well shoot most of your weddings like that - but I'm telling you that most high end wedding photographers don't shoot with full orchestras and tux weddings for a large portion of their weddings. And look at Mike Colon. Mike shoots more of these types of weddings than just about anybody. He doesn't generally wear a tux (as far as I remember) - he just makes sure he looks good.

Fact is, planners that only will recommend you based on your tux are idiots. I don't know a single planner who thinks that way. Planners want a photographer who makes their client happy, is on time with everything, and shoots BEAUTIFUL photos that they can use for their business. Yes they have to be comfortable with you - but it's a large jump to assume that all planners think that your high end clothing is what makes them comfortable. Again - no one is saying wear crappy clothes. Look good. Look really good, in fact. The better you look, the better :)

Bobby, almost all of my business was repeat clients or friends of clients the big days were usually booked 3 years out. But all of these people ran in the same circles and would use the same consultants, orchestras, florists, videograpers etc but I've seen it, screw up and the consultant will suddenly send the clients in a new direction and they're paying big $$$ for the consultants advice so if the consultant wants tux and it gets you the big jobs crazy not to wear one. Also the tux is tax deductible. I still have corporate functions I have to wear them to.

Agree 100%. However, I think you need to make clear what you are talking about with a tux. Sure, a black tie event that requires the photographer to have a tux is fine. You want to shoot the wedding, you need a tux. However, a photographer can be high-end and NEVER come across that. DJ never wore a tux, many of my high-end friends have never owned a tux, and I sure haven't (although I wouldn't be opposed to it in the slightest unless it were an outside wedding in the summer). The tux thing is a small, not majority type of thing to be concerned with.

p.s. the tux isn't tax deductible (at least in California). Clothing isn't typically able to be deducted. People do, but you aren't supposed to. I think there's a difference if you work for an employer that requires you to purchase one of their branded uniforms.

Also wanted to say when I would meet with a client it was as much me interviewing them as they were me. Most of the time it was the brides mom, dad and B&G and if any one of those elements made me uncomfortable I would POLITELY tell them "its maybe one of the most important days of your lives and I think that maybe you would be best served by using another photographer" and then give them the name of one of my competitors. I still get calls from past clients and up until this new year might take a wedding and actually shot all the commitments I had when I changed directions.

I'm with you again. I turned down a british client last year who was wanting me to shoot her wedding in Lake Como, Italy at the Villa D'Este. Words can't describe how incredible that location is. I wasn't feeling right with her. Same thing happened for a wedding in Fiji this March. My clients tend to know they want me by the time we meet up (this is because of my very personal blog and similar about me pages on my site - which is why about me's and blogs are so important!). The interview process is there for the client to see that I am exactly like I come across on my site and blog and it's there for me to decide if I want to shoot them - especially since I don't shoot more than 20 weddings a year. I want to see that we click and that they trust me with their photos like they would a doctor for surgery.

Again, "high-end wedding photographer" does not mean you shoot huge, ball gown, posh weddings. High end wedding photographer generally means you charge more than the middle range photographers in your area. Generally people start to assume you're high end once you pass up $5k. And the point isn't to look bad - just that you don't necessarily have to wear tuxes. I think if you clarify the dress/attire thing, we might find that we are all on the same page.

Bobby

[tim]

Its about service, how you carry yourself and NOT picking up brides maids. Not being dressed and acting appropriately is not the way to stay in those circles.

Or at least don't appear to be picking up bridesmaids ;)

[cdifoto]

Or at least don't appear to be picking up bridesmaids ;)
I thought she was a guest, not a bridesmaid. :)

[airfrogusmc]

Bobby I consider high end photography 10 G + up, here. And you can always bring up exceptions to everything. I don't know any consultants that would consistently recommend a photographer because again at this level they are all good photographers that if they're shooting a black tie event that wasn't in black tie. And to get that work consistently you need the consultants. And the market in that range is not huge.

Also I think the real point I was trying to make has been missed is if its required you wear a tux you should wear one in my opinion if it means getting the big jobs or not and it can be an issue around here.

20 or so a year is VERY SMART. I never been to Europe for a location wedding but did shoot once on an estate in Malibu (incredible wedding) and a resort on Cape Cod.

[cdifoto]

Also I think the real point I was trying to make has been missed is if its required you wear a tux you should wear one in my opinion if it means getting the big jobs or not and it can be an issue around here.
I don't disagree with the premise that if the venue requires a tuxedo, wear a stinkin' tuxedo to the venue. If that's all you're saying.

I DO disagree with the premise of putting on airs to land a job, which is what I thought you were saying.

[randplaty]

Bobby I consider high end photography 10 G + up, here. And you can always bring up exceptions to everything. I don't know any consultants that would consistently recommend a photographer because again at this level they are all good photographers that if they're shooting a black tie event that wasn't in black tie. And to get that work consistently you need the consultants. And the market in that range is not huge.

Also I think the real point I was trying to make has been missed is if its required you wear a tux you should wear one in my opinion if it means getting the big jobs or not and it can be an issue around here.

20 or so a year is VERY SMART. I never been to Europe for a location wedding but did shoot once on an estate in Malibu (incredible wedding) and a resort on Cape Cod.

Again, you have a very narrow definition of high end.

1) 10K plus
2) Expensive wedding consultant
3) Expensive indoor venue

Trust me there are a LOT of high end weddings that do NOT fit this definition. Step outside your own conception of what a high end wedding is and take a look at the market as a WHOLE.

[letsmakeart]

Absolutely. Consistency is KEY. If you take 3000 photos at a wedding, 10-20 of them are bound to be decent to good. If you shoot two or three weddings for your friends, you'll have enough decent photos to make a website and start sellling yourself. Does that mean you'll be able to produce 500-1000 good quality photos... not necessarily.

One thing I do when evaluating the quality of a photographer is to look at their blog. Do they post 10 STUNNING images on their blog every wedding? If they have 10 stunning images on their blog, then they probably have 50 great images and 300 good images... and 1000 decent images. While a photographer who is just starting out might only have 50 decent images. That's a huge difference and that's why Bobby can command the $$$ he does. Cuz his work is STUNNING. Check out his blog and you'll see 10 or more STUNNING images EVERYTIME he posts. That's consistency.

I see what you're getting at but it really depends on the target audience with regards to the blog. Not everyone feels they should post a gallery every time they post.

I am a live music photographer which is a fair bit different to weddings, but none the less even if we do get 50 awesome pictures, often people will only post 1-3. Especially when the audience is other music photographers.

[airfrogusmc]

I don't disagree with the premise that if the venue requires a tuxedo, wear a stinkin' tuxedo to the venue. If that's all you're saying.

I DO disagree with the premise of putting on airs to land a job, which is what I thought you were saying.

Funny (odd) how the printed word can be misunderstood.

I've never meant for it to be taken that way :confused:. First and foremost it should always be about the work.

[stathunter]

wow--- this thread will not die........... but more importantly it seems like frogman needs a hug......come on let's do a group hug! :)

[cdifoto]

Funny (odd) how the printed word can be misunderstood.

I've never meant for it to be taken that way :confused:. First and foremost it should always be about the work.
I took it that way because you (seemed) to be saying that a tux or suit should be worn at all times (initial meeting and wedding). That's what I got from your posts at least.

I took it a little further to "putting on airs to land a gig" because I'm not a tux/suit kind of guy and wearing one would be doing just that...putting on airs. I'd wear one if the venue required it of course but I can guarantee I would be extreeeeeemely uncomfortable & not just physically from the limited movement. I would NEVER put on a suit or tux for the initial meeting because it would be absolutely ridiculous in my area. It just doesn't fit.

[airfrogusmc]

Again, you have a very narrow definition of high end.

1) 10K plus
2) Expensive wedding consultant
3) Expensive indoor venue

Trust me there are a LOT of high end weddings that do NOT fit this definition. Step outside your own conception of what a high end wedding is and take a look at the market as a WHOLE.

Thats the market I've been talking about. I shot weddings for 20+ years and shot everything form the VFW to the 4 Seasons and estates in Malibu. I shot for a mid price range high volume studio through college. Having done all size and pretty much most price point weddings over the years I would rather shoot the 4 seasons than the VFW any day but thats just me. I never said that there weren't other high end clients. The 10K photography client was the one I was addressing. Sorry for the confusion.

[cdifoto]

Thats the market I've been talking about. I shot weddings for 20+ years and shot everything form the VFW to the 4 Seasons and estates in Malibu. I shot for a mid price range high volume studio through college. Having done all size and pretty much most price point weddings over the years I would rather shoot the 4 seasons than the VFW any day but thats just me. I never said that there weren't other high end clients. The 10K photography client was the one I was addressing. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm the opposite. I'm more comfortable at the VFW. It may not be as photogenic but for me it's a lot more fun.

I'm in it for the love of it even moreso than the money.

[airfrogusmc]

I took it that way because you (seemed) to be saying that a tux or suit should be worn at all times (initial meeting and wedding). That's what I got from your posts at least.

I took it a little further to "putting on airs to land a gig" because I'm not a tux/suit kind of guy and wearing one would be doing just that...putting on airs. I'd wear one if the venue required it of course but I can guarantee I would be extreeeeeemely uncomfortable & not just physically from the limited movement.

I used to meet with my clients in jeans mostly thats usually what they wore also. A tus is no more restricting than a suit in my opinion maybe less. And HERE they're tax deductable.

[airfrogusmc]

wow--- this thread will not die........... but more importantly it seems like frogman needs a hug......come on let's do a group hug! :)


AWWW thanks...That feels better...

[tsw910]

but i dont see anyone dis-agreeing with you on the tux part thou .. bobby and CDI both said .. they wont like it .. but if it calls for it .. they'll wear one ... i think there must be some confusion about casual attire at initial meeting and tuxes at the wedding day .. hope i cleared some things up

[tim]

I thought she was a guest, not a bridesmaid. :)

Nope!

[airfrogusmc]

I'm the opposite. I'm more comfortable at the VFW. It may not be as photogenic but for me it's a lot more fun.

I'm in it for the love of it even moreso than the money.
For me it was about love also (and still is) and the environments and the creative freedom those clients gave me and the financial freedom (can still love it and make some real money doing it); not to have the shoot so many to make ends meet. Actually quit happy now that I don't shoot them anymore. Its a young photographers game and when you start getting burnt its time to get out and I did. I love the corporate work I do now...Wouldn't trade the wedding years for anything just glad I don't have to do them now
:D.

[cdifoto]

Nope!
Hmm. There's hope for me yet! :D

[RobNYC]

Many of you are fantastic photographers and worth every penny. As a photographer (not weddings though), I do place a high value on what I want when I get married, which by the way is in the not-so-distant future. As someone mentioned in a much earlier post in this thread, I just can't figure out how so many people afford it! I live in New York City, and I'm not embarrassed to talk numbers... my fiance and I already live together and make around $200,000 combined. As expensive as NY is, I think it's a decent number. Still, we can't figure out how we're going to afford a wedding at all, let alone a decent photographer! It is amazing to me how much an entire wedding can cost when all is said and done.

[gh patriot]

I'm not embarrassed to talk numbers... my fiance and I already live together and make around $200,000 combined. As expensive as NY is, I think it's a decent number. Still, we can't figure out how we're going to afford a wedding at all, let alone a decent photographer!


Not to be a jerk but thats sad that you make 200k and cant figure out how your going to afford a wedding.

[bnlearle]

Living in Grand Haven - heck even San Diego where I live - is VERY different from living in downtown NYC. My brother lived out there for five years. His rent for this TINY apartment was mind boggling. But he had to pay it ;)

[sapearl]

Is that because you're planning something right downtown in the heart of it all? I'm a bit surprised too. Unless you're planning on 300+ guests and "top shelf everything" I would think you should be able to do it for $25 - $35. With that kind of gross and combined living expense something doesn't sound quite right.

We just did our daugther's wedding here in the Midwest, which I realize is NOT NYC. They had a great venue and everything went damn near perfectly, about 127 guests, and it was well under $20K.

Are you shopping for all the services yourself, or is somebody doing that for you and adding on a fee?


...... I live in New York City, and I'm not embarrassed to talk numbers... my fiance and I already live together and make around $200,000 combined. As expensive as NY is, I think it's a decent number. Still, we can't figure out how we're going to afford a wedding at all, let alone a decent photographer! It is amazing to me how much an entire wedding can cost when all is said and done.

[bnlearle]

If that was under $20k in the midwest I would imagine anywhere from $30-50k in NYC? After taxes, that's about a third of BOTH their salaries if it ends up being on the higher end. That's not an unreasonable amount of money for a wedding considering the national budget is something like $30k...

[sapearl]

Could very likely be the case - but with that kind of gross he's discussing, I would have been packing as much as I could into savings in anticipation of of the "big day" as well as other associated expenses. $200K is still an awful LOT of money to most Americans these days.

If that was under $20k in the midwest I would imagine anywhere from $30-50k in NYC? After taxes, that's about a third of BOTH their salaries if it ends up being on the higher end. That's not an unreasonable amount of money for a wedding considering the national budget is something like $30k...

[bnlearle]

Again, 200k sounds WAY more than it is. Taxes on that drop it likely to $150k (if not more?) and NYC is INSANE. My brother had a $2k a month apartment that made my old one bedroom, low income housing apartment in E Texas look like a mansion. You have to pay things there that you don't have to pay elsewhere. I grew up (and still live) in San Diego - a very expensive place to live. NYC blows it away in my experiences.

It sounds like he's paying for his own wedding, as well. Many parents start setting aside for their daughter's wedding from birth (or still - well before marrying age). It's a bit different when you're paying for it ;)

[randplaty]

NYC has a huge income disparity. There are some very expensive places to live and some very inexpensive places to live (places where you'd likely fear for your life).

"Manhattan has the highest income disparity of any of the roughly 3,000 counties in the country." From this article. (http://nymag.com/guides/money/2006/23488/)

[RobNYC]

We are looking for everything ourselves with no "wedding planner." The cheapest I have found for a reception price, which was in a pretty gaudy place in Queens, was around $70 per head. Anything decent in Manhattan is over $100 per head and that's the low end. Naturally, we're only talking food and reception location. When you start throwing in all the other stuff it can get way out of hand. Add in your typical expenses like mortgage, maintenance, school loans, etc., and you end up like me... trying to figure out how you are going to work it all out!

[form]

Clearly you need to plan a flight to Las Vegas and take advantage of some of the price drops our local resorts are offering for many services, including receptions and so on. The only good photographers out here are John Michael Cooper and one or two others, so you might have to bring your own if you don't want his style.

[RobNYC]

:) Do I have to let Elvis marry us?

And yes, none of the parents are helping us out so we're on our own. And I'm not sure if many other states do this, but we pay state and city taxes on top of the usual federal, medicaid, SS, etc... Everytime I get my paycheck I feel like it should come with a police report!

[form]

There are TONS of classy places to have a wedding at in Las Vegas, including very attractive independent venues and upscale hotel/resorts.

[sapearl]

I can certainly appreciate the cost involved, remembering our daughter's experience last summer. Actually $70/head was not too far over what we paid in Cleveland. I got a deal on the photographer - another pro I know in the area I work with ;)...... there will be reciprocation for his daughter in the future.

My daughter/son-in-law don't have a mortage but DO pay rent and also have his college loans. The big difference is they are now living on her income alone - he is still looking for work - she is a grad student at U. of Georgia in Athens, admittedly cheaper than NYC, but their income is 1/8 of your combined $200K. They would be happy with a third of that.

Times are tough. They shaved some corners, went on a modest driving honeymoon and still had money left over that they now need to live on until he finds work.

The reality is, if you can't afford something you either go without or go in debt. We did help them out certainly. After watching "other people's daughters" walk down the aisle for 35+ years, I'd promised both of ours we'd make "something possible" with a modest check. It was then their decision to either put a small downpayment on a small house, or buy a wedding.

We are looking for everything ourselves with no "wedding planner." The cheapest I have found for a reception price, which was in a pretty gaudy place in Queens, was around $70 per head. Anything decent in Manhattan is over $100 per head and that's the low end. Naturally, we're only talking food and reception location. When you start throwing in all the other stuff it can get way out of hand. Add in your typical expenses like mortgage, maintenance, school loans, etc., and you end up like me... trying to figure out how you are going to work it all out!

[jmborkowski]

Late to the party here, but I'd like to add that I think Robert Ringer's Winning Through Intimidation should be required reading for anyone who has any kind of entrepreneurial aspiration. Specifically the Leapfrog Theory-- his summary:

"The Leapfrog Theory states that a person has no legal or moral obligation or, for that matter, logical reason to 'work his way up through the ranks.' It says, in fact, that every person has the inherent right to "self-proclaim" -- to announce, at any time he chooses, that he is on any level he chooses to be on.

The quickest way to the top is not by fighting your way through the pack; the quickest way is to leapfrog over the pack and simply take it upon yourself to proclaim that you're above it. Regardless of what anyone tells you, you do have the right to self-proclamation. There is a catch, however: if you are not prepared to be above it, then, in spite of the fact that you make such a proclamation, the realities of the business world will knock you right back into the pack in a very short time."

The whole point of business is to charge as much as absolutely possible, while still providing value to the client. Bobby's a great example-- he hasn't been in the business that long, but he has an excellent body of work and has done well presenting it to the world. I guarantee you, as long as his work stays on-point, he'll continue to increase his rates for years to come. There will always be people getting married and, as more and more people become aware of him, there will always be people willing to pay what he charges.

Feeling bad about charging a rate that someone is happy to pay makes no sense, but if it still bothers you, work half the year and donate the rest of your time to people that truly need it.