Moonlighting as a wedding photographer realistic?

My business insurance is £2200/year (thats around $1,200 US it think) but I have a big liability section and coverage to work on clients premises, business interruption and all sorts.

That's actually $4,324 per year. I'd have to shoot a lot of weddings to justify that level of coverage.

Thanks for the data point.
 
Sorry, I have my currency converter the wrong way!

But I don't think your will be anywhere near this, even given the litigation style of the US.

I won't take long or cost anything to check with a couple of insurance people. Do it for piece of mind
 
That's actually $4,324 per year. I'd have to shoot a lot of weddings to justify that level of coverage.

Thanks for the data point.

Jeremy,

I just got a quote from Hill and Usher and it was $500.00 a year. If you are interested I can send you the PDF that they sent me showing all the coverage that it covers, but in a nutshell it covers my gear for theft or damage, I think $300,000 for the locatons I shoot at and $1,000,000 for personal injury.
 
Jeremy,

I just got a quote from Hill and Usher and it was $500.00 a year. If you are interested I can send you the PDF that they sent me showing all the coverage that it covers, but in a nutshell it covers my gear for theft or damage, I think $300,000 for the locatons I shoot at and $1,000,000 for personal injury.

Sounds like $500.00 well spent and a good policy.
 
Sounds like $500.00 well spent and a good policy.

Yeah but it's a lot more than I need or want. I was just looking for world wide coverage for my equipment since I'll be traveling to eastern europe next month. I'm really only wanting something that will cover theft and damage
 
Yeah but it's a lot more than I need or want. I was just looking for world wide coverage for my equipment since I'll be traveling to eastern europe next month. I'm really only wanting something that will cover theft and damage
Do you have home owner's insurance? My home policy covers my camera gear for loss, theft, damage...even if I'm travelling. The only problem was that I have a high deductible for my home. The solution was to add a rider to my home policy...so now my photo gear has a deductible of $25. I think it adds about $100/year to the cost of my home insurance...but I need to add several items to the list, which will bump up the cost a bit.

When I do start my business...I will probably have to get a separate policy for my gear and include some sort of liability.
 
LOLOL I can tell which guys in this thread are likely to have problems in the wedding industry.

There is a post in this thread that explains it all (except the insurance part and yes, see your agent for accurate information because that is why you pay him/her).

I'm not trying to be superior here (it would be a poor attempt!) I would just like some to rethink what has gone on here.

Jeremy Z wrote: "How does this sound? Anything I'm overlooking? Any equipment I should absolutely buy? Any other tips?"

Neea wrote: "As someone who would probably never consider doing weddings (as a girl I know how important that day is and dont feel confident enough to not screw it up for someone else), but maybe one day."

Jeremy, Unless you can put the fear that every bride has about any failure on That day to rest, she won't want you any where near her wedding unless you are either closely related or all she can get. If you can calm those fears I hope that you are a man of your word because the research I've done says that on average a Bridal Album will save a marrage about twice by the wife gong to it to remind herself just why she married the "jerk". About half of them show relations that won't be alive five years down the road and are used to show children and grandchildren their family tree in a way that that they can touch and feel and bond to. And finnaly, should the couple stay married, those wedding photos will be a great comfort to their surviving children and relations after they have passed.

Sure there is good money doing weddings because there is a lot ridding on the success of the photographer to capture the events of the day in a manner that is comforting to all involved. The people who understand this are the ones that have backups for their backups because even though they can't keep disaster from happening, they can do their best to keep it from being their fault.

Any way, good luck Jeremy.

mike
 
The thing that strikes me about your post is that you are banging on about your camera model and specifications. A true wedding photographer deals with people, the camera is incidental (a tool of the trade). I would happily shoot on a fuji, Nikon, Pentax, Medium format, 35 mm digital whatever camera. You are not thinking about workflow, people, clients, accounts, contracts, crowd control, bedside manner, poses, insurance or any of the other things that really fill the day of a wedding Tog
 
I have just come back to this thread after it being inactive for a while.

I reread it with a new outlook, and a lot of it has really sunk in now.

JIP (and others) have a good point about being a second shooter for someone. I have made arrangements with a Chicago area wedding photographer to be a free second shooter for him, starting in May.

I think I am going to look into shooting or being an assistant for someone else . ;)

BWP-by-RK said:
The thing that strikes me about your post is that you are banging on about your camera model and specifications. A true wedding photographer deals with people, the camera is incidental (a tool of the trade). I would happily shoot on a fuji, Nikon, Pentax, Medium format, 35 mm digital whatever camera. You are not thinking about workflow, people, clients, accounts, contracts, crowd control, bedside manner, poses, insurance or any of the other things that really fill the day of a wedding Tog
I surely didn't intend to have this thread turn into a Canon vs. Pentax thread. I also didn't mean to harp on my camera at all. Just wanted to mention that my gear is pretty good so that people don't think I'm trying to do it with a P&S or something. I have thought about all these things, and have been doing a lot of research of other photographers' websites.

I've built up my system a little since then too; still need to get a proper flash and work with it a bit before I go part-time pro. Getting the portfolio together is going to be a big job, but quite necessary. I'm glad there are a few more months before wedding season here.
 
I would probably have suggested the same thing...but the original poster started with "I've just gotten my first digital SLR"...so after that...brand really should have anything to do with it.


I do see the point here...but I think it's just such a small thing. When meeting with a potential client...I would think that wearing a tie or how your breath smells...will be more important that the brand of your gear.

I have heard of clients who ask about what camera you use...and for the most part, telling them it's an DSLR or SLR would be enough to impress them. The ones that would prefer Nikon or Canon may be at that dangerous stage of knowledge...they know something...but not enough to really understand. Would they prefer if you were shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel or a Pentax K10D? If they really knew...they might be impressed if you were shooting with a Hasselblad.

I didn't mean to keep dragging this out...I think we are all on the same page here. I'm just not a fan of bringing up brand preference when someone already has made that choice.


I can see it now

Client: What kind of camera do you use?
You: A digital SLR
Client: But what type? how many megapixles?
You: It's a Hasselblad 39 MEGAPIXLES!!!!!!
Client: That'll work
 

Most reactions

Back
Top