Wedding Photography Pricing - Biggest Factor for the Decline

mmahoney wrote in post #10458661
I don't have access to any historical wedding price data, so could be entirely wrong on #1 but some observations I think to be true:

1) Couples are spending as much on their wedding photos as always, in both dollar amount and as a percentage of their overall wedding budget.

2) The old school models are toast, and so are many of the old school shooters who did not adapt. The fact that they really don't know they are toast does not change that fact.

3) There is a very healthy demand for mid-price ($2,000-3,000) wedding photography that includes the DVD and an album.

4) There is a flood of extremely talented new wedding photographers who are satisfying couples needs at a fair price.

This.

You can debate the cause of the changing landscape of wedding photography, but it is irrelevant. It has permanently changed. Period. You can ride the wave of change and develop a business model that flows with it or you can try and fight it. There are plenty of examples of both around and the effect on their business, but in the end asking the question of why is no where near as important as asking the question of how to ride the changes and still make money.

mmahoney wrote in post #10466067
so you educate them on archival paper, show them samples of your lab versus WalMart and you know what? ....... they can't see the difference.

maybe you have blind clients... ours always see the difference.

and of course I have on display gallery wraps and other speciality prints. Though, we sell much more of those for children and baby photos than we do to brides and grooms wanting to hang a large photo of themselves on the wall.

sctbiggs wrote in post #10466278
maybe you have blind clients... ours always see the difference.

Mine can't see the difference either. Until you get into 8x10's.

Ever since Wal-Mart switched exclusively to fujifilm matte (at least around here), the resultant pics are really pretty good.

But you have to tell your clients to use the kiosk properly. The software on those touch screens is designed for the basic dufus and it's too easy to press the wrong "enhancement" button which will instruct the dyes to oversaturate your colors.

in original post i mentioned unprocessed images printed at retail outlet and then processed printed through my printer.

RD - you asked what the difference was betweein this:

Official, professional wedding photography no longer is as important to younger b/g’s as it was to our parents and is regarded as an unnecessary expense.

and then this:

Excellent dSLR’s now make it possible for Uncle Joe or best friend Jane to create pretty and acceptable images for free, so why pay big $$$ for a pro.

At least according to comments and opinions voiced on POTN over the past few years, they are both similar as well as different. They sort of merge in the middle from opposite directions.

THE UNNECESARY EXPENSE. In general, the young bride does not appreciate or understand high quality prints. Many photogs charge accordingly for this quality and it's often not cheap.

Mike - your canvas wraps are certainly beautiful, I appreciate them..... but the bride would have difficulty displaying it on FB, or including it in email to her old college roommates, or conveniently sending it on her iPhone. On the other hand, mom and dad may be interested in a purchase so there is a possible target market.

And they feel the same way about albums, books and my 4x6 lab proofs; again some still ask for the latter, so I offer it as an included extra as the overhead cost is not gigantic. But you better include some sort of online gallery or they will shop elsewhere. You can't share books and albums via your blackberry

THE ENABLER - as was pointed out earlier, more powerful and cheaper dSLR's have become the great enabler. With little effort, almost anybody can now take perfectly adequate pictures for little or no cost. Sure, it may not cover the whole day or all the regular poses, but "hey, look at how much money I saved by using my friend." The quality is "good enough" for screen display, or that digital frame.

And if the exposure is not perfect, they are a little bit noisy and many are soft - that's ok too since many will be shared electronically, at 72DPI at best, as well as by iPhone again, FB and other sites that don't display well.

RT McAllister wrote in post #10466319
Mine can't see the difference either. Until you get into 8x10's.

That's what I show them. When I do a side by side, they absolutely see the difference. More importantly, they fully understand how that difference will grow over time as the retail grade begins to fade, etc. Couple that with aggressive print pricing and I find I can pretty much make the idea of retail prints go away. I do a great busniess in prints, not only with the couple but with their family and friends through the on-line gallery. But that wouldn't happen at $35 for an 8x10.

CTP wrote in post #10466104
This.

You can debate the cause of the changing landscape of wedding photography, but it is irrelevant. It has permanently changed. Period. You can ride the wave of change and develop a business model that flows with it or you can try and fight it. There are plenty of examples of both around and the effect on their business, but in the end asking the question of why is no where near as important as asking the question of how to ride the changes and still make money.

Chris - you won't get any debate from me. I agree that the landscape has permanently changed, and for those of us who still want to part of the new scenary, it's imperative we understand the "new needs" and adapt accordingly.

Many of my old friends have quit the business. They were great photographers but could not handle the IT portion of the work. PC's baffled them and many did not want to even try spelling photoshop. They cashed out and that was the end. It's sad that they did not want to make the effort to change - for whatever reason - but also very sad because we as a group lost a lot of great talent and expertise.

RT McAllister wrote in post #10466319
Mine can't see the difference either. Until you get into 8x10's.

Ever since Wal-Mart switched exclusively to fujifilm matte (at least around here), the resultant pics are really pretty good.

But you have to tell your clients to use the kiosk properly. The software on those touch screens is designed for the basic dufus and it's too easy to press the wrong "enhancement" button which will instruct the dyes to oversaturate your colors.

and don't forget on off sizes at some locations the part time high school kid is cropping them for you with a paper cutter. When I needed some last minute prints they were cut crooked and overlapping the photo that was printed next to it.

css7493 wrote in post #10467328
the part time high school kid is cropping them for you with a paper cutter.

Well, there's that too.

And god help you if he's cutting a bunch of wallet sized pics and has to spend more than a whole 4 seconds to do it.

Sorry, I'm late to the party on this one, but....

I think the biggest change, at least from my perspective, is that photography in general has stopped being something akin to a guild-like secret brotherhood of protectionists.

Access to information on photographic theory and technique is now virtually ubiquitous because of the Internet. Access to the experience and wisdom of working professionals is just as available (this forum is a fine example). I can recall when a pro would tell you to buzz off if you asked questions. Now they spend time on forums giving away their "secrets."

When you combine access to information with photographic equipment that is financially accessible (and delivers reasonable quality), the result is that the level of basic competency rises. That, in turn, gives rise to more people who move on from that basic competency to become very good photographers (and maybe even great).

Sure, the digital SLR has been a big factor (a huge factor), but without the Internet, I doubt it would have had as much impact. Film shooters could tell their clients that digital was crap, and the clients wouldn't be able to search online to see what other people thought.

It's also easier for clients to shop around, compare, etc. They are more informed (of their options), and they use that as leverage as well.


So my vote is: "The Internet did it!"

I am not a wedding photographer - just a keen amateur (i.e. GWC).

However because I have a big camera with a big flash on I get nominated for all the family & friend parties (i.e. 40th, 50th, etc).

I suspect that your original question can be applied to any area of photography. There will always be plenty of people who appreciate great photography and are willing to pay for it. However I do believe that more and more people have LOWER expectations now.

As long as the photos are sharp and contrasty then that is acceptable. Secondly I believe that Social Networking has lowered expectations. Forget the background, forget composition etc etc.

I was asked last month to photograph the after Communion party of my GFs brother's daughter. So I rock up with fancy DSLR & flash and take some good photos.

I asked my GFs brother's wife for her FB password so I could upload the photos for her. I also uploaded all the images to Photobox (online printer in the UK).

I then emailed her to say the photos were on Photobox so that she could order prints at cost price. I also said if she preferred to get them printed herself I would send her a DVD of the full res images.

I got a message on FB to say the images were great & thanks very much. No word about a DVD and she has not ordered any photos from Photobox.

I might as well have taken a cheap P&S and have taken some snap shots and have been done with it.

That is not a criticism of her, but it was just to illustrate that FB is seen as a way of showing off the images and prints aren't too important to many people.

RT McAllister wrote in post #10466319
But you have to tell your clients to use the kiosk properly.

No kiosk .. upload online and let their Fuji lab machines do the printing.

With most all sRGB profiles the quality is quite good, and if you ask them for their specific color profile the color is excellent and then it's just a matter of paper quality.

The DSLR definitely impacted the way weddings are shot and have pushed the number of delivered images up a lot higher than it ever used to be, but I agree more with those who point to the internet as having been the biggest factor.

It's not like the old days when a bride had to look in the yellow pages, and photographers usually had a storefront or studio to work out of. Now, anyone can second shoot a couple of weddings and go to any number of template sites and be in business for $300. Photographers that saw more income potential in training new wedding photographers through seminars and products compared to shooting actual weddings have done a good job of bringing plenty of new photographers into the business - as have websites that helped me such as this one and DWF at one point. There are definitely a lot more photographes competing for the same amount of business, and there are a lot of talented ones too, so it's not like all the new people suck at it.

So more people entered the field, at the same time, the cost of entering the business and doing okay at it have gone down. ( I have friends that paid $10k for a website in 2004 that you can now find a better version of for $300) That being said, in 2004, anyone who had a pulse could take out a second mortgage and refinance their home to pay for their daughter's wedding, and people did things like that a lot. Cheap money is officially gone and it has without a doubt impacted how much people are spending on their weddings. Now that there are so many shooters to choose from, photography has in a large sense become a commodity, and not a specialized product - so price is driving a lot of decisions, especially since many couples are not educated consumers like creative directors or other buyers of photography. The statistic I read from the local bridal assn. here says that overall wedding dollar volume is down 37% from two years ago. The cost of having an open bar has not changed, and that is still a big priority for many couples - So, since photography is a commodity, people are pushing to keep that expense low because they can. The idea that people who occupy the higher end of the market are not being touched by the economy is not true at all in my experience. Everyone I know has been wheeling and dealing and doing whatever it takes to keep busy, even if it means taking a cheaper booking.

So it's everything - the economy, photography becoming more of a commodity than a specialized product, and digital technology making photography more accesible to everyone.

It's economics 101: Supply and Demand. The supply of photogs has gone up, and the demand has probably stayed about the same.

The supply has gone up because the barriers to entry into higher quality photography have been dropped substantially due to digital. How many of us on this forum would be as competent in photography if it wasn't for the digital revolution. In the past, cameras where more expensive, and the costs of film made it very expensive to practice and become proficient. Now, the entry level dslrs are cheap, and the photos are free. So you can shoot at will without regard for cost. In the film days, you wouldn't experiment as much with film due to the cost.

So, in the past, only the dedicated people looking to go into photography professionally could invest enough in equipment and film development to obtain an acceptable level of proficiency. Now anybody with about $700 and the time to learn can become proficient. Accordingly we have more photographers "hanging their shingle". Therefore the price has been reduced.

rhomsy wrote in post #10541406
It's economics 101: Supply and Demand. The supply of photogs has gone up, and the demand has probably stayed about the same.

The supply has gone up because the barriers to entry into higher quality photography have been dropped substantially due to digital. How many of us on this forum would be as competent in photography if it wasn't for the digital revolution. In the past, cameras where more expensive, and the costs of film made it very expensive to practice and become proficient. ......

. Now anybody with about $700 and the time to learn can become proficient. Accordingly we have more photographers "hanging their shingle". Therefore the price has been reduced.

What you are saying rhomsy is fairly true from a technical standpoint. This is one of the main reasons why many of my friends of my "vintage" have left the business.

However, it has also allowed many of these would-be wedding photogs to gain the allusion that they are sufficiently proficient in their people skills and procedures of the standard wedding day to do a competent job of delivering high quality service.

Some do in fact pull it off, and well. But far many more make a hash of it, and botch things badly. However, since the b/g don't is viewing much of the resultant work at 72DPI, on Facebook or their IPhone, they don't really appreciate quality work and are ok with the results - because it was cheap.

The manufacturers certainly contributed to the current state.

In the old "analog" days, the camera companies used to market primarily to about 50,000 working pro's, give or take, along with a modest offering of adequate consuer gear. Then digital exploded on the scene. Suddenly they realize: Why concentrate on a mere 50K users when you could instead focus your R&D and marketting efforts on 50,000,000 amateurs? It was brilliance on their part - and a death knell to many of the old time true film professionals. Those were the craftsmen who truly prized their carefully rendered images and hand crafted prints.

Good or bad? It simply is what it is.

The buyer now has a much greater variety of packages, skill levels and choices to consider, as well as a much more dangerous minefield in which to shop. Everybody needs to take personal responsibility for their role in this.