Wedding and Engagement Photos. Am I undercutting the competition?

[sonicbuffalo]

First and foremost....get legal. If you have contracts for weddings, eventually you'll run into someone who isn't happy with the results and they will complain about your photography and do some research, and whammo, you'll get busted. Then the government will probably do an estimate (more than you probably have shot) on the number of weddings and other photography you've undertaken, and then they'll not only take you to court, but they will fine you heavily. Get a great lawyer, because you're going to need one!

 

[KmH]

Do you have a legal-in-California business, keep the required accounting records, have business liability insurance, and forward to the State any sales taxes they are due?

no, no, no, and no.

That's what I thought.

Good Luck.

 

[astroNikon]

If you maintain this as a Hobby per IRS Rules (basically don't take an income and it's not your primary source of revenue, ie you have a day job too) .. but I still wouldn't skip the insurance et al

talk to your account about it.

and read something like this ....
Why I Can?t Shoot Your Wedding for Free {Part I of II}

 

[spacefuzz]

Do you have a legal-in-California business, keep the required accounting records, have business liability insurance, and forward to the State any sales taxes they are due?

no, no, no, and no. For most of my engagement clients, I 99.99% of the time accept cash payment up front on the day of the shoot, and I generally won't even produce a contract for it ( none of them ever request to have a contract). It's only the wedding clients that demand contracts, and for the 4-5 weddings I have done in totality, they have all went smoothly with a contract in place.

You realize if you already have photographers hating on you that its not a stretch that they could report you to the state. You DO NOT want to have to pay those fines. Just know if you keep doing it like you do that you are playing with fire.

 

[NayLoMo6C]

If you maintain this as a Hobby per IRS Rules (basically don't take an income and it's not your primary source of revenue, ie you have a day job too) .. but I still wouldn't skip the insurance et al

talk to your account about it.

and read something like this ....
Why I Can?t Shoot Your Wedding for Free {Part I of II}

This is technically a hobby at the moment. I am working a full time job and only do photo-shoots during my weekends, so it's not my main source of revenue. I at most do around 2-3 engagement shoots per month max, and around 1 wedding every 2-3 months

 

[radiorickm]

You say $200 an hour but don't say how many hours an average wedding is billed. If you're talking a couple hours to shoot the wedding and a few hours or more to process then $800 to $1000 or more is not undercutting the competition. But if you just charge a couple of hours then you probably are.

The average amount of time my clients usually go for is around 2-3 hours of shooting, so I would charge $400-600 accordingly. I would then spend around 1.5 to 2 hours post-processing every 1 hour's worth of photos ( I normally shoot 50-70 photos an hour).

P.S. 2-3 hours is the usual engagement photos duration. Weddings are usually 5-6 hours

There are some things in your numbers that don't add up to me, and this is not said to be ugly......BUT....... if it takes you 2:1 time to process pictures vs shoot pictures, I have serious questions about your ability to shoot GOOD pictures to begin with. IF it takes you 10 minutes to take a photo, and then another 20 minutes in photo shop to fix it, there is something wrong!

Your numbers seem really low, 50 an hour is ~ONE picture a minute. In a 6 hour shoot, you have 18 hours tied up in less than 300 photos. That's assuming that all 50 were keepers, and that just doesn't seem like a reasonable amount to me.

 

[robbins.photo]

If you maintain this as a Hobby per IRS Rules (basically don't take an income and it's not your primary source of revenue, ie you have a day job too) .. but I still wouldn't skip the insurance et al

talk to your account about it.

and read something like this ....
Why I Can?t Shoot Your Wedding for Free {Part I of II}

This is technically a hobby at the moment. I am working a full time job and only do photo-shoots during my weekends, so it's not my main source of revenue. I at most do around 2-3 engagement shoots per month max, and around 1 wedding every 2-3 months

Well the IRS can be real sticklers for this kind of thing, but seriously I would probably be a lot more concerned about a lack of contracts and a lack of insurance. Even if you do define this as a "hobby" and even assuming the IRS would agree with that definition continuing to shoot without either leaves you open to some serious possible legal entanglements. Imagine for just a moment your shooting a wedding, some little kid comes running through and knocks over one of your lights, it falls and they get burned.

Ok, you may have the best relationship in the world with the couple getting married - but you may not know this kids parents from Adam - and guess what, they might just decide to sue you for damages. There are just so many scenarios that might come up where someone gets hurt where you could be held financially responsible it isn't even funny, so yes - even if you are going to continue running this as a "hobby" you'd better seriously consider getting some insurance to cover you for at least some of these basic liabiity concerns.

The other issue is the contracts. So far, lets face it - you've been lucky. But in today's rather litigious society if your shooting without any form of written agreement your just inviting disaster. I had a friend who did some IT work on the side, advertised in the local paper, etc - he setup a network for a small business, a lawyers office - and even though he fullfilled everythng he told them he would do and did the job on time and on budget, six months later they had problems - problems that had to do with work they had done later as opposed to anything he was involved with, but because he had no contract, he got sued.

If he'd had a contract spelling out the details of what he was responsible for, well it probably never would have happened - but since he didn't it cost him a pretty penny to defend himself against the lawsuit. That is more or less what your inviting here by not having any sort of contracts. I really do wish we lived in the kind of society where oral contracts where honored and people kept their word, but lets face it, we don't.

 

[NayLoMo6C]

You say $200 an hour but don't say how many hours an average wedding is billed. If you're talking a couple hours to shoot the wedding and a few hours or more to process then $800 to $1000 or more is not undercutting the competition. But if you just charge a couple of hours then you probably are.

The average amount of time my clients usually go for is around 2-3 hours of shooting, so I would charge $400-600 accordingly. I would then spend around 1.5 to 2 hours post-processing every 1 hour's worth of photos ( I normally shoot 50-70 photos an hour).

P.S. 2-3 hours is the usual engagement photos duration. Weddings are usually 5-6 hours

There are some things in your numbers that don't add up to me, and this is not said to be ugly......BUT....... if it takes you 2:1 time to process pictures vs shoot pictures, I have serious questions about your ability to shoot GOOD pictures to begin with. IF it takes you 10 minutes to take a photo, and then another 20 minutes in photo shop to fix it, there is something wrong!

Your numbers seem really low, 50 an hour is ~ONE picture a minute. In a 6 hour shoot, you have 18 hours tied up in less than 300 photos. That's assuming that all 50 were keepers, and that just doesn't seem like a reasonable amount to me.

I meant to say that for every hour I shoot, I generally deliver about 50-70 solid shots that have been properly edited ( I will shoot anywhere around 500-700 shots in a 2 hour session, sometimes even more)

If you maintain this as a Hobby per IRS Rules (basically don't take an income and it's not your primary source of revenue, ie you have a day job too) .. but I still wouldn't skip the insurance et al

talk to your account about it.

and read something like this ....
Why I Can?t Shoot Your Wedding for Free {Part I of II}

This is technically a hobby at the moment. I am working a full time job and only do photo-shoots during my weekends, so it's not my main source of revenue. I at most do around 2-3 engagement shoots per month max, and around 1 wedding every 2-3 months

Well the IRS can be real sticklers for this kind of thing, but seriously I would probably be a lot more concerned about a lack of contracts and a lack of insurance. Even if you do define this as a "hobby" and even assuming the IRS would agree with that definition continuing to shoot without either leaves you open to some serious possible legal entanglements. Imagine for just a moment your shooting a wedding, some little kid comes running through and knocks over one of your lights, it falls and they get burned.

Ok, you may have the best relationship in the world with the couple getting married - but you may not know this kids parents from Adam - and guess what, they might just decide to sue you for damages. There are just so many scenarios that might come up where someone gets hurt where you could be held financially responsible it isn't even funny, so yes - even if you are going to continue running this as a "hobby" you'd better seriously consider getting some insurance to cover you for at least some of these basic liabiity concerns.

The other issue is the contracts. So far, lets face it - you've been lucky. But in today's rather litigious society if your shooting without any form of written agreement your just inviting disaster. I had a friend who did some IT work on the side, advertised in the local paper, etc - he setup a network for a small business, a lawyers office - and even though he fullfilled everythng he told them he would do and did the job on time and on budget, six months later they had problems - problems that had to do with work they had done later as opposed to anything he was involved with, but because he had no contract, he got sued.

If he'd had a contract spelling out the details of what he was responsible for, well it probably never would have happened - but since he didn't it cost him a pretty penny to defend himself against the lawsuit. That is more or less what your inviting here by not having any sort of contracts. I really do wish we lived in the kind of society where oral contracts where honored and people kept their word, but lets face it, we don't.

Makes total sense, thanks for the insight. I will have to look into getting insurance

 

[astroNikon]

FYI .. IRS insight into "hobby"
Is Your Hobby a For-Profit Endeavor?

The following factors, although not all inclusive, may help you to determine whether your activity is an activity engaged in for profit or a hobby:

• Does the time and effort put into the activity indicate an intention to make a profit?
  
• Do you depend on income from the activity?
  
• If there are losses, are they due to circumstances beyond your control or did they occur in the start-up phase of the business?
  
• Have you changed methods of operation to improve profitability?
  
• Do you have the knowledge needed to carry on the activity as a successful business?
  
• Have you made a profit in similar activities in the past?
  
• Does the activity make a profit in some years?
  
• Do you expect to make a profit in the future from the appreciation of assets used in the activity?

An activity is presumed for profit if it makes a profit in at least three of the last five tax years, including the current year (or at least two of the last seven years for activities that consist primarily of breeding, showing, training or racing horses).
If an activity is not for profit, losses from that activity may not be used to offset other income

 

[vfotog]

it doesn't sound like this is a hobby. It sounds like you're charging more than you are spending and making a profit. If it's not for profit, you need to itemize your allowable deductions and they can't be more than your income. No matter which way you go, you do need to report your income. Also, you're not a corporation and exempt. The people that are paying you should be reporting those payments to the IRS since it's over $600. The reporting threshold is $600 a YEAR. With the amount of time spent on each client, most of your clients are going to be above that threshold. So if you have a client that actually knows and follows the law, they should be 1099ing you. Remember Nannygate? Unreported income needs to be taken seriously. Even at 2-4 shoots a month, that's several thousand dollars of unreported income. And it's not just insurance, taxes, etc. Even cities can have licensing requirements.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

This is technically a hobby at the moment. I am working a full time job and only do photo-shoots during my weekends, so it's not my main source of revenue. I at most do around 2-3 engagement shoots per month max, and around 1 wedding every 2-3 months

Hate to break it to you OP, but if you make more than $600 total for the year, then the IRS doesn't consider it a hobby. You must declare it as miscellaneous income on a 1040 schedule C form, or you're in violation of the law.

However, even if you don't care about the law or think you're small enough that they'll never spend time on you.....

Accepting paid work of any kind without a detailed written and signed contract, and keeping at least liability insurance in force, is mind-bogglingly arrogant and stupid. There's no way around it.

Either get every single client on a well-written contract (plenty of people here may be willing to help you find or alter one for your use) and get yourself properly insured IMMEDIATELY, or stop taking paid clients immediately.

To do anything else isn't just risking disaster, it's inviting disaster into your home for some warm milk and bedtime stories.

 

[NayLoMo6C]

This is technically a hobby at the moment. I am working a full time job and only do photo-shoots during my weekends, so it's not my main source of revenue. I at most do around 2-3 engagement shoots per month max, and around 1 wedding every 2-3 months

Hate to break it to you OP, but if you make more than $600 total for the year, then the IRS doesn't consider it a hobby. You must declare it as miscellaneous income on a 1040 schedule C form, or you're in violation of the law.

However, even if you don't care about the law or think you're small enough that they'll never spend time on you.....

Accepting paid work of any kind without a detailed written and signed contract, and keeping at least liability insurance in force, is mind-bogglingly arrogant and stupid. There's no way around it.

Either get every single client on a well-written contract (plenty of people here may be willing to help you find or alter one for your use) and get yourself properly insured IMMEDIATELY, or stop taking paid clients immediately.

To do anything else isn't just risking disaster, it's inviting disaster into your home for some warm milk and bedtime stories.

I have only started to realize the severity of not having a photographer's insurance and all that, thank you to all those who have hit me with the reality hammer. Which insurance should I go for, and does it depend on my location? I just did a quick google search on photographer's insurance and came to "Pro Photographer's Insurance"... Are they any good?

 

[jamesbjenkins]

I have only started to realize the severity of not having a photographer's insurance and all that, thank you to all those who have hit me with the reality hammer. Which insurance should I go for, and does it depend on my location? I just did a quick google search on photographer's insurance and came to "Pro Photographer's Insurance"... Are they any good?

I'm a photographer on the weekends, and an insurance broker and agency owner for my "real" career. Your best bet in my opinion as someone starting out (read: you don't have $40,000 of studio equipment to insure), would be either Hiscox or Hill & Usher. DO NOT go to State Farm, Allstate, etc. and get them to add the coverage as an endorsement to your homeowner's policy.

Expect to pay very close to $500 annually for $1 million in liability coverage and good coverage on damage/theft of your gear.

You can google either "Hiscox photographers insurance" or you can call Hill and Usher at 866-977-4725, ask for Danielle and tell her that James Jenkins from Dallas, Texas told you to call her. She'll take great care of you. She's one of the senior account reps there.

Good luck!

 

[JacaRanda]

Sometimes, 'none of your business' is a totally acceptable response.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JoeW]

I know this thread is about a month old but....here's my thoughts...

1. You don't go into business to make your competitors happy. Now, you're not going into business to make them pissed off either. But b/c you get hate mail from other photographers doesn't mean you should change to meet their standards. Your business is your business.

2. I have known at least two other photographers very similar to you. Both relied solely on CL. Both did this as a second job/"hobby". Both handed over a DVD (one of them didn't even do edits--just gave over RAW or usually jpeg files). BTW, both are out of business now. But then most people who try to start photographic businesses go out of business--it's a difficult business world to succeed in as a photographer (which is part of the reason you're getting the hate mail).

3. Definitely get the insurance. And forget the rationale that it's a "hobby"...no-way you'll be able to justify that unless you either shoot a number of weddings for free or you can document that you lose money. There are just too many wedding photographers out there for the IRS to accept a position that it's only a hobby for you. And definitely expect a disgruntled competitor to turn you in to the State or IRS (did you know that the IRS gives people a percentage of the money gained when a case is turned in that produces revenue....ie: back taxes?).

4. Just me personally but I think you're under-cutting yourself. There is value in a flat rate fee (b/c you're appealing to folks who are cheap, who aren't going to pay $10k for a wedding and where prices is their primary decider) b/c they're afraid the photographer is going to bankrupt them and when you tell them it's likely 2-3 hours, they can smile and live with that in their budget. And to you (no offense) but with a day job, this is found money...it's extra cash for you. But think of it this way....if this was your day job, at about $600 a wedding/session, you'd have to shoot about 100 weddings a year (which is a phenomenal amount, especially given how seasonal the numbers tend to break down) to make $60k gross (which would be about $40-45k after you figure in insurance, business expenses, some possible equipment upgrades). Your profile says San Francisco...I don't think $40k goes very far there (and I don't think most wedding photographers would tell you that 100 clients per year is realistic). And....having said all that, you may be very comfortable shooting with the model that you do and making $400-$600 per wedding. If that's the case, you can now understand why you're getting the hate from people who do this as their day job (and charge $2,000 per wedding as a bargain-basement level).

5. Just a couple of business advice comments I'd offer:
--I would rarely attempt to compete on price. Yes, you do. And you're successful (up to a point). But something that is true for all types of business: customers that you gain primarily on price are the ones who are the least loyal. They will recommend you but only as long as you're the cheapest. They are also more likely to sue (or threaten to take you to court) b/c to them, it's almost entirely about getting the cheapest price available. And there will always be someone else around who can undercut your prices and do it cheaper. So a business model based on being cheaper than anyone else has some significant down sides. That said, you may decide that's the direction you want to keep going...if so, good luck and god speed to you. Just do so with open eyes.
--Always, always, always have a contract with your client that spells out expectations and rules. I hate lawyers. I hate going to court. I love operating on a handshake. But the best way to stay out of court and not involve the sharks is to have a good contract that lays out expectations and who is doing what. A veteran wedding photographer will tell you how unreasonable some clients can be. This is supposed to be their dream day. That you didn't produce video...or that you missed one specific shot...or that you only gave them 300 files...can be enough to set someone off. I've shot a couple of wedding (mostly as a gift for a friend who already had someone hired for the wedding). 90% of the shooters on this list who do or did it professionally will agree with me that we won't touch weddings b/c of the hassles, possible bride-zillas, and legal threats. Anytime you do business you want to manage expectations. With weddings, even more so. You may think your instructions and handshake agreements are clear (and they probably are). But put it on paper and get people to sign it--that's the best way to preclude some of the unreasonable nastiness that occurs with some wedding shoots.