The potential results of shooting a wedding without good equipment/knowledge

http://forums.theknot.​com …-las-vegas_photographer-4

Not sure how long this link will be good, but...

So according to the posted link, the fix for bad amature photography is hiring a $500 "professional"?

(once I stopped laughing......)

Law of averages:
Given that sometimes you get more than you'd paid for and other times you might get less. On average you get what you pay for.

Law of the state I live in:
According to the Oregon State Legislator(s), consumers are more likely to suffer from "bad hair cuts" then "bad wedding photography" as it is illegal to accept money or barter the former without proper licensing/training and there is absolutely no restrictions on the latter.

You are implying that $500 will never get you photos you will be satisfied with, when in fact I know that everyone who goes to that particular photographer knows what they are getting and never have been disappointed. He is consistent, very experienced, and he knows the work. I am on average about $100 more expensive than him. Am I therefore no better than the free amateur as well?

form wrote in post #12103127
You are implying that $500 will never get you photos you will be satisfied with, when in fact I know that everyone who goes to that particular photographer knows what they are getting and never have been disappointed. He is consistent, very experienced, and he knows the work. I am on average about $100 more expensive than him. Am I therefore no better than the free amateur as well?

No offence intended.

Surely there are people that shoot for free that provide images that are satisfactory to their clients (I can count myself in this group) as well as there are those who charge much more than you do and do not produce satisfactory results.

If we are to belief that the average "market rate" for a wedding photographer is $1800-2400 then it is implied that those who charge less than that or nothing at all do so because they are providing less service or a less quality product or have little to no faith in their own product.

form wrote in post #12103127
You are implying that $500 will never get you photos you will be satisfied with, when in fact I know that everyone who goes to that particular photographer knows what they are getting and never have been disappointed. He is consistent, very experienced, and he knows the work. I am on average about $100 more expensive than him. Am I therefore no better than the free amateur as well?

Dude, I cannot believe that you only charge $800 for 6 hours of photography. Your work is very nice and you should be charging at least double that if not more.

Based on all the explained information, I do not understand what you find funny, as per..

"So according to the posted link, the fix for bad amature photography is hiring a $500 'professional'?"
"(once I stopped laughing......)"

What is funny then?

form wrote in post #12103752
Based on all the explained information, I do not understand what you find funny, as per..

"So according to the posted link, the fix for bad amature photography is hiring a $500 'professional'?"
"(once I stopped laughing......)"

What is funny then?

My guess is the fact they they changed their mind and decided to hire a professional, and feel they are guaranteed to get good shots with a $500 CL.

As argued many times Joey, you are much better than you have priced, but I understand each market is different, and Las Vegas may be very different.

They are guaranteed to get much better shots with that photographer than they would from any inexperienced amateur. The photographer mentioned is very seasoned and has had nothing but good reviews from all the brides that used him. He will get the shots that matter most because he has done it many times and knows his equipment and the situation. This is why the $500 person will do an infinitely better job than the free amateur.

Will the photos be quality works of art? Most of them probably will not be. Will they be generally well-exposed, showing the important activities of the day without missing anything significant? Extremely likely. Could the amateur free photographer promise a similar ability to capture pretty much everything significant that happens on the wedding day? Almost certainly NOT. Is capturing the day more important to many people than getting a lot of artsy-styled photos? Frequently.

Therefore, I don't see what is funny.

form wrote in post #12103752
Based on all the explained information, I do not understand what you find funny, as per..

"So according to the posted link, the fix for bad amature photography is hiring a $500 'professional'?"
"(once I stopped laughing......)"

What is funny then?

When faced with something free not working my "knee jerk reaction" would be to go to the other end of $cale, IE:

"my brother claimed to know how to install a water heater and his free install has given us nothing but trouble, the handyman down the street offered to fix it for a few bucks but at this point I'm hiring a plumber!"

When I paid (what I thought) plenty of money for a hotshoe flash and became frustrated with the misfires and bad exposures, I gave up and replaced it with a Canon that cost 3x as much.

Joey you have some wonderful stuff posted on your website, I can only hope to someday create stuff as good. I'd agree with others that your work could easily be worth more then what your charging but admit that I don't know your market.

How much a photographer charges has very little correlation with how "good" they are. There lots of great photographers (Like Joey) who charge relatively little, and photographers who charge $6,000+ who give you very little and whose photos just aren't all that good.

So saying someone who charges more is "better" or "more professional" isn't necessarily true.

Our latest booking was from a couple who had already booked a different photographer.

They had set about planning their wedding sometime ago and didn't originally budget very much money for a photographer so went for one of the cheapest ones they could find.

Several Months after booking him the doubts and their friends horror stories of cheap photographers finally got the better of them and they booked us for one of our budget DVD only packages .... which still cost more than 3 times what the other guy was charging and they lost their deposit with him too.

Like has already been said there's no guarantees that more money will equal better photos but when someone is charging an amount that is clearly not possible to live on it generally means they are doing it on the side so your not their number one priority or they have just started out so have relatively little experience.

Markets can be priced differently of course though, what may seem cheap over here may be a going rate elsewhere.

jonwhite wrote in post #12130608
Like has already been said there's no guarantees that more money will equal better photos but when someone is charging an amount that is clearly not possible to live on it generally means they are doing it on the side so your not their number one priority or they have just started out so have relatively little experience.

Not their number one priority? That's quite a stretch, unless you have no other photography work remotely close to their wedding, have no family life, and don't plan to work on your business (advertising, networking,posting on photography boards, etc.) While you are PPing the photos, making their album, etc.

I'm sure you do all of those things.

PMCphotography wrote in post #12134344
Not their number one priority? That's quite a stretch, unless you have no other photography work remotely close to their wedding, have no family life, and don't plan to work on your business (advertising, networking,posting on photography boards, etc.) While you are PPing the photos, making their album, etc.

I'm sure you do all of those things.

Not really sure what your talking about so I will try and clarify.

On a wedding day my clients are my number one priority, if photography were a side job and another job was paying the mortgage then this may not be the case. Yes there's lots of other things that are required as part of running a photography business obviously, but on a wedding day clients are by far the most important thing.

PMCphotography wrote in post #12134344
Not their number one priority? That's quite a stretch, unless you have no other photography work remotely close to their wedding, have no family life, and don't plan to work on your business (advertising, networking,posting on photography boards, etc.) While you are PPing the photos, making their album, etc.

I'm sure you do all of those things.

"Not their number one priority? "

I think this relates more to the shooters PRIMARY source of income more than anything else. People who charge less than what might be expected or required to support themselves and their family as their SOLE/ONLY source of income (IE: full time professional) have less at stake then those who don't.

I think part of the deciding factor is what happens if the shooters photography business fails? What is on the line?

Does the shooter pick up more hours/shifts at the plant to make up for the lost income? Start working at multiple unskilled/minimum wage jobs in hopes of supporting their family? Go back to or start spending their weekends playing golf or other leasure activity?

If you hang around photography forums long enough you'll no doubt run across a post from a full time pro who was asked to "fix" some gawd-awful mess of images that some less expensive shooter created for a teary-eyed bargin hunter that 'learned their lesson'.

"Uncle Bob", GWC (guest with camera) and surely ANYONE wielding a camera for free (except of course the pro's who carry a full kit in their trunk so that they can 'save the day' in case the free or hired shooter appears to them as not doing a good enough job) undoubtedly are assumed to not deliver anything remotely simular to a (correctly exposed, in focus) decent photograph (forgetting of course that the 'Green Box' on
most cameras will do this for them) and it is assumed that they have NEVER attended a wedding before so are equally clueless as to 'critical shots' and how weddings in their area might be performed.

When it comes to photography and the interent, "snobery" has no bounds.

Assumed best to worse:
1. Full time pro ($4K+)
2. Part timer (< $4K)
3. Just starting out (<$2k)
4. Craigs Lister ($500)
5. Free (using DSLR)
6. Free (using camera phone)

I love that hierarchy, Marko. Very true.

Here's my point about "priorities": in my area, there is no "full time" WEDDING photographers. Even 100% full time (they earn no income other than photo stuff) don't do all weddings. They shoot families, sports, cars, concerts, glamour, etc.

So as long as the hired photog shows up on time and does the contracted # of hours
, Delivers the photos in a timely manner, and does a decent job with the photos themselves, it really shouldn't matter if they spend tuesday working at the plant or editing photos from a family shoot sunday- the point is the same. No wedding couple has 100% of the photographers attention every wedding, so they are never the number one priority.

There's a lot of threads lately about pricing- and new photogs always ask why the "full time" pro charges 2-3x more and delivers mediocre results. Once again, because how dollars they charge has little correlation with how good the really are.

QUOTE=mbloof;12137193]​"Not their number one priority? "

I think this relates more to the shooters PRIMARY source of income more than anything else. People who charge less than what might be expected or required to support themselves and their family as their SOLE/ONLY source of income (IE: full time professional) have less at stake then those who don't.

I think part of the deciding factor is what happens if the shooters photography business fails? What is on the line?

Does the shooter pick up more hours/shifts at the plant to make up for the lost income? Start working at multiple unskilled/minimum wage jobs in hopes of supporting their family? Go back to or start spending their weekends playing golf or other leasure activity?

If you hang around photography forums long enough you'll no doubt run across a post from a full time pro who was asked to "fix" some gawd-awful mess of images that some less expensive shooter created for a teary-eyed bargin hunter that 'learned their lesson'.

"Uncle Bob", GWC (guest with camera) and surely ANYONE wielding a camera for free (except of course the pro's who carry a full kit in their trunk so that they can 'save the day' in case the free or hired shooter appears to them as not doing a good enough job) undoubtedly are assumed to not deliver anything remotely simular to a (correctly exposed, in focus) decent photograph (forgetting of course that the 'Green Box' on
most cameras will do this for them) and it is assumed that they have NEVER attended a wedding before so are equally clueless as to 'critical shots' and how weddings in their area might be performed.

When it comes to photography and the interent, "snobery" has no bounds.

Assumed best to worse:
1. Full time pro ($4K+)
2. Part timer (< $4K)
3. Just starting out (<$2k)
4. Craigs Lister ($500)
5. Free (using DSLR)
6. Free (using camera phone)[/QUOTE]