Critique This Wedding Proposal

[aroundlsu]

While I don't market myself as a wedding photographer, it's hard to turn down work when it comes up. Currently, I have two weddings booked this year and they seem to be snowballing with more people asking for quotes.

So I've taken my basic proposal I use for all commercial jobs and flushed it out for the wedding market. My business model is similar to the Gary Fong Storybook Book concept; shoot cheap, sell prints at an inflated price. I've opted to detail everything they get as this makes it easy to negotiate properly (remove something if they want to spend less, add something if they want to spend more).

Please look it over and let me know what you think.

For what it's worth, the couple this proposal was made for has accepted it and we are shooting the bridals this weekend. They opted for the slave lighting at the wedding and reception and are considering adding the second shooter.

I know you guys will think I'm nuts promising 24 hour digital proof delivery, but that has worked very well for me. It's easy to procrastinate on delivery when you don't put a time frame and that's one of the biggest complaints I hear everyday about photographers (not delivering in a timely manner). Putting the 24 hour delivery in the contract forces me to reserve the next day to processing and uploading proofs while it's still fresh in my head and is working for me.

Also, if you think this is too cheap, keep in mind they don't get anything at all from this except heavily watermarked low res images on my Exposure Manager gallery.

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/4585/weddingproposal.png

[wardzach2007]

Nice...

[tfizzle]

My contention would be this:

"Why should I pay you to use a low light lens or lighting? Isn't it your job to have in the packages the equipment to do a stellar job?"

You should use the lens that gets the job done regardless of the location. As well as the lighting. I'd just absorb those into the regular cost of doing business.

When it comes to your portfolio do you have examples of using only one package vs. another?

If I take away my knowledge of photography and just look at your package and the prices I would look at portfolios and see which photographer in my area took good pictures. If I like your price and pictures vs. liking someone elses photos better but they are a little more expensive I'd go with the more expensive just because of your tier of paying for equipment that should be used regardless to get the shot.

That's my assessment anyway. I know it costs to use that equipment but as a naive groom (well bride) I don't think I'd care if you were using a 200 f2 or supplemental lighting if there was another photog around your area that was able to show me in their portfolio they were equal or better. Given they take good pictures around the same price.

I just don't see why stating it's a "low light lens package" or two camera system. Those should be a given.


I do like the location/scouting and the ability to show you could provide a female as a second shooter for those who would want that. I would even consider the upgrade in lighting, though I would expect you to do what you need to do to get the "clean, clear, crisp" shots as a wedding photog.

[shphoto32]

I agree with tfizzle. You should be marketing your top of the line package. You should always do your best work and always use the right lens. I think the only place I could see some variability in what you offer would be post-processing. I could see offering extended post-processing packages(basic color correction, facial touch-up), but even then, My idea is you hire me for my best work. I won't give my clients crappy work even if they want it, because I don't want it floating around out there. Just my 2 cents.

[aroundlsu]

Thanks for the comments tfizzle. I tend to think from the perspective of a photographer hiring another photographer and looking for things I would want in my personal wedding photographer. I would be asking what lenses, lighting, etc. I realize the vast majority of the world doesn't care and just wants pretty pictures.

I guess I was thinking "low light lens package" sounds cool and helps add perceived value to the quote.

[tfizzle]

I would, as a photographer, use all my lighting to get what I need.

I would put in my package or contract, "After evaluating the venue if extra equipment is needed the CLIENT will be given a quote to acquire (rental price + whatever) for such services."

That way if they turn it down at the extra cost they know that they had the choice of it if things come up and they aren't satisfied for whatever reason. I, as a client, already expect you have the equipment to do the job.

Here's an analogy that people will probably rip apart but it just came to me:

I just had a garage door installed. I figure he has the equipment to do so but if I saw on his quote, "It is the clients responsibility to figure out if he wants me to use power drill (a, less powerful) or powerdrill (b) more powerful."

I would sorta roll my eyes. I just want him to get the job done. I don't care how he does it as long as it's efficient. If it can get done at a lower price in the same amount of time without problems then I'll take the lower price. Nor do I know anything about powerdrill A vs. B unless I go out of my way to figure it out. Which I wouldn't. Therefore, if another guy does it for the same amount, and their quality of work is the same or better then I'd go with them. I don't want to figure out what tools he is going to charge me to use unless I know that there's something about my place that would require him to give me a quote if something comes up.

Making a clause that extra costs could add to the bill would cover having to do more grunt work for requiring rented things that aren't inside of the packages presented. In reality you should already have that available if you are in wedding photography but things come up.

[bwong]

I'll admit that having the optional add-ons is an interesting concept. It certainly puts you in a good position to upsell your services and have your cost of rentals covered fully by the client.

But I have to agree with the others. It seems bizarre to implicitly state that you don't have the tools needed to do the best job you can. tfizzle's analogy isn't perfect, but I agree with it. I think when paying for services, we always expect that for the dollar amount we're paying, we're getting the best service that amount of money can buy.

In other words, if you were a $500 photographer, I would expect that you would have all the equipment needed to take $500 worth of photos. Likewise, if you were a $1000 photographer, I would expect you to take $1000 worth of photos. But back to the $500 photographer, I wouldn't expect you to try and upsell me on another $500 worth of gear, and then get $1000 worth of photos. It just doesn't sound right to me.

I hope that makes sense.

[nicksan]

Is the couple supposed to understand any of this?
The low light lens package, the lighting, the backup gear, etc, etc?
Probably not. I would just keep it simple and list what they are going to get in a manner they would understand as clients, not phogoraphers...

[cdifoto]

Sounds like you're nickel and diming your clients. Very silly, IMHO.

I carry all the stuff I own and use it to the fullest extent that I need it. THAT is what they're paying me for, no matter what package they bought. I own the right gear as a necessity and obligation to do my job...it's not a luxury to the couple like renting a limousine.

The "shoot cheap, sell ridiculously inflated prints" model doesn't work as well for weddings anymore. Fong makes his money on plastic diffusers and snake oil. That's not the type of person I'd go to for advice.

[LONDON808]

I would remove the word church -and use another word - not every 1 gets married inside a church

[tim]

Seems like a terrible idea to me. It'll confuse customers, and people either want a CD, an album or both, they really don't care how you do the photos. Your prices are low, and people will be upset at high print prices. You'll make little money on many weddings.

Package prices are best, or at least a simple a la carte system. You shouldn't be charging for individual bits of gear, or techniques, that's overhead.

[sapearl]

Wel..... this is a start, but it's going to need a bit of work, polish, and a lot more clarity to allow folks to sort out what they are getting. On the up side I'm glad to hear your business is improving.

Absolutley +1 on making a CD/DVD availailable. I found this out the hard way and have modified my business model accordingly.

There seem to be too many "hidden" charges here. They are not really hidden, but I feel like I have to beware of how much each fork and extra spoon will cost me. Regarding the makeup artist - this comes off as appearing like a slam on them. I would not be negative towards fellow vendors which could possibly help and refer business your way. It's fine if you have sombody to recomend but do so in a positive fashion and not in the way you have done.

POTN folks are always interested in gear, but the shopping b/g rarely care about your lenses. They are interested in your pricing, samples, ability, talent, and integrity although not necessarily in that order. I think I might know what on-site photo backup is, but I'm not sure if the client does, nor do they care to see that in a price list worded like that. It's fine to discuss when you meet with them but may only confuse your pricing.

I don't mean to come of as overly critical, but you need to present more clarity in your packages. Make it easier, at a glance, to see "What exactly am I getting an how much will it cost?" "Don't make me have to sift through a myriad of paragraphs and caveats to figure out what the total might be."

Also, if you will be making a major target of wedding work, you'll want to consider reworking the homepage of your site. The building shot is impressive for some architecture, but a shopping bride is going to wonder what that's all about. As a wise man once told me: "You need a great HERO SHOT on that first page to really grab attention" (Thanks Tim;))

I'm sure you'll work this out.... it just takes a little bit; we've all gone through this. - Stu :D

Seems like a terrible idea to me. It'll confuse customers, and people either want a CD, an album or both, they really don't care how you do the photos. Your prices are low, and people will be upset at high print prices. You'll make little money on many weddings.

Package prices are best, or at least a simple a la carte system. You shouldn't be charging for individual bits of gear, or techniques, that's overhead.

[sapearl]

I've taken a few more looks at your proposal Teddy.... now, I'm going to pretend I'm a potential client, shopping for a qualified photographer, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are competent to do at least an adequate job. Typically, my consult conversations go something like this:

"Hi I'm getting married on ___________ and need a photographer for the whole day. I'd like you to come to my home where I'm being made up, to the church for the ceremony coverage, a park after for groups and candids, and the reception later on.

I live about 40 miles outside of Baton Rouge. I also want an album with 30 pages (I mean "sides" here) large enough to accomodate enlargements up to 10x10, as well as a disk of high rez JPGs of all your processed work. I'm not sure about the church or reception lighting, but leave it up to you to do a thorough job. How late do you stay at the reception - you mention something about extra $100 fees for extra coverage.... where does that kick in? I see I have the option of a second photographer.... that's good. But if I go with just one shooter, how much will this all cost me? I'm not clear on some of your stated limitations."

Your packages are sort of a puzzle Teddy. There's no way I can tell at a glance what a total charge is. Brides's surfing at eye-blink speed want instant, clear, understandable, specific numbers. If they don't see it right away then your site is history and they move to the next.

A couple of more things.....you also make the statement about lighting: "guaranteeing clear, bright pictures from every angle." I'm sure you can pull this off but you are really digging a hole for yourself with the GUARANTEE should the client be unhappy in any way.... thinking a shot was missed, perhaps too dark... And the reality is, from an artistic viewpoint some darker shots can also be very dramatic and moody.

Exactly what IS your GUARANTEE if you don't deliver on a specific shot?

And as others have said about that proof turnaround time - you're making it really hard on yourself. There will be busy periods. You will have interruptions. The unexpected will pop up. I tell my clients the online gallery goes up in less than a week for them to review - in reality it's 3-4 days, which makes me look good. Think about it. - Stu

[cdifoto]

A couple of more things.....you also make the statement about lighting: "guaranteeing clear, bright pictures from every angle." I'm sure you can pull this off but you are really digging a hole for yourself with the GUARANTEE should the client be unhappy in any way.... thinking a shot was missed, perhaps too dark... And the reality is, from an artistic viewpoint some darker shots can also be very dramatic and moody.

Not only that but it implies that without the extra cost lighting, the photos will be dark mushy garbage. You're basically saying "If you pay extra for me to not be lazy and set up the lights, you'll get nice images but if you don't, I'm not going to bother and you'll have to be satisfied with crap."

[dynamitetony]

i have to agree with the comments

you should not mention lighting or lenses (clients dont care the name or spec of a lens)

and they wouldnt want to pay extra to know that you can get shots in a dark church, they would expect that you have all the correct equipment to start with..

[sapearl]

Good observation there...... I never thought about it from that viewpoint but I can see how some folks may interpret it that way.

Not only that but it implies that without the extra cost lighting, the photos will be dark mushy garbage. You're basically saying "If you pay extra for me to not be lazy and set up the lights, you'll get nice images but if you don't, I'm not going to bother and you'll have to be satisfied with crap."

[cdifoto]

I'm the most cynical bastage you'll ever meet. That's why I can't stand salesmanship.

[Thunderbird33]

I'd remove the charges for the lighting and equipment and just include them in the price (or don't use them if these are rental expenses). And would the facility allow for all of those extra lights?

Give them coverage options (6, 8, 10 hours perhaps) and I'd look at charging extra for a second photographer and a release of all images to CD though.

[aroundlsu]

Alright guys. I will consider revising on the next proposal since you all make good points.

My biggest goal is to allow options for people to spend more if they want. I often ask what people have for their budget but few people are willing to divulge that so I have to start somewhere. I probably came in $500 - $600 low on this one and the potential client let me know by selecting the 2nd shooter and wireless lights.

The lights are mine but they would require lots of extra work to set up properly and an extra assistant to carry one around on a boom pole. My options without the light is high ISO or on camera flash. Either way would be fine for decent pictures but the slaves would be my first choice if set up and used properly.

Even if they didn't choose the lights I probably would have set one up for testing.

[cdifoto]

Alright guys. I will consider revising on the next proposal since you all make good points.

My biggest goal is to allow options for people to spend more if they want. I often ask what people have for their budget but few people are willing to divulge that so I have to start somewhere. I probably came in $500 - $600 low on this one and the potential client let me know by selecting the 2nd shooter and wireless lights.

The lights are mine but they would require lots of extra work to set up properly and an extra assistant to carry one around on a boom pole. My options without the light is high ISO or on camera flash. Either way would be fine for decent pictures but the slaves would be my first choice if set up and used properly.

Even if they didn't choose the lights I probably would have set one up for testing.

I work solo and I still set up my room lights at receptions. It only takes 5 minutes. You don't really need someone walking around with a light on a stick. Keep that one on the camera.

[sapearl]

I hear what you're saying - understand where you're coming from.

But most b/g's don't care about this level of detail. They just want to make sure you know what you're doing, and that you'll do the right thing at the right time with the right gear. And your samples will reflect that level of expertise.

High ISO shots? Rembrandt lighting technique? Radio Triggers? Few even think about that or even ask. They just want nice sharp, in focus, well composed, well timed shots. And again your portfolio will speak to this.

Sure, options are important but the competition is so fierce these days that there's a basic level of (adequate lighting) service that clients expect these days. If you project yourself as too cumbersome in that nickel and dime sort of way, the b/g will just walk to another website.


Alright guys. I will consider revising on the next proposal since you all make good points.

My biggest goal is to allow options for people to spend more if they want. I often ask what people have for their budget but few people are willing to divulge that so I have to start somewhere. I probably came in $500 - $600 low on this one and the potential client let me know by selecting the 2nd shooter and wireless lights.

The lights are mine but they would require lots of extra work to set up properly and an extra assistant to carry one around on a boom pole. My options without the light is high ISO or on camera flash. Either way would be fine for decent pictures but the slaves would be my first choice if set up and used properly.

Even if they didn't choose the lights I probably would have set one up for testing.

[jhcanon]

Far to technical a proposal IMHO. You can't expect the B&G to understand all the things you list. They will either get confused or think you're blowing smoke up their ***es.

[Gnhntn]

After reading the contract you are using I myself would more then likely say no thanks and go find another photographer. The reason for this is that I feel I should not have to pay for equipment use, such as lighting and lenses needed to do the job properly. I feel if they are needed then they shouldbe provided. I understand they may be rentals, but again either include the cost in the initial price and use them all the time, or leave the prices as they are and provide them at no additional cost to the client if they are needed.

[egordon99]

Thanks for the comments tfizzle. I tend to think from the perspective of a photographer hiring another photographer and looking for things I would want in my personal wedding photographer. I would be asking what lenses, lighting, etc. I realize the vast majority of the world doesn't care and just wants pretty pictures.

I guess I was thinking "low light lens package" sounds cool and helps add perceived value to the quote.

How much for you to just show up with a Rebel and the kit lens? ;)

But seriously, this is certainly an interesting way of presenting things. Hope the weddings go well!

[rlconklin]

You should be expected to show up with whatever equipment it takes to give your customer the best quality pictures you are capable of making (without charging them extra). Anything less, and you have no business being a photographer. This is probably the worst sales proposal I've ever seen for a photographer. You should be embarrassed.

Basically what that proposal tells your client is that you'll be happy to charge them a lot of money and show up and take some crappy photos, but if they want you to do a good job, then they will have to pay extra.

If you're concerned about having to bring along lights or carrying an extra lens in your bag, you should probably check out the venue before giving them a quote and if you feel the need to charge extra for lighting or a using a good lens, then include that as part of the quote, not as extra charges.

If you gave me a proposal like that I'd tell you to make sure the door doesn't hit you on the way out.

[JayJphoto]

You should be expected to show up with whatever equipment it takes to give your customer the best quality pictures you are capable of making (without charging them extra). Anything less, and you have no business being a photographer. This is probably the worst sales proposal I've ever seen for a photographer. You should be embarrassed.

I can't really agree with that statement. Embarrassed...really??

A good wedding photographer can shoot an entire wedding with natural light and a combination of on-camera speedlights without a problem. It's done all the time, and done successfully. This gives the couple an option of a "premium" service. They SHOULD get a higher number of interesting photos at the wedding/reception if the photographer uses more external light sources. There is more packing, and setup with external lights versus pulling the 580EX II out of your camera bag and poping it onto of your body, and bouncing it each and every way to simulate an external light source.

Someone found a way to market extra services...kudos to you! Now...IMO, the bride/groom should have an idea of print costs before signing the proposal...hopefully they do. Then again, I never bought many prints when I got married...neither did anyone else. Hmmm...where is that wedding album again... :)

[rlconklin]

I can't really agree with that statement. Embarrassed...really??


Yes, embarrassed! He's basically telling a client that he can do sub-par work for one price, but if they want a really good job, it's gonna cost them more. Would you tell a client that? I know I'd never think of doing it. I want my reputation to be that I'm going to do the best job I'm capable of every time, no exceptions.

Would you tell a client that you can do a sub-par job for them for one price but it's going to cost them a lot more to get good quality work?

[JayJphoto]

Yes, embarrassed! He's basically telling a client that he can do sub-par work for one price, but if they want a really good job, it's gonna cost them more. Would you tell a client that? I know I'd never think of doing it. I want my reputation to be that I'm going to do the best job I'm capable of every time, no exceptions.

Would you tell a client that you can do a sub-par job for them for one price but it's going to cost them a lot more to get good quality work?

No, and I don't see where he says without additional external lighting they will get sub-par photos for the base $1300 pricing. The "Expanded lighting" isn't necessary to shoot a great wedding.

[cdifoto]

No, and I don't see where he says without additional external lighting they will get sub-par photos for the base $1300 pricing. The "Expanded lighting" isn't necessary to shoot a great wedding.

It's not stated but it's an impression that could be given without intention.

I mean, why offer it if it's not needed for spectacular results? By selling it as an add-on that allows better results (which it can, if used properly), he is also saying without it the photos won't be as good.

I would only charge extra for kit that I don't already own because it has never been needed before...ie a 300 f/2.8 because I've been relegated to the verrrrrry back of a huuuuuuuuuge church. That's not a normal part of a wedding photographer's kit. It's also a one-time deal.

I would NOT charge extra just to use some stuff that's in my trunk because I'm too lazy to do it without being bribed to do it. Add-on fees to use kit that the photographer already owns basically just tells me the photographer isn't charging enough from the get-go. Instead of $1300 base fee plus $150 for that add-on, just charge $1500 and use the lights. At least then you won't sound sleazy.

[aroundlsu]

Hey guys, the extra lighting is the one thing that actually upsold on this contract. I agree, it could be tweaked some. I do own the lights, yes. The $150 is mostly to pay an assistant to come help. I absolutely can't do a whole wedding, reception, and manage safely rigging slave lights all by myself.

[cdifoto]

I absolutely can't do a whole wedding, reception, and manage safely rigging slave lights all by myself.

Why not? Like I said, it only takes about 5 minutes to set up.

Oh and flash isn't allowed in all churches. I would even put the ones who do allow it in the minority. If I bought the add-on and you didn't use it, I'd be rather miffed.

I think you'd better off just charging more out of the gate, using it when you can and leaving it packed when you can't.

[sapearl]

I would agree with this - build it into the base price which likely would bring you more into line with others in your area. This way the charges will look fairly "normal" and not like you're trying to nickel and dime the client.

.....I think you'd better off just charging more out of the gate, using it when you can and leaving it packed when you can't.

[aroundlsu]

I don't know how you rig lights, but depending on the location, I would be hanging them from the ceiling, balconies, and/or on combo stands with mounts, sand bags, and safety lines as needed. Power will need to be run to each light if they are to be used throughout the whole ceremony. If the church doesn't allow flashes they would only be used for pre and post ceremony portraits in which case high roller stands and battery packs will suffice.

So we are looking at about an hour setup for the church (if allowed for the ceremony) and quicker setup for the reception since the lights don't need to be so discreet. I can't be worried with doing that while I am also chasing a bride and groom around.

Maybe I am trying too hard, but I trying for something like this:

http://www.ourblogoflove.com/matt/index.cfm?StartRow=10

See the laura & caleb get married!! blog post.

[cdifoto]

I don't know how you rig lights, but depending on the location, I would be hanging them from the ceiling, balconies, and/or on combo stands with mounts, sand bags, and safety lines as needed. Power will need to be run to each light if they are to be used throughout the whole ceremony. If the church doesn't allow flashes they would only be used for pre and post ceremony portraits in which case high roller stands and battery packs will suffice.

So we are looking at about an hour setup for the church (if allowed for the ceremony) and quicker setup for the reception since the lights don't need to be so discreet. I can't be worried with doing that while I am also chasing a bride and groom around.

Maybe I am trying too hard, but I trying for something like this:

http://www.ourblogoflove.com/matt/index.cfm?StartRow=10

See the laura & caleb get married!! blog post.

Which photo(s) am I supposed to be looking at that required the 1 hour of prep?

Good luck getting a church to let you hang lights from their ceiling. I really do think you're making too much of it. For the ceremony at least.

[sapearl]

Perhaps you are going a bit overboard on your lighting. I see you have some movie background, and that's good but that amount of setup is not necessary in most of these situations.

I'm not saying that the results wouldn't be beautiful and maybe even stunning but I don't believe most wedding photographers are investing that much time and effort these in that sort of arrangment. Most clients don't understand and neither do they care. Demonstrated competencey with one, two or maybe three speedlights on/off camera - as shown in samples - is usually enough to make the sale or not.

But the main thing is that your proposal is just too difficult to read and sort through, and understand what I am really getting, and what I'd have to pay extra for.

Look back at my Post #13 above in this thread. You still haven't answered the question. This is the sort of thing that the average b/g will be asking if they approach you. In other words: "How much will it cost under the following circumstances......................" Be able to provide a clear, fair and understandable number and you will have a chance in this business.

Btw - I checked your Laura/Caleb blog. You've got some very nice compostions there and good timing but there is something off about your exposures. I'm not trying to be critical but either you are uniformly underexposing many (not all) of your shots there or doing something wrong in post. If this was still film I'd say that a number of them were printed from "thin negatives."

[cdifoto]

I don't think that's his blog, Stu. I think it was just an example of what he wants to do. I won't comment on the quality or necessity of lights in that situation because it's not really to my taste. Compared to that, I'm rather "vanilla" with my lighting.

[aroundlsu]

No not my blog. It is just an inspiration.

Regardless, I have plenty of time to prepare. Wedding is in December. However the bridals are tomorrow. And yes, I'll be going way overboard on lighting for the bridals. Even bringing out the 12x12 overheads and 6x6 butterflies. Oh well. Damn filmmakers.

[sapearl]

Oooops - sorry about that Teddy, my bad :o. I obviously misread your post.

Anyway, I hope all goes well with your lighting. Seeing that you do some work in filmaking I'm sure you'll be porting over some of those skills and that vision to good effect. We look forward to seeing some of the results if you wish to share ;)

No not my blog. It is just an inspiration.

Regardless, I have plenty of time to prepare. Wedding is in December. However the bridals are tomorrow. And yes, I'll be going way overboard on lighting for the bridals. Even bringing out the 12x12 overheads and 6x6 butterflies. Oh well. Damn filmmakers.

[Phil V]

I may be being naive, but here goes:
If you really are an expert at theatrically lighting a wedding venue to create stunning images, that the average / better than average, wedding pro isn't aiming for, then that's Your USP.

You shouldn't be aiming to low-ball on a price than charge a small premium for adding the lights and artistic vision. You should be High-balling and making the most of those movie making skills. Maybe even add some moving footage from a dslr?

We all need something to set us out from the crowd, as others have said, this price list can easily be flipped to negative connotations. When what you should be doing is shouting your strengths from the rooftops. For some brides, having all of that 'hollywood lighting' at their wedding would be a real gas, but you need to sell that as a positive, not simply something to ensure 'clear bright pictures'. as others said 'clear bright pictures' should be a minimum requirement if you're charging to shoot a wedding.

It's up to you, you can choose to set your own unique path or appear to be the same as everyone else, but needing an extra hundred and fifty if the bride wants clear pictures??:confused:

[HappySnapper90]

Why are you including certain lenses in a package? Clients usually aren't going to know what you're talking about and why aren't you always using the right lens for the right situation? Nobody cares about your equipment, all they care about is the results!

You'll get few takers to add an additional $250 to have you use a different lens, that'll make your lens collect dust. Just use it every time, it'll improve your results and your portfolio, both of which will get you more word of mouth advertising!

[photoguy6405]

Like many others... and even as another photographer who has some idea what you're talking about... I'd be put off by all the "extras". My thought would be, "Oh, great. If I want his best quality work I'll be nickle-and-dimed to death for it.". It almost feels like extortion.

[jonwhite]

Bizarre pricing structure, I think your gonna confuse the hell out of customers.

Pricing should be transparent and logical to customers and what you have detailed in your original post definitely isn't that.

Lower end packages are usually time limited, 1 photographer, and product limited ... higher end packages will have increased coverage, maybe a second photographer and provide the client with more finished products ..... all these makes sense to clients .... saying you will bring this camera or that camera or different lighting etc wont make sense to them.

[Rubi Jane]

I briefly read through all the posts so I'm not going to comment on the lighting/upsell concept, what I will ask is whether you're confident you can deliver in 24 hrs? I know I couldn't. What if you book another job for the next day, get sick or simply can't edit the number of images you take? I'd give yourself some extra time and over deliver to your clients' expectations.

I'd also address contingencies (postponement, cancellation etc) along with payment terms.

[aroundlsu]

Thanks again for all the constructive comments.

A selection of bridals can be seen here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=848776

My presentation method for the bride can be seen here:
http://gallery.teddysmithstudio.com/g/brady

Feel free to critique.