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

[Jonathan Schertzer]

This thread is getting interesting,

1.We have tirediron telling me that skill does't matter and price should be determined by my own expenses.

2.Some people are saying i sold my self short and deserved more than what i got.

3.Some are saying i don't deserve anything.

4.some people assuming that i just picked up a camera and starting shooting, ignoring that i have actually been shooting for several years and am formally and informally educated with experience as a professional in both freelance and contract. Just never in wedding photography.

5.some people saying something about how i should be shooting with a 7D and not a 60D when they are pretty much identical cameras. the 7d with maybe slightly better noise, and a faster frame rate.

6. then we have people arguing about whether 2nd shooting or 1st shooting is better.

So far i've learned that,

1. None of you can agree on anything
2. many of you make off the wall assumptions that don't make any sense at all

But i would like to thank jamesbjenkins
for giving me some good advice, your post is something i will think about and is honestly a fair opinion.

i would like to thank imagemaker46 and skiboarder72 for defending against the idea that a better camera is some how going to make me a better photographer. Crop sensor has been used in weddings for years, sure having a full frame body would be awesome, sure it will give me better DOF, sure with will give me better iso, sure it will give me higher print quality. But crop has been used for years, and i know a number of professionals working with two 60Ds on their side.

i would also like to thank the people who said my work was good, not very beneficial to my growth as a photographer, but very nice to hear.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I am not going to lie. I have shot $300 wedding early in my career. I was really playing with fire. No insurance, minimal equipment, no LLC. It was stupid but luckily the fire didnt go out of control. The safe thing to do is to get 2nd shooting as many as possible. Doing primary for $300 = slave labor. Plus things can really go wrong and they can sue you for large sum of money. 2nd shooting is much better because it is lower stress, you dont have to edit many photos.

 

[Derrel]

Your flickr says you use a 60D, is that what you shot with? I assume you rented the fisheye, and maybe a telephoto? I wouldn't shoot with a 60D - I would have rented a mkii or iii - or at least a 7D. 60D's are more on the line of Rebels. While image quality is alright, the technical aspects of the 60D aren't on the professional line. I personally like the 50D better. I realize I'm getting off track, but back to your OP - I would've charged a minimum of $500. Without knowing the budget of the bride and groom, you may have been able to get the job done for $750-$1000. I personally try to steer clear of weddings, unless its for someone I know. I enjoy doing model shoots and other print stuff. Having 2 cameras or even 2 shooters for larger weddings I find a must..

I disagree with this entirely. My current shooting partner uses the Canon 60D. It's a hell of a good camera. Good feel,good finder, good fit and finish, good controls, AMPLE resolution, good color, swing-out LCD of excellent color and sharpness, looks "professional", has great LED display brightness even outdoors at the beach while wearing eyeglasses...I could use a 60D on any number of assignments and feel damned comfortable with it...I dunno... and the SENSOR performance of the 60D...pretty damned good, IMO.

Anyway...$300....uh...seems pretty low. I went to your Flickr pages...it was only a few click in that I realized, hey...this kid has some visual flair and style...he can shoot. How consistently you can shoot I cannot sday, since I only went through the first four pages of your Flickr. In my book, a real photographer can "shoot". Does not matter if he or she is "amateur" or "pro", or "semi-pro". If you pay really careful attention throughout the entire wedding shoot, and really FOCUS on the task at hand, and are constantly evaluating your entire photographic effort and performance (like....say..failing to verify that you are shooting flash pics at 1/200 second or slower indoors, and not at 1/400 second and black-banding them all!!!) you ought to be okay shooting a wedding. Just do not screw up! Ideally, you would have a backup shooter to help you CYA. With a d-slr it's almost inexcusable to mess up an entire sequence at a wedding and NOT know about it, right then and there.

But, uh, $300. Hmmm....seems kinda low.

 

[Jonathan Schertzer]

No, being harsh doesn't hurt me i'll grow from it. but i still have no idea what to do, Should i give up on shooting weddings?, some people are telling me i should continue and some are telling me i should quit. well which one is it? if i am really that bad at wedding photography then i will take a back seat, but so far no one can agree.

and i didn't mean family and friends, i mean't other photographers all over.

 

[Robin Usagani]

But crop has been used for years, and i know a number of professionals working with two 60Ds on their side.

Then they are not as professional as you think. I agree that you can make good photos with 60D.. but if they are really pros, they would have bought a full frame. Even a 5D classic is only $800. I have seen people rock 1 full frame and 1 crop. Doing weddings with 2 crops is stupid especially if you have the capital to buy full frames.

 

[pixmedic]

No, being harsh doesn't hurt me i'll grow from it. but i still have no idea what to do, Should i give up on shooting weddings?, some people are telling me i should continue and some are telling me i should quit. well which one is it? if i am really that bad at wedding photography then i will take a back seat, but so far no one can agree.

and i didn't mean family and friends, i mean't other photographers all over.

HELLS NO don't give up shooting weddings if that's what you want to do.
Take what advice you feel is appropriate/useful and throw the rest out.
Just remember that some techniques work well for some, not so well for others.
my best advice is to take everyone's advice into consideration, try them, and use what works for you and don't worry about the rest.
Just don't discount other peoples advice based on your personal views. as a photographer, you have to be flexible with your ideas and creativity. especially at weddings.

 

[Derrel]

I'd be willing to have a shoot-out pitting my 5D against a Canon 60D..and I know which camera would kick ass. How do I know? I sat through a half-day's worth of images shot with MY 5D and my partner's 60D..and the 60D....kicked its butt in difficult dynamic range scenarios with INCREDIBLY BETTER, smarter, more color-aware light metering and better image processing...and that was shot..last week.

For the beginner, or a guy shooting a lot of flash photos...the old, color-blind Canon 5D and 5D-II are darkhorses in the race against fully color-aware Nikons and the few,newer Canon's that have color-aware, more-capable light metering and flash metering...

If you have a lot of skill, the 5D Classic and 5D-II bodies are "okay"...but their light-metering is rather primitive and dumb for run-n-gun compared against Nikons and the NEWEST Canon's that can actually "tell" what the hell they are being aimed at...the 5D series models 1 and 2 are for EXPERIENCED SHOOTERS, and need a good deal of user-intervention. Stick with your 60D.

 

[Jonathan Schertzer]

Thank you derrel, you are so far the only one making any sense. and i'm not just saying that because you are nice. This is a quality reply and I paid very close attention to what i was doing, and no lie, I made SURE i was shooting at 1/200th, specifically so that i wouldn't black band, and most of the time i bounced if off my hand to get just enough fill light. I know photography pretty well, and i think this wedding shows it, i mean it was thew most unorganized, off the wall wedding where i didn't even have a car to to travel between the brides house, chapel, cocktail party, and reception. This whole job was as photojournalistic as it gets, no prior planning or anything. My job was to just basically follow everyone and somehow create good shots on the fly without being at the location beforehand, every shot you see i took literally milliseconds seconds to find the lighting, composition, angle, and exposure/flash settings. And before anyone goes off about how i should have been prepared, i didn't have the chance, the bride and groom literally contacted me a couple of days prior to the wedding with very little detail about where it would be.

 

[12sndsgood]

Are you fully insured? Are you registered with the state, and paying federal taxes? if yes, then go for it and hope you don't mess up. If you answered no to any of those maybe step back, find work second shooting and learn the business side of things so you have a better chance of not finding yourself in court or having the irs or your local state nocking on your door wanting money.

I dont beleive the earlier poster was saying you should quit photogrpahy and go into business, he was saying take business classes so you know how to properly run a photography business. Most professionals will tell you that they have seen a lot of talented photographers fail because they lacked business knowledge, and have seen averge photographers do great because they were excellent at business. it's just as big a skill if not bigger then pushing the button on your camera. Heck I know a local business here in my town that has been going for 5 years now and growing every year and they take really average photos. worse then me and I don't consider myself great by any means. But they have the busienss skill to succeed.


As for your costs of doing business, you do have overhead, but you just dont think you do. gas, wear and tear on your car, phone calls, computer and programs to run you editing software, photo gear, insurance, your time, you are worth something arn't you? all of that adds up. The costs are there, your just not figuring them in. Not to mention just starting out your going to have a lot less paid shoots then someone who has been doing it for awhile. So you need to recoup those expenses on less shoots then someone else. For a $300 wedding when you sit down and figure all actual costs you were probalby making maybe 10 bucks an hour.

 

[Derrel]

Thank you derrel, you are so far the only one making any sense. and i'm not just saying that because you are nice. This is a quality reply and I paid very close attention to what i was doing, and no lie, I made SURE i was shooting at 1/200th, specifically so that i wouldn't black band, and most of the time i bounced if off my hand to get just enough fill light. I know photography pretty well, and i think this wedding shows it, i mean it was thew most unorganized, off the wall wedding where i didn't even have a car to to travel between the brides house, chapel, cocktail party, and reception. This whole job was as photojournalistic as it gets, no prior planning or anything. My job was to just basically follow everyone and somehow create good shots on the fly without being at the location beforehand, every shot you see i took literally milliseconds seconds to find the lighting, composition, angle, and exposure/flash settings. And before anyone goes off about how i should have been prepared, i didn't have the chance, the bride and groom literally contacted me a couple of days prior to the wedding with very little detail about where it would be.

I shot my FIRST wedding, a civil ceremony in judge's chambers, when I was 13 years old, with a 35mm Russian-made film SLR and a 58mm f/2 lens and the then-hot,new 200 ISO color print film from Kodak!!!!!!! I shot my last wedding in 2010 with a Canon 5D-II and 24-105 L zoom on a beautiful, bright August day as the "Uncle Derrel" shooter, for my lovely niece Rebecca and her husband Jake. The lighting was absolutely blinding and horrible, and was so danged bright, I wore my SUNGLASSES while shooting. Her three PAYED shooters all used crop-body Nikons. We all got good shots. In between my first wedding and my most-recent I have had to shoot funerals, press conferences, Pac-10 track and field, Pac 10 basketball,high school football,basketball,track and field, soccer, wrestling,maternity, studio portraiture, travel,vacation, hobby, and family portraiture, as well as some abstracts and fine art, and payed newspaper sports assignments. From 1973 to 2011, I never owned a camera as all-around good as or capable as the 60D.

 

[pixmedic]

Are you fully insured? Are you registered with the state, and paying federal taxes? if yes, then go for it and hope you don't mess up. If you answered no to any of those maybe step back, find work second shooting and learn the business side of things so you have a better chance of not finding yourself in court or having the irs or your local state nocking on your door wanting money.

I dont beleive the earlier poster was saying you should quit photogrpahy and go into business, he was saying take business classes so you know how to properly run a photography business. Most professionals will tell you that they have seen a lot of talented photographers fail because they lacked business knowledge, and have seen averge photographers do great because they were excellent at business. it's just as big a skill if not bigger then pushing the button on your camera. Heck I know a local business here in my town that has been going for 5 years now and growing every year and they take really average photos. worse then me and I don't consider myself great by any means. But they have the busienss skill to succeed.


As for your costs of doing business, you do have overhead, but you just dont think you do. gas, wear and tear on your car, phone calls, computer and programs to run you editing software, photo gear, insurance, your time, you are worth something arn't you? all of that adds up. The costs are there, your just not figuring them in. Not to mention just starting out your going to have a lot less paid shoots then someone who has been doing it for awhile. So you need to recoup those expenses on less shoots then someone else. For a $300 wedding when you sit down and figure all actual costs you were probalby making maybe 10 bucks an hour.

hell, $10 an hour is better than EMT-basics start at in florida...When i started as an EMT I only got $9 an hour...BEFORE taxes.

 

[12sndsgood]

Are you fully insured? Are you registered with the state, and paying federal taxes? if yes, then go for it and hope you don't mess up. If you answered no to any of those maybe step back, find work second shooting and learn the business side of things so you have a better chance of not finding yourself in court or having the irs or your local state nocking on your door wanting money.

I dont beleive the earlier poster was saying you should quit photogrpahy and go into business, he was saying take business classes so you know how to properly run a photography business. Most professionals will tell you that they have seen a lot of talented photographers fail because they lacked business knowledge, and have seen averge photographers do great because they were excellent at business. it's just as big a skill if not bigger then pushing the button on your camera. Heck I know a local business here in my town that has been going for 5 years now and growing every year and they take really average photos. worse then me and I don't consider myself great by any means. But they have the busienss skill to succeed.


As for your costs of doing business, you do have overhead, but you just dont think you do. gas, wear and tear on your car, phone calls, computer and programs to run you editing software, photo gear, insurance, your time, you are worth something arn't you? all of that adds up. The costs are there, your just not figuring them in. Not to mention just starting out your going to have a lot less paid shoots then someone who has been doing it for awhile. So you need to recoup those expenses on less shoots then someone else. For a $300 wedding when you sit down and figure all actual costs you were probalby making maybe 10 bucks an hour.

hell, $10 an hour is better than EMT-basics start at in florida...When i started as an EMT I only got $9 an hour...BEFORE taxes.

well I didnt bring taxes into that. once you take that out.....

 

[o hey tyler]

Because I highly disagree with his opinion, if he had told me "your not quite ready yet", or "at the skill level i don't think your are worth $300" Or even "you suck, don't do weddings" then i would have had no problem taking that into consideration. But to completely bypass what i am asking and smugly tell me to give up shooting and just go to business school is something that bothers me.

I told you that you're not ready yet, and to second shoot. Nothing smug about it, nothing about taking business classes either. It clearly just wasn't what you wanted to hear. It seems to me you'd rather have your ego stroked, but whatever.

And the great majority of the photos i took that day are equivalent to the photos i posted. But i've only posted 6 because i know you guys hate looking through 500 photos at a time. I posted the slide show incase anyone wanted to look through them(and there is a reason i included the good and the bad, if i ONLY included the good, it wouldn't be a fair representation of my work now would it?)

You SHOULD only be showing your "good" shots. The bad shots should be confined to your hard drive and not seen by the client or anyone for that matter. As far as anyone else is concerned, the bad photos don't exist. Putting them out on the internet is just going to make you look like a sub-par photographer. That was a bad move, but probably on par with charging $300. Show me just your GOOD shots, and that will be an accurate representation of your skill level. After all, good shots to you, may not be good shots in the eyes of someone who's shot weddings before.

I'm looking for some opinions on my work and an idea of what you think its worth. Yes, business could play a huge part in what i should charge, but at 18 years old i'm not really worried about overhead, my only real concern is to make a little money to keep investing in gear and get the practice that will eventually lead to the place i want to be.

Then I would suggest you look for second shooter gigs. Seriously. Do it.

And as for what people in my area charge, i am located 60miles out of los angeles. Pricing for weddings varies from $1500-$3200(easily). But in my opinion, i'm not on that level where i should be charging that much, i should be charging less because i'm not producing wedding magazine quality work, but that doesn't mean i don't have good work, and it doesn't mean i shouldn't be charging a little bit of money. Especially for the people who can't afford to spend massive amounts of money for photos and that would be perfectly happy with my quality of work.

This video is extremely relevant to the discussion at hand:

also, i would't mind being a 2nd shooter at all and its actually what i was looking for, for months but none of the photographers in my area were looking for 2nd shooters, even for free. But then the opportunity came up where the bride looked at my photos and fell in love with them and my style and hired me, knowing that i didn't have experience with wedding photography.

Put an ad out on craigslist that you're looking to second shoot. Network with local photographers. You don't need to be shooting a wedding every weekend. It's also not your primary source of income. To avoid a lawsuit and potential loss of your livelihood, I would strongly suggest that you hold out on charging until you have more experience.

 

[jwbryson1]

This video is extremely relevant to the discussion at hand:

This video confuses me. Clearly, the defendant was behind the 8 ball on her knowledge of the lenses she uses, but her "off the top" knowledge should not be the point--the point should be the quality of the results. We saw a few bad shots and some bad PS stuff, but I think the Judge was a bit over the top for purposes of sensationalizing this issue for television.

 

[o hey tyler]

This video confuses me. Clearly, the defendant was behind the 8 ball on her knowledge of the lenses she uses, but her "off the top" knowledge should not be the point--the point should be the quality of the results. We saw a few bad shots and some bad PS stuff, but I think the Judge was a bit over the top for purposes of sensationalizing this issue for television.

I disagree. When a judge in a court case has more photographic knowledge than the defendant, that's generally a sign of failure. I don't think it was terribly sensationalized. They shot a wedding with entry level gear and kit lenses.