Moving from videography and photography

[elsaspet]

Yes, I did, but every dollar I earned, I spent on new stuff. You have to remember my starting package was $500 bucks. Now it's $3000.
It has to do with what you want out of life. My normal gig now averages 4800. Am I satisfied with that? No. I can do better.
Some of the coolest photos I've ever seen were by a Magnum photog with a cellphone. Would I suggest using a cellphone for a wedding? It's obvious that I would not.
The more you invest, the more professional your photos become. The more professional you are, the more money you make.
For instance, with a 20d, I could take a killer shot, but I couldn't crop into it. It didn't have enough pixels. With a 5D, I can crop into one inch on a 18x24 camera rendered photo. And it's just as sharp.
It's not that I'm some amazingly talented photographer. It's that I have a lot of professional gear......all bought from the profits of the last wedding.
Now, here I am, competing with the tops photographers. Three years ago, I wasn't a blip on the radar.
Yes........again, you can do $900 weddings for infinity. And be perfectly happy doing them. But it you take a few more bucks, invest them wisely, you can make several hundreds of thousands a year.
It's what you make it.

 

[AprilRamone]

Hey Cindy,
I've been using a stroboframe, but I'm curious about your custom brackets. Can you post a picture of them if you have the time?
Where do you get them made?
Thanks
-April

 

[JIP]

Hi Matt,
I know it can be confusing.
Say there are two of you. If you want to do it really right, you will need (4) 5d bodies. That's $13,000. Now you need some lenses to put on those suckers. $1500 each or more......some going as high as $2800. You have photoshop already, so you are good there. But you are going to need flashes too. 580 Canon Flash is $480 each if you buy them on sale. You have to mount them. The custom bracket is another $400 bucks. And how about that wizards. Put in another $500 or so. And these are the basics.
That's what I don't think a lot of people understand.
Yes, you can do it cheaper. You can buy at Rebel XTI, shoot alone with a kit lens, no flash and take perfectly fine photos. But to do it right, the stakes are substanually higher.

So, lets do a new talley:
2 5d
1 2800 lens
1 1500 lens
1 pocket wizard
2 58 flash

For this minimal amount of equipment, and ONLY the above equipment, you will need $13500 if you find everything on sale.

I have to totally agree with you here. The op came on making a claim that just does not stand up to scrutiny. I think alot of people do not understand what it takes to be a wedding photographer especially in the days of digital. To follow your vein I will tally an, and this is the important part proper professional camera setup but I will go with Nikon:


2 Nikon D300 bodies $4199
4 Batteries $180
2 grips (D200 price) $320
2 SB800 strobes $620
I will only do 1 set of lenses
17-55 2.8 Lens $1199
24-70 2.8 lens $1469
70-200 2.8 VR $1590

Total $9577

Now I know this is more than alot of people think you need to get to shoot a wedding but honestly 2 bodies are a necessity and I have included a basic selection of lenses but I am just trying to illustrate what elsaspet is saying photgraphy is in no way a cheaper business to get into. Remember I have not included memory cards, bags, accessory lighting, pocket wizards, etc. etc................... ad nauseum you can go on forever and if you get into it you just may but do not be deluded it is by no means cheap. Oh yeah and what happens when you outgrow the D300 body and feel you need to step up to the real pro D3 at $4999.

 

[JIP]

Oh yeah and I forgot the bracket............

 

[elsaspet]

Hey Cindy,
I've been using a stroboframe, but I'm curious about your custom brackets. Can you post a picture of them if you have the time?
Where do you get them made?
Thanks
-April

Hi April,
Custom Bracket is a brand name. They aren't really custom, although we have tricked ours out pretty good so we could get wizards on them.

www.custombracket.com

They are kinda "C" shaped, so instead of flipping the frame back and forth, you just move your camera within the "C" shaped guides.

 

[elsaspet]

Oh yeah and I forgot the bracket............

And I forgot the batteries for all that stuff.
We both forgot cards.

 

[Big Mike]

Point well taken...part of being a good professional is knowing to use top quality gear...and spending the money on it.

Personally, I don't think there is a clear line in the sand though. People can't say that a 30D or 40D isn't good enough...and then say that a 5D is good enough...who's to say.
A 1Ds Mk III user might say that a 5D just isn't good enough....someone who uses a Digital Hassy might say that anything less just isn't going to cut it...and laugh at someone with a mk III.
Maybe, that's a little dramatic...just to make a point. The point is that there isn't a clear definition of what is good enough and what isn't.

Taking into consideration that cost is certainly a factor is this case...I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 'prosumer cameras'...especially the 40D, which is said to have an image quality just about as good as a 5D...for what? half the price? Not to mention a shooting speed that is more than twice as fast...if that is important to their style of shooting.

Anyway, to the O.P....these are all just opinions. Consider what you must and make your own decision. Buy the best you can afford and good luck to you.

 

[elsaspet]

Exactly right Mike. There is no clear answer as far as gear goes. I mean, who'd not to say that we all need the Phase One 32 mpx camera back?

I guess my main point was to say that wedding photography is a substantial investment, and you get out of it, what you put into it.

My secondary point, was that photography vs. videography is actually a much LARGER investment, which I felt the OP had a confusion about.

 

[Big Mike]

My secondary point, was that photography vs. videography is actually a much LARGER investment, which I felt the OP had a confusion about.

Well, I'm sure a top end videographer would say the exact same thing that you are saying about professional gear...and from what I know...top end video gear is much more expensive than still photography gear. Like he said, a prosumer video camera is $5000, on it's own...not to mention back up and accesories etc.

I would say that photography is actually a less expensive investment...(if you are comparing professional equipment)....which is what he was saying. And that is part of the reason why he wanted to try photography.

I think that your point...photography is more expensive than you might think...is valid and hits the nail on the head.

 

[JIP]

I don't know the video guys I used to work with had 1 camera a few batteries and a light. And this is what alot of the wedding video guys around here use http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._AGDVX100ABK1_AG_DVX100B_3CCD_24p_MiniDV.html $2995 a fur piece from a good body and a few lenses not to mention a backup.

 

[Matthew Craggs]

Thank you all for the responses. The last thing I wanted this to turn into is a price of video gear vs. photo gear . In the end you can spend tens of thousands of dollars on both set up, and cost is certainly not the only reason I want to try my hand at photography. I also...

- just plain enjoy taking photos.
- hate audio.
- can't spend a guaranteed 40-50 hours on post production every time (although I'm sure a lot of photo gigs will require that much time in front of the computer)

Furthermore, to clarify, I have no intention of charging $3000 to shoot with my 300D (nor do I just want to shoot weddings). Cindy: The way you got into the business is the way I would like to. You charge a smaller amount for more prosumer equipment and then reinvest your earnings into more equipment. It's necessary for any business, start up or otherwise, to reinvest a substantial part of your earnings back into the business.

In the end, the game plan is still the same. I'm going to practice hard over the next six months or so with what I do have. Family, friends, Craigslist postings asking for models, etc., before I make a decision to purchase or continue. I figure if I take photos every day for the next six months I should know by the end of that time if I want to invest more time and money into the job. I think that is the best way to go because if I'm sick of taking pictures after that time, this whole conversation is not relevant to myself anymore

 

[JIP]

- cheaper equipment (for the price of one prosumer camcorder I can get two really good DSLR's, which is important to me because I have limited resources and have been a part of enough live video productions to know that it is essential to have back-ups)

.

This was one of your original reasons for making the jump. If you did not want people to answer your statement you should not have made it. I have made significant investments in photography gear and I hardly consider it cheap. And I have to tell you pp time is quite extensive. If you do it right and shoot at least up to 500 (most shoot lots more) images at a wedding and then factor in the comuter time plus ordering, making albums (if necesary), etc. pp time is wat more than you might think equal to ar mabye even more than doing a weding.

 

[Matthew Craggs]

Yes, I understand that I shouldn't have made the statement if I didn't want people responding, it's just that it seemed like... ah hell, I don't know what it seemed like.

Again, thank you everyone for your imput, but I do feel like a bit of an ass for whatever reason, and I do, believe it or not, understand your points so I feel like we can let this topic, as it pertains to my situation, die (unless others want to continue in a more general sense).

- I am misunderstanding about the financial investment - a point I am very willing to concede although I do believe it is possible to start with about $10,000 and work your way up using earnings from previous gigs.

- I am misunderstanding about the amount of post production time that goes into photography - another point I am willing to concede although I would rather spend 40 hours in Photoshop and 10 hours ordering, organizing, delivering prints/photobooks than 5-10 hours digitizing and logging video, 30-40 hours in Avid, about 10 hours working with audio and 10 hours doing DVD design, burning, and rendering.

Once more, thank you all for your input. I feel about 100 times less prepared 100 times more inadequate than I did before, which is a good thing because I know more accurately where I am and where I have to go.

 

[guitarkid]

i have been doing photography for years but just started offering it the last 2 years in the biz. we started with video production and audio engineering. i started out in video, like you, and to me, it is more of a hassle. if you shoot 10 hours of minidv, you have to capture 10 hours minidv before editing. with 1200 photos, it takes what....10 minutes to capture to the hard drive? that is the first thing i hated...the capturing. i started out with a 20D which i still have as a backup. bought some sigma lenses since that is all i could afford. bought a 30D with a couple first weddings i got. bought a couple canon lenses, then strobe unit and couple backdrops, all my money went into the biz.

if you are in a professional industry, it is what you make of it. i have a vocal mic in my studio that runs $2800. do i really need it? no. we really don't need anything but it sounds much better than an $800 mic, which sounds better than a $100 mic. recording software, drives, pc, compressors, rack units, amps, sound proofing, the list is way too long.

long story short, i think you did a good thing by moving. i'm getting sick of video and the long tedious processes from start to finish. we now offer that as an add-on. i'm sick of doing it so my partner handles all video edits while i handle all photography, audio engineering and mixing, client dealings, marketing, wedding albums, lab stuff, marketing, everything from start to finish except video. video is an add-on to many people. the church, hall and photography and i guess DJ are the most important. video for some reason has always been an afterthought.

someone mentioned that videographers they worked with had a camera and a light. that's fine but i'm sure they weren't handling large jobs and if they were, they were limited. we have 4 dv cams running live sound off the mixing board at concert events, while capturing stereo audio to one of our DAT decks. meanwhile, i was running pro tools multitrack audio from the venue's soundboard to mix tracks later on with the artist. this is a huge ordeal and takes a lot of prep work in both pre and especially post production.

regardless if it's audio, photo or video, the more you spend, the better it will look. another crazy passion of mine is guitars. do i need a $2000 guitar? nope. but after 17 years of playing you know what is good and what is not, what feels like firewood and what feels and sounds like art when you play it. could i play just as well on a $200 guitar? yeah, but the same with cameras....wouldn't be as good. my guitar rig for playing clubs easily reached $5000.

by the way, i'm not rich, very far from it. i bust my arse and save my pennies and sink whatever money i make into gear. i have yet to pay myself yet.

 

[JIP]

i have been doing photography for years but just started offering it the last 2 years in the biz. we started with video production and audio engineering. i started out in video, like you, and to me, it is more of a hassle. if you shoot 10 hours of minidv, you have to capture 10 hours minidv before editing. with 1200 photos, it takes what....10 minutes to capture to the hard drive? that is the first thing i hated...the capturing. i started out with a 20D which i still have as a backup. bought some sigma lenses since that is all i could afford. bought a 30D with a couple first weddings i got. bought a couple canon lenses, then strobe unit and couple backdrops, all my money went into the biz.

if you are in a professional industry, it is what you make of it. i have a vocal mic in my studio that runs $2800. do i really need it? no. we really don't need anything but it sounds much better than an $800 mic, which sounds better than a $100 mic. recording software, drives, pc, compressors, rack units, amps, sound proofing, the list is way too long.

long story short, i think you did a good thing by moving. i'm getting sick of video and the long tedious processes from start to finish. we now offer that as an add-on. i'm sick of doing it so my partner handles all video edits while i handle all photography, audio engineering and mixing, client dealings, marketing, wedding albums, lab stuff, marketing, everything from start to finish except video. video is an add-on to many people. the church, hall and photography and i guess DJ are the most important. video for some reason has always been an afterthought.

someone mentioned that videographers they worked with had a camera and a light. that's fine but i'm sure they weren't handling large jobs and if they were, they were limited. we have 4 dv cams running live sound off the mixing board at concert events, while capturing stereo audio to one of our DAT decks. meanwhile, i was running pro tools multitrack audio from the venue's soundboard to mix tracks later on with the artist. this is a huge ordeal and takes a lot of prep work in both pre and especially post production.

regardless if it's audio, photo or video, the more you spend, the better it will look. another crazy passion of mine is guitars. do i need a $2000 guitar? nope. but after 17 years of playing you know what is good and what is not, what feels like firewood and what feels and sounds like art when you play it. could i play just as well on a $200 guitar? yeah, but the same with cameras....wouldn't be as good. my guitar rig for playing clubs easily reached $5000.

by the way, i'm not rich, very far from it. i bust my arse and save my pennies and sink whatever money i make into gear. i have yet to pay myself yet.

I am not exactly sure what point you are trying to make. The OP's original statement was that he wanted to go from wedding video to wedding still photography because it was cheaper to get started, easier to do pp, and there was more work. I was simply trying to respond showing that still photography takes a significant investment in money and time and is by no means a "cheaper and easier" way out.