Weddings... I don't get it.

[RMThompson]

In the writing field, one of my other jobs, it's said "Teach a writer about business and soon he quits writing"... it's true, writers usually have not a CLUE about selling themselves, and I would suspect a lot of Photogs are the same way. So much time is focused on making art, people don't know how to market it!

Truth is, call me a service person, a hack, whatever, I enjoy making money from taking pics. Like Christie says... it almost seems like free money.

(remembers the late bride who cut herself, the arrogant groomsmen who cursed me before I arrived, the officiate in the see through dress, the family member who followed me and took every pic I did and the wedding on the beach with people in their bathing suits in the background of every shot.)

Almost.

 

[killcrazy]

Im 21. and live in the North East of the UK.
Around here, a basic package for a wedding costs around £700. thats $1400 to you kids accross the pond.

£700 for photographs.
To a "pro" photographer, that might be pennies, for all the work that goes into it. All the equipment they need, the stress, the endless post processing, travel expenses. etc etc. and everything else iv missed out.

But to a couple, who are arround my age, or even an older couple! who are earning about £600-£800 a month. and who are probably getting a morgage around the same time they wed.
To a couple around this age, who know NOTHING about photography,
To a couple who dont know the effort that goes into creating a fantastic wedding album,

do you think that they can always justify spending a WHOLE MONTHS WAGES on a few "snapshots?"
some, maybe. some might take the attitude "its the only ever time im getting married so lets do it properly"
some might think "daddies paying for it, so lets just get the most expensive..."

But some people might not be able to afford £700, for a basic photoshoot.
when they take into account the dress, the other outfits, the cars, the venue, the reception etc etc etc.

So what will they do? they'll turn to that friend of a friend of a friend who was pretty handy with a camera. And give dad the camcorder, but make sure he doesnt get too drunk....

As a video editor, i get pretty angry when i see people using the free software that comes with an apple mac, or a PC to make a DVD and they think they are a pro.. cos they arent. Iv spent 3 years at uni learning how to shoot film, and edit it properly. and im nowhere near what i would call a professional.
But at the end of the day, 90% of wedding videos are usually shot by either the best man or the father of the bride, and they are usually using a cr*p camcorder, and most likely blind drunk. But that is the "accepted" version of a wedding video these days.

So if that's the accepted version of a wedding video, and everyone does it. why not get a friend to shoot the pictures? that friend who has a fancy camera, who knows how to use it? you know the one, who took those amazing pictures of your dads mates band? and got a loverly shot of ur cousins christening?
Seems like a good idea to me! give him 150 notes, and hes sweet. and "we" save £550! spot on....

This is how people think. Whether you "professionals" like it or not. When it comes down to it, photographers are on the list of things to book for a wedding, but they are FFFAAAARRRRR from the top in all the ones iv been involved with.
And at the end of the day, it comes down to MONEY.

Joe bloggs, out on the street might be able to tell the difference between a really good photograph, and a really bad one, but they might not be able to spot the difference between a meadeocre shot and a pretty good one...
If a bride (and groom) are happy in their decision to use a budget photographer, or a friend, or a relative to capture their special day. Then who are you to argue?
You might look at a weding album shot by a n00b, and think its cr*p.
But the bride might get it out every so often and see herself on the happiest day of her life, in what you might call an average shot. and she might cry cos shes remembering the day.
not the fact that the best man's elbow was cut off of the end of the picture and theres a little too much sky in it...

I doubt very much that a "pro" protographer might think about any of this as they walk past a church and see an obvious n00b taking photos of the wedding.
But think about it from your customers point of view. Everyone is different. So to all these "pro" photographers, out there who hate the n00bs for stealing their business.... it probably wasnt ever going to be your business anyway. and that "n00b" probably doesnt consider themselves a photographer, they are in 99% of cases going to be a friend or relative doing the couple a favour.

 

[JIP]

To address the question of why so many noobs want to get into wedding photography. I think alot of people like to take pictures at weddings for the same reasons people like to shoot flowers. There are so many opportunities for beautiful images. Everyone is dressed in their best clothes and the B+G are looking (for the most part) as good as they will ever look in their lives. Their are great locations, great flowers and, everyone (almost) is willing to get their picture taken. Another thing I think is alot of wannabee gearheads see the wedding photographer with their big cameras and big lenses taking command of the wedding while you are forced to sit where you are told, eat when yo are told and, even refrain from dancing till you are told to do so.

 

[ERS1121]

Hey RMThompson,
Don't get me wrong, I was not putting down "the budget wedding photographer", thats pretty much the same group i'm in. I do not walk into a wedding with 10,000.00 worth of digital equipment hanging around my neck. I can't afford all of that fancy stuff, I only have 1 DSLR, definately not high end, but not junk either.
Actually unless there is a specific call for digital I usually carry 2 Canon F-1's,(about 25 years old),2 Sunpak flashes, and pardon my use of nasty four letter words(film).
When I retire from my full time job in 4 years I would love to go out and 2 Canon 5D's, and all of the nifty little toys to go with them. But whatever happens well....thats in the future.

 

[Big Mike]

I am NOT pretending that equipment/experience are not a requirement for wedding photography, but people here over-blow what you need. When iw as told what I would need, it was like a D200, a backup D200, 5 lenses minimum, 3 flashses, 10gigs of space, blah blah blah... and the simple fact is you DON'T need all that. Would it be NICE to have all that, yes, but you DON'T need it. Really.

You don't really need to wear seat belts either. You don't really need to have insurance on your house. You don't really need at that...but when the sh!t hits the fan...saying sorry just isn't good enough.

I'm not saying that it's an absolute requirement to have the best gear and backups for everything...but that's the difference between a real pro and someone who is doing it 'just because'.

 

[Southerngal]

As far as the dispelling the myths of photography, you can go ahead and call me silly but leave me out of the royal "WE" you use there. I think that professional wedding photographers (i.e. people who get paid to take wedding pictures and who make some and/or all of their income from wedding photography) SHOULD have the best equipment, along with the best skills they can acquire. Equipment may not = skill, but skill plus the best equipment means better pictures for the client... and isn't that what the whole idea of wedding photography is all about? The simple fact is, by and large, better equipment in the hands of a skilled photographer will give you better pictures. The equipment doesn't make up for skill, but to me the obvious answer is to have BOTH.

I agree w/you that professional photographers should have the best equipment, but the amateurs have to start somewhere. If you shoot pics @ a wedding, well anywhere, using what you have and you don't hide the fact that you are still learning and need more equipment, I dont see the harm in it. I have taken pics for years and decided that I really love doing it and that I wanted to give it a shot. I have had several people interested in my taking pics for them. I dont lie to them....I dont claim to be the best....I am up front and honest about what I have and about the quality that I can provide them. I dont right now and would never charge what a so called PROFESSIONAL would charge, but for a perfect stranger, I wouldnt do it for free. They know what they are asking for and what they will potential receive and my time and effort, at this point, shouldnt be completely free no matter what type of equipment I have. You can have the best equipment, years of schooling, sharp technical skills and still no eye for it.

I am not bashing anybody. I just see a LOT of people who have the goal of taking wedding pictures, and I think that since wedding photography is such as small and extremely specialized niche, it is rather difficult (for me at least) to see why such a large number of people want to do it...

I am a NEWBIE, and my goal isnt to take only weddings. I would love to be able to do them well. I see weddings as one of the best learning experiences....all the pressure, the time, etc. Everyone has to start somewhere......you did. Im sure your first wedding pics werent perfect, and if you claim they were, well .

I have a lot of respect for the people who do wedding photography well, and who know what they are doing (people who act professional, who have back-up equipment and have back-up arrangements made with other photographers to fill in on an emergency basis, who carry the proper insurance, who use signed contracts with their customers, etc.).

In the end it is up to the BG and what they want. If the amateur is asked to do a wedding by a BG that have seen his/her work and that knows his/her experience than there is no harm. I think that these days, at least in my area, people are hiring more for the eye and creative side....rather than your trunk load of equipment and crew of professionals.

I hope to one day be a great photographer, and I feel that I will be. I will take the jobs that I am ASKED to do, if I feel that I can do the job well. I will never lead someone to believe that I am something I not. And I will defend myself as an amateur any day of the week.

 

[tempra]

This reminds me of when web design and simple html coding was a highly paid job, Macromedia brought out dreamweaver, kids got hold of cracked copies and lo and behold, they were web developers.

Nowadays, few of them do it - I used to do it in my spare time, but it was also part of my day job and I built a nice little portfolio with lots of repeat business. What I didn't do was charge bedroom office prices as if I was doing it in my spare time, I treated it like overtime, so charged a decent rate for it.

My day job changed and I started working more remotely, so had to call time on most of the development work that I was doing for myself however if I ever wanted to kick it off again, I still have the network of people that I used to use back then - they were the ones doing it for real, and the bulk of them are still in the business and are pretty successful with it.

The bedroom warriors have long since moved on as they saw the coder bubble burst and realised that anything more than HTML started to get a bit complicated even with dreamweaver.

I think the same thing is happening with photography - it used to happen in the past with the film crew, but the onward march of digital and the resurgence in the SLR market is driving it on.

As has been said, there's a market for all levels of experience and if people feel they are being undercut, then are they the right clients or are you aiming at the right market? I often got people asking me if I could update their site for them as the kid who wrote it has gone off to university / college / jail often they were shocked that to redo a site and get it working properly was about 4 times more than they had paid for it in the first place till I pointed out that what they had bought was a broken site and no backup.

A few of the kids though carried on, learned more coding languages and became more than proficient in what they were doing and are now sought after developers in their own right and can run rings round the professionals from ten years ago (me included)

I think the same will be true of photography, weekend warriors will always be there because there is a market for them, most of them will do it for a while, get bored and move on, some of them will ruin peoples days - you pays your money you takes your chance! - and some of them will turn into the best money can buy.

Don't knock them for having a go, don't knock them for undercutting you, make your own name, make your choice of direction, define your market, and do whatever it is that you want to do - be a weekend warrior if you like, nobodies business but yours.

I think I'll stop now, I was just going to say 'when I were a lad, all this were fields....'

 

[Mike_E]

And that road over there was...

Great post Tempra!

Also... If anyone has the least concern for what others think of them just remember: If they were half the man or woman that you are then they would only be half a man or woman.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[NJMAN]

This reminds me of when web design and simple html coding was a highly paid job, Macromedia brought out dreamweaver, kids got hold of cracked copies and lo and behold, they were web developers.

Nowadays, few of them do it - I used to do it in my spare time, but it was also part of my day job and I built a nice little portfolio with lots of repeat business. What I didn't do was charge bedroom office prices as if I was doing it in my spare time, I treated it like overtime, so charged a decent rate for it.

My day job changed and I started working more remotely, so had to call time on most of the development work that I was doing for myself however if I ever wanted to kick it off again, I still have the network of people that I used to use back then - they were the ones doing it for real, and the bulk of them are still in the business and are pretty successful with it.

The bedroom warriors have long since moved on as they saw the coder bubble burst and realised that anything more than HTML started to get a bit complicated even with dreamweaver.

I think the same thing is happening with photography - it used to happen in the past with the film crew, but the onward march of digital and the resurgence in the SLR market is driving it on.

As has been said, there's a market for all levels of experience and if people feel they are being undercut, then are they the right clients or are you aiming at the right market? I often got people asking me if I could update their site for them as the kid who wrote it has gone off to university / college / jail often they were shocked that to redo a site and get it working properly was about 4 times more than they had paid for it in the first place till I pointed out that what they had bought was a broken site and no backup.

A few of the kids though carried on, learned more coding languages and became more than proficient in what they were doing and are now sought after developers in their own right and can run rings round the professionals from ten years ago (me included)

I think the same will be true of photography, weekend warriors will always be there because there is a market for them, most of them will do it for a while, get bored and move on, some of them will ruin peoples days - you pays your money you takes your chance! - and some of them will turn into the best money can buy.

Don't knock them for having a go, don't knock them for undercutting you, make your own name, make your choice of direction, define your market, and do whatever it is that you want to do - be a weekend warrior if you like, nobodies business but yours.

I think I'll stop now, I was just going to say 'when I were a lad, all this were fields....'

Very well said Tempra!

I agree. The ones who are truly PASSIONATE, TALENTED, AND TENACIOUS will survive and find a way to thrive.

 

[glaston]

I think it's all due to the appearance of the camera. Most people own little point and shoot cameras, and most peoples photos from said cameras look pretty much the same.
No composition, bad lighting(too light or too dark) washed out whites from using the camera with it's default settings, no color correction or post for the most part (maybe some redeye removal), improper ISO setting and no depth of field.
So the average person sees someone with an SLR and they assume that he's a reasonably experienced photographer because he owns an expensive camera that they themselves wouldn't even know how to operate.
They know enough to know that an SLR takes better photos than a consumer point and shoot. Which is after all true to an extent. Most DSLR's have a higher Megapixel count, and the lenses are usually high quality which results in a better image even in the hands of someone with no experience.

Nowadays many people also figure that if you own a camera like that you probably know how to use Photoshop well.
Which the average person thinks is amazingly complex.

Advertising and symbolism plays a huge role here also. Just look at the logo for the PhotoForum. It's an SLR!
This symbolism is engraved into peoples minds, and just the image of an SLR means 'photographer'.

As to weddings, it seems that alot of people view that as a right of passage, or an early stepping stone to becoming a pro.
Maybe even something that future employers or clients are gonna expect to see in your portfolio.

 

[JIP]

As to weddings, it seems that alot of people view that as a right of passage, or an early stepping stone to becoming a pro.
Maybe even something that future employers or clients are gonna expect to see in your portfolio.

A stepping stone to what exactly?!?!??!!?! There are plenty of people out there who do just fine with only wedding photography. I'm not sure what you do with photography but when you talk about "future employers" I'm not sure who you are talking about. Most photographers who do well work for noone but themselves there really are not too many "employers in the traditional sense.

 

[crownlaurel]

And that road over there was...

Great post Tempra!

Also... If anyone has the least concern for what others think of them just remember: If they were half the man or woman that you are then they would only be half a man or woman.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

:lmao: :hail: You made me laugh out loud.

 

[Chas]

I think the same will be true of photography, weekend warriors will always be there because there is a market for them, most of them will do it for a while, get bored and move on, some of them will ruin peoples days - you pays your money you takes your chance! - and some of them will turn into the best money can buy.

Don't knock them for having a go, don't knock them for undercutting you, make your own name, make your choice of direction, define your market, and do whatever it is that you want to do - be a weekend warrior if you like, nobodies business but yours.

I think I'll stop now, I was just going to say 'when I were a lad, all this were fields....'

Very sage advice if I may say. Who knows, I might do a bit of Weekend Warrior'ing myself some day (in semi-retirement?). But it isn't fair, you've got the advantage of a Hook Norton 4X when the situation gets really tough ..... and I'm not talking zoom range here folks

Oh for a proper pint in a proper pub (like the Lamb and Flag) .... but you speak certain truths in your splendid post Sir - sub specia aeternis or whatever.

Now when I were a lad, aarrrr, thar was forest on tham thar farms .....

 

[glaston]

A stepping stone to what exactly?!?!??!!?!

A stepping stone from doing photography as a hobby, and as an actual profession.
I'm not here to argue the validity of that as a concept. I don't condone or support it, but if that's a persons perspective then so be it.

There are plenty of people out there who do just fine with only wedding photography

. Absolutely. No argument there.
I'm just saying that many people want to get there work out there as a step toward whatever goal they are trying to reach. That could be specializing in wedding photography, product shots, baby pictures, etc.
For those that don't intend to specialize in wedding photography, they might still do them to generate income in order to take other steps toward doing what they really want to do.

My background is in illustration, that brought me into a hobby of 3D design, which generated an interest in photography which is where I am now.
I've never done weddings, but I frequently do local product shots and promotional photography for local businesses to put on their websites.
I'm slowly getting more and more work, and I could end up making alot more in the future.
It's not what I really want to do though.
I use it to make money while in the meantime learning to do digital matte paintings.
Which IS what I really want to do.
I don't have children so I can do that.

I'm not sure what you do with photography but when you talk about "future employers" I'm not sure who you are talking about.

I'm talking about the people who pay you for your services.
Could be a wedding party, or a local businesses products, etc.
People who hire you ask to see samples of your work don't they?

That's all I'm trying to say.
Many people use weddings the same way I'm using local business photography. To make money, and gain experience that will bring me further toward my goals.
Many people want to do their own thing, and realize that a diverse portfolio is something that potential clients like to see.
Businesses like the fact that I have 3D design experience. They associate it with product photography. I don't know why.
Alot of the clients I get come to me because I can do almost anything with an image. I can work logos into the image, and pull stuff out of the image they don't want and replace it with part of another image.

Stuff like that isn't important in wedding photography, and since those are the aspects of digital photography that I enjoy most I wouldn't be happy shooting weddings all the time.
But I would do it to make money. I couldn't dedicate myself to weddings though.

 

[ksmattfish]

Did you have all high end equipment before your first wedding?

I used old, cheap gear: a Pentax K1000 35mm SLR and a Norita 6x6 SLR. I wouldn't be afraid to use it to shoot a wedding today as long as I had back up gear.