Very first wedding, $300 too much or too little?

[Jonathan Schertzer]

Removed.

 

[o hey tyler]

Well, I'd say you made between 20-25 bucks per hour if you calculate it out that way. You shot for 12 hours and edited for at least 3 I would imagine. It really all depends on your plan and CODB.

I didn't charge for my first wedding, and I wouldn't have shot that long either unless I was going to get paid... But I also would have checked out early if it was an unpaid gig right when the last event that needs documentation rolls around. The longest wedding I've shot was 10 hours (paid gig).

It seems to me in the youtube slideshow (I only watched like 30 seconds of it), but the images appeared to be soft or out of focus. There are very few images on your flickr to evaluate sharpness, composition, and the ability to tell a story.

If you were consistently shooting photos like the first images I saw in the slideshow, I would look for an opportunity to second shoot and not promote yourself as a primary at this point. Not trying to be harsh, just trying to be real.

 

[tirediron]

You shouldn't be charging anything. You should be going to school to learn business which will then give you the knowlege and tools to make the calculations you require to determine what you should charge. No one else can tell you what you should charge; we don't know what your expenses are, what your overhead is, reoccurring costs are... what I charge has no relevance since all of those factors are different for me than they are for anyone else. Since you don't have a location displayed in your profile we cannot even begin to guess what typical charges are in your area.

 

[Jonathan Schertzer]

I am based out of Southern California, And my question really isn't about the business aspect. I understand business very well, i understand sales margin, cost, expenses. But none of those are my question, my question is about the QUALITY of photography. Obviously expenses Come into play, but you wouldn't pay someone who has only been shooting for a couple weeks(who is really bad at photography) $3,000 to shoot a wedding, because their equipment costs $10,000, and their travel and food is $1,000, Would you? You are forgetting that regardless of expenses, SKILL determines a lot too.

 

[o hey tyler]

I am based out of Southern California, And my question really isn't about the business aspect. I understand business very well, i understand sales margin, cost, expenses. But none of those are my question, my question is about the QUALITY of photography. Obviously expenses Come into play, but you wouldn't pay someone who has only been shooting for a couple weeks(who is really bad at photography) $3,000 to shoot a wedding, because their equipment costs $10,000, and their travel and food is $1,000, Would you? You are forgetting that regardless of expenses, SKILL determines a lot too.

Your question is about the business aspect. Businesses are made to generate income, or money.

In your position, with your level of experience and your gear, I would not charge for the images you produced. Your first wedding is a learning experience, not a way to make money. Just my thoughts on the subject.

 

[tirediron]

I am based out of Southern California, And my question really isn't about the business aspect. I understand business very well, i understand sales margin, cost, expenses. But none of those are my question, my question is about the QUALITY of photography. Obviously expenses Come into play, but you wouldn't pay someone who has only been shooting for a couple weeks(who is really bad at photography) $3,000 to shoot a wedding, because their equipment costs $10,000, and their travel and food is $1,000, Would you? You are forgetting that regardless of expenses, SKILL determines a lot too.

No, actually I'm not forgetting anything. If you were as conversant with business as you claim to be, than you would know that skill isn't really related to price. You can either do the job or not. Granted those that can do a better job often get paid more, but until you have established a base price you can't determine where you should be to start. With respect to the images you have (and for future reference, you will get a much better response by posting the images in the thread rather than by posting links. Many of our members are not terribly fond of clicking outside links), I agree with Tyler; they're not really where they need to be.

You may also want to find a working professional in your area whom you can understudy and/or second-shoot for. This will give you insight into the technical aspects as well as professional photographic business practices.

 

[mommyof4qteez]

I personally think the images overall look really good...I think you sold yourself short..what do you think you are worth?

 

[shefjr]

My response is untrained and unprofessional opinion only. I'm not qualified to judge on what is technically right or wrong with your photos unlike the gentlemen above me. Their thoughts I would certainly heed if I were you. They do not respond with trolling answers and are genuinely trying to help you I'm sure. With that said, as someone with an untrained eye, I would have paid more than $300 for your photos. Key word, untrained. Best of luck with whatever you decide.

 

[Jonathan Schertzer]

I am based out of Southern California, And my question really isn't about the business aspect. I understand business very well, i understand sales margin, cost, expenses. But none of those are my question, my question is about the QUALITY of photography. Obviously expenses Come into play, but you wouldn't pay someone who has only been shooting for a couple weeks(who is really bad at photography) $3,000 to shoot a wedding, because their equipment costs $10,000, and their travel and food is $1,000, Would you? You are forgetting that regardless of expenses, SKILL determines a lot too.

No, actually I'm not forgetting anything. If you were as conversant with business as you claim to be, than you would know that skill isn't really related to price. You can either do the job or not. Granted those that can do a better job often get paid more, but until you have established a base price you can't determine where you should be to start. With respect to the images you have (and for future reference, you will get a much better response by posting the images in the thread rather than by posting links. Many of our members are not terribly fond of clicking outside links), I agree with Tyler; they're not really where they need to be.

You may also want to find a working professional in your area whom you can understudy and/or second-shoot for. This will give you insight into the technical aspects as well as professional photographic business practices.

Okay then, so considering my expenses i'll be charging upwards of $3,000 for my next wedding. Not because i am good or anything but because i want to make a decent sales margin. And understudy/2nd shoot?, why bother? it does't matter if i'm good, This is a business, not an art form. Who cares of the bride is happy with what she paid, along as i can afford my next L lens who cares right? This isn't my day job, nor do i want it to be. But if i can use my camera gear which i have already bought for my own enjoyment and use it to make a little extra cash, whats the harm in that? Maybe my opinion on photography is warped, but i like to think that pleasing people is part of the job. I'd like to think people pay me for my skill, creativity, and style not a percentage of what it costs me to pull out my camera for a couple hours and risking my shutter life.

Oh and the photos are fixed.

 

[o hey tyler]

I am based out of Southern California, And my question really isn't about the business aspect. I understand business very well, i understand sales margin, cost, expenses. But none of those are my question, my question is about the QUALITY of photography. Obviously expenses Come into play, but you wouldn't pay someone who has only been shooting for a couple weeks(who is really bad at photography) $3,000 to shoot a wedding, because their equipment costs $10,000, and their travel and food is $1,000, Would you? You are forgetting that regardless of expenses, SKILL determines a lot too.

No, actually I'm not forgetting anything. If you were as conversant with business as you claim to be, than you would know that skill isn't really related to price. You can either do the job or not. Granted those that can do a better job often get paid more, but until you have established a base price you can't determine where you should be to start. With respect to the images you have (and for future reference, you will get a much better response by posting the images in the thread rather than by posting links. Many of our members are not terribly fond of clicking outside links), I agree with Tyler; they're not really where they need to be.

You may also want to find a working professional in your area whom you can understudy and/or second-shoot for. This will give you insight into the technical aspects as well as professional photographic business practices.

Okay then, so considering my expenses i'll be charging upwards of $3,000 for my next wedding. Not because i am good or anything but because i want to make a decent sales margin. And understudy/2nd shoot?, why bother? it does't matter if i'm good, This is a business, not an art form. Who cares of the bride is happy with what she paid, along as i can afford my next L lens who cares right? This isn't my day job, nor do i want it to be. But if i can use my camera gear which i have already bought for my own enjoyment and use it to make a little extra cash, whats the harm in that? Maybe my opinion on photography is warped, but i like to think that pleasing people is part of the job. I'd like to think people pay me for my skill, creativity, and style not a percentage of what it costs me to pull out my camera for a couple hours and risking my shutter life.

Oh and the photos are fixed.

Why did you ask for opinions if you're just going to disagree with acting professionals in the field?

I don't get it.

I see your photos are fixed. I also see that you have six photos to show for 12 hours of shooting. With that ratio, you took one acceptable photo every two hours you were there, and that is not a very good ratio. A lot of people buy a camera and think that they can start up shooting professional gigs without any real working photographic knowledge, or what constitutes an aesthetically pleasing image.

Second shooting will generally let you leave with some spending money, depending on the generosity of the primary photographer. This is a great way to learn, and you won't be cheating clients by primary shooting and under delivering. Otherwise, you should be shooting for free until you have a presentable wedding portfolio. If it isn't your day job, you shouldn't be concerned with making as much money as you can. You should be focused on learning the trade and achieving great images.

You're not going to get very far with that attitude, either.

 

[imagemaker46]

If you're not going to pay attention or take some good advice then just stick to charging $300 for weddings. Your attitude seems to reflect your inexperience. You obviously spent zero time researching what other wedding photographers are charging in your area. You've been photographing for five years, it means very little if you've been photographing flowers and sunsets. Having $2500 worth of gear means nothing at all, it could mean you have one ok body and one lens, my guess is a body and a couple of ok lenses.

I love the "watch the whole thing" slide show, why would you even have any just ok photos on there? People don't want just ok, they want great, so charge $300 and then when the people get their "just ok" photos you can say, what do you want for $300, great photos?

Clue the board game that's missing pieces.

 

[Tony S]

$300-$85 in expenses = $215 215 divided by 12 hrs = 17.92 per hour not including any post processing time, pre wedding consult, phone calls. Travel and food only $10??
Your original post does not ask for only comments on the quality of images, it reads like it's asking about everything since you gave the numbers info.

Going solely on the quality of the images in this post $300 is a nice token for a bride to pay a friend to shoot a wedding with the camera they brought with them to the wedding. If hiring someone who is looking to do photography as a business, even part time, then they should expect better quality to the images provided. Soft focus and blown highlights are the biggest killers to this set.

More practice and learning should take place before you charge for your next wedding.

 

[skiboarder72]

I charged $750 for my very first wedding I ever shot back in 2006. IMO It says your serious, but learning.

 

[cgipson1]

I charged $750 for my very first wedding I ever shot back in 2006. IMO It says your serious, but learning.

That's not what it says to me.... especially if the images are sub-par! It say that you expect people to pay you for learning stuff that you should have known before ever charging in the first place!

 

[imagemaker46]

I've done three weddings in my life, first two were favours for friends and I didn't charge them. Third one was also for a friend and they offered me $850, I charged them $750. They were all happy. But it's not my area of expertise and I have a friend that does weddings, so I pass along his name when I get asked. I'm not going to start playing wedding photographer, inspite of my skills and experience as a photographer, and don't find them difficult to shoot. I'd rather have someone that is trying to make a living in photography, same as me, do the work. I'm really sick of all these weekend amateurs that pretend they know what they are doing, taking on paid work without having aquired any of the knowledge past what the owners manual of their camera tells them.