# Moonlighting as a wedding photographer realistic?



## Jeremy Z (Jan 9, 2007)

I've just gotten my first digital SLR, but have been shooting for years. I do decent on-location portraits.

I'm going to start shooting weddings and on-location portraits this season with my Pentax K100D & kit lens. I'm planning on getting a nice dedicated Pentax flash soon, and probably a nice used, manual focus 50 mm f/2 lens. Does this sound good? Is there anything else that I will absolutely need?

As an option, I will offer to shoot on 35 mm, at the preference of the couple. (Olympus OM1n, 28, 50, 135, 28-85 lenses & dedicated automatic flash)

I would shoot for a flat fee, and the couple would keep the copyrights. I really don't want to mess around with print orders, and I think it would be a huge selling point. I would mention that although the couple would keep the originals, I would be able to use them to build my portfolio and advertise the business.

I've shot two weddings before. My sister's and my friends'. The understanding was that I wouldn't/couldn't do studio portraits. If they really wanted those, they would have to go elsewhere. I would shoot on location only, and a set of engagement photos at a location of the couples' choosing. Both couples were extremely happy with the results. Both were in 35mm, with my Olympus, so I need to either have the negs scanned or have prints scanned for my website.

I'm going to write my own website, which will be very basic and will contain sample images and information.

My target group is people that want high quality photos without huge expenses. I'm thinking of charging about $600-800 for 6 hours worth of wedding coverage and an engagement photo session, or $200 for a civil ceremony and engagement photo session.

Keep in mind that I work a full-time job, so I don't want this to explode into a full-blown business unless it is apparent that I will do really well. I'm thinking of just shooting 2-3 per month during the peak season and maybe 1-2 per month the rest of the year.

Should I charge less at first to build my portfolio, or would that make people not take me seriously?

How does this sound? Anything I'm overlooking? Any equipment I should absolutely buy? Any other tips?


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 9, 2007)

You absolutely need back-up gear.  It can be film gear if you don't want to buy another DSLR.  Unless you can somehow imagine yourself telling a bride "Hey, my camera/flash/lens just stopped working so I can't keep taking photos."


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 9, 2007)

I'm sort of in this position as well...just trying to start out doing this part-time.  Here are some of the things I've read/learned.



> Is there anything else that I will absolutely need?


Back up, back up and more back up...especially for weddings.  You can't have your gear crap out on you and then say sorry.  I had been keeping my film SLR for back up to my DSLR...but that's not really how I wanted to operate so I recently purchased a 2nd DSLR.  Two flash units is a must as well...those things can get cranky...or they can work fine for years...you never know.  Cords, batteries, cards etc...all the little things that can go wrong...you have to be prepared.



> Should I charge less at first to build my portfolio, or would that make people not take me seriously?


That's up to you.  I recently took a course called 'Designing Wedding Photography'.  The main point that the instructor hammered home was to not undersell yourself.  He asked us 'What should not go into deciding your price'...we came up with things like size of wedding party, age or attractiveness etc....what he wanted us to answer was 'experience'.  If you are good enough...then charge for it.  He said that too many people fail because they undercharge and then have trouble raising the prices.  Word of mouth is big in this type of business...and how will it look if you charge one person $600...and then decide that you can charge $2000 for the next person?

Also, you have to consider all the time that will go into you shooting a wedding.  There is the initial meeting or several meetings, you may have to scout the location, then the actual shooting, then how many hours of post processing will you do?  I know some pros that do 20-40 hours or processing for a wedding.  $800 doesn't sound like much now does it?  Granted, that's an extreme example...but you get the point.

Then you should consider the overhead.  I certainly hope you are considering doing this above board...which means paying taxes and maybe insurance.  Advertising etc.  What about mileage/gas...the use of your vehicle?  

You can give people a low-ball price...and even give them great photos in the process...but you would be doing a disservice to yourself and to other photographers...IMO anyway.

As far as selling the files...that's up to you.  Back in the day, photographers would never give up the negatives...now with digital, everyone wants files and they can then make their own prints...so the photographer looses money on print sales (the lack thereof)...so you have to either charge for it upfront...or give then an option to purchase the files.  I'm still struggling with how I should handle this...as are plenty of new and experienced photographers.


----------



## BAB (Jan 9, 2007)

Doing wedding photography on a freelance basis is very doable and if you are prepared and want to take on the demands and there are many, then by all means.  It can be a nice way to supplement your income with something that you love.  But, and it is a big but, please consider what KSMattfish & Big Mike have said, because they are absolutely correct.  You really need two of everything to begin with, cause things can and do go wrong and you only get one chance to get it right.  The points that Big Mike made about pricing is also very relevent.


----------



## markc (Jan 9, 2007)

Big Mike touched on it, but I would either charge an appropriate amount for them to get the rights to make prints, or they don't get any rights and they have to buy them _all_ from you. If you give them print rights, don't plan on making any money on prints.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 9, 2007)

That sounds good with the backup equipment.  I'll consider the OM1n to back up the K100D or vice versa.  Another DSLR is not in the cards right now.  Maybe after a few weddings when it starts to pay for itself...

So tell me, what is a low price that is not so low as to undersell myself?  I want a price significantly less than the pros are charging, but not so low as to seem low quality.  I see that Matt charges between $1200 and 2300, and he's in Kansas.  He seems to have similar policies to what I'd like to have.  That would lead me to believe that I could probably charge about $1000-$1200 in the north suburbs of Chicago, and it would be a screaming deal...

I just want to have photography pay for itself and maybe my other hobbies.  I'm not too greedy.


----------



## thebeginning (Jan 9, 2007)

what to charge to shoot a wedding is quite relative...

...what would be included in that $1200? is that only paying for your time? does that include a little bit of money to go towards prints? are any albums included? proof discs? is processing extra?  do they get full rights to print the images themselves?  

if you're able to get $1200 just for your 6 hours of work, you'd be coming out the other end with loads of profit.  But if that includes alot of other things, it will be a heck of a better deal to your clients, but less profitable.  Honestly, i've heard of very few photographers who do not offer at least a few things with their packages.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 9, 2007)

Look around at the websites of wedding photogs in your area to get a good idea what the going rate is.  I would definately charge more if I worked in Chicago than I am here in a Kansas college town (about 100,000 people with the students).  There are photogs here charging less than me, but I still think that I'm a pretty good bargin for the customer.

I charge $1200 for up to 4 hours of wedding day coverage.  The clients get the edited files on DVD, and a set of 4x6 prints (approx. 150).  They can buy albums from me ($400), or not.  I don't offer the 4 hour package on Saturdays from May to Oct, because I'll fill up those dates with 6 hour ($1500) to 10 hour ($2400) coverage packages (same deal, files and prints).  I'm not getting rich at these prices, but they go up every year, and it's way better than my old day job.    And all my photography toys are a tax write-off!


----------



## thebeginning (Jan 9, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> Look around at the websites of wedding photogs in your area to get a good idea what the going rate is.  I would definately charge more if I worked in Chicago than I am here in a Kansas college town (about 100,000 people with the students).  There are photogs here charging less than me, but I still think that I'm a pretty good bargin for the customer.
> 
> * I charge $1200 for up to 4 hours of wedding day coverage.  The clients get the edited files on DVD, and a set of 4x6 prints (approx. 150).  They can buy albums from me ($400), or not.  *I don't offer the 4 hour package on Saturdays from May to Oct, because I'll fill up those dates with 6 hour ($1500) to 10 hour ($2400) coverage packages (same deal, files and prints).  I'm not getting rich at these prices, but they go up every year, and it's way better than my old day job.    And all my photography toys are a tax write-off!



i've always been impressed by (and a tad curious about) photographers who give all the edited files to customers...doesnt that take you forever?  what exactly do you mean by 'edited'? like some interesting stuff during RAW conversion (if you shoot RAW), perhaps a little touchup?  that's just what i figured.  because if you did a full retouching and/or ps job on every image, sheeeesh :shock:


----------



## dewey (Jan 9, 2007)

Do it... I've been doing it for a while and I love it.  Big Mike is right... 2 bodies are a minimum... two flashes... lots of mem and what not.

Buy backups.

Advertise.

Buy backups.

Advertise.

Buy backups.

Advertise.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Jan 10, 2007)

dont forget you can rent more then enough gear for 150 - 200.00 

get paid half up front and your golden. reinvest after your first wedding and buy some of the equipment. after 3 or 4 weddings you own everything. 
or you could just rent forever...

my point is , dont let price of owning something your only gonna use one day keep you from shooting. let expirience keep you from shooting... lol

use the camera and flash to shoot and practice on events and friends. evenually youll be good enough to just rent something and run with it !!!!!!!


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 10, 2007)

Thorhammer, that is a great idea.  It just occurred to me that it is also a great idea for those who don't know which SLR to buy.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 10, 2007)

thebeginning said:


> what exactly do you mean by 'edited'?



Deleting unusable or duplicate shots, contrast and color correction, cropping, sharpening, etc...  I always shoot raw.  I start in ACR and finish in CS2.  I usually do some retouching to the close up portraits.  Sometime I apply effects.  It depends what I'm thinking, and what the B & G have indicated they like:  BW, toned, high contrast, selective coloring, soft focus, etc...  Other than BW conversion most of my candids, ceremony, and reception shots will be fairly straight.  Much of the processing can be done in batches, and some of it can even be automated.  For instance I sort finished photos into three groups for sharpening, less sharpening, average sharpening, or more sharpening, and then automate the process.  The computer is busy, but I can walk away and do something else.  

I used to estimate that I spent 2 hours in post processing for every hour I spent shooting a wedding, but I've gotten much faster with it now.  My basic 8 hour wedding takes me around 20 hours total including clients meetings, planning, shooting, post-processing, and getting the prints made.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 10, 2007)

THORHAMMER said:


> dont forget you can rent more then enough gear for 150 - 200.00



That's a great option if available, but it depends where you live.  There's no place close to me that will rent pro gear, or even not so pro gear.  I could go to Best Buy and purchase a 30D or D80 or a kit lens or a flash, but if I needed an off camera flash cord, or something like that in hurry, I'd be out of luck.  But I'm used to that.  I always had to make sure I had the 120 and 4x5 film I shot with mail ordered ahead of time too.


----------



## JIP (Jan 11, 2007)

In reality I would be willing to bet a pretty sizeable percentage of wedding photographers do it on the side rather rhan it being their sole source of income.  I would have to say that if you are charging someone $600 for shooting a wedding you are probably way underselling yourself consider what goes into the wedding and you might re think this price when a set of prints from a good lab can cost you from $100-$200 depending on how many shots you use you can start to count up your costs.  I think the best way for a beginner to get a start in wedding photography would be o try and assist someone you may not get to shoot right away but that probably help you to be a better learner so you can watch what the person shooting is doing.  Another possibility is to find a lower cost studio and try to shoot for them if you have less experience this might be a good option they can give you some training and get you shooting but I think in this case your gear situation would put you at a disadvantage.  And finally at the risk of offending a few people if you plan on pursuing this (professional wedding photography) much further you should seriously consider getting away from pentax and starting to build a Nikon or Canon system.


----------



## neea (Jan 14, 2007)

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.
Anyways, Price is tricky.
Around here you'd get a good deal for about $1200.00.
I did some searching for a friends wedding.
Honestly, anything less than that would make customers wonder about your quality and experience.
Personally, I'd never give negatives/copies to a customer.
Definatley charge for gas/milage/vehicle wear and tear etc.

Get a list from the bride and groom of pictures they MUST HAVE.
Bride and Groom with cousin Suzie and her 2 sets of triplets.
Bride and her 10 best friends.
Groom and his ex-gf (ok maybe not).

This will definatley make the big day run alot smoother.

Good luck with your adventures and be sure to show us some goods later on.
You got alot more guts than I do.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 14, 2007)

neea said:


> (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.


 
I won't screw it up.  I've done a couple already, and know the basic things to expect.

The checklist is a great ideas.  Some of the pros here probably already have a form where the bride & groom can just check boxes of what they want.

Thanks for your input on the price.  I will start at $1200.  I will also start by letting them keep the copyright.  If I get greedy and charge for making reprints, it gets to be high maintenence.  I still need to concentrate on my day job, my wife, and getting her career going.  I really don't want to mess around with that.  Also, since most of the pros keep the copyrights, it will give me a huge advantage when I can advertise that everyone in their family can get prints for a very low cost.  It is bad enough how much people have to spend on their wedding.  To try to gouge them afterwards for photos... that just doesn't sit right with me.  Maybe when I get a good reputation and regular business, and if/when I decide to go pro, I might consider it.  If my livlihood depends on it, that is a different matter altogether. 




> Good luck with your adventures and be sure to show us some goods later on.
> You got alot more guts than I do.


Will do.  I'll also show my (basic) website when I get it up.


----------



## seanberry (Jan 14, 2007)

JIP said:


> And finally at the risk of offending a few people if you plan on pursuing this (professional wedding photography) much further you should seriously consider getting away from pentax and starting to build a Nikon or Canon system.



No offense taken, but can I ask why?


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 14, 2007)

My wife and I just got back from Borders, where I picked up a copy of this book:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Wedding-Photography-Capturing-Beautiful/dp/0471790176/sr=11-1/qid=1168833153/ref=sr_11_1/102-1515611-3296121[/ame]

It is really good.  I spent about an hour reading it, and wasn't running out of topics or things that I didn't know.  That is a good sign!

I thumbed through a couple of Digital Photography Handbooks; they're too general to be of much use to someone with experience.

As for the Canon/Nikon thing, there are some reasons, but none of them really apply to shooters at our level.  The integral anti-shake more than makes up for the narrower selection of high-end optics.  Mostly, there is a lack of aftermarket optics for Pentax, at the moment.

With the introduction of the K100D and K10D, I think we will see Pentax making a comeback.


----------



## JIP (Jan 15, 2007)

I bought that book a while back and read it cover to cover I really like it I highly recommend it and as for Canon Nikon compared to pentax and other brands just pick up any book by a pro photographer and try and find mention of pentax etc. this book says Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Kodak and this is pretty much what you will get elsewhere.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 15, 2007)

JIP said:


> just pick up any book by a pro photographer and try and find mention of pentax etc. this book says Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Kodak and this is pretty much what you will get elsewhere.


For a pro, there may be a reason to stick with Canon or Nikon.  (Fuji & Kodak only because they take Nikon lenses)  For an amateur, there is no reason.  I can get all the lenses I need for Pentax, the optical quality is as good (better, in some cases) as Nikon or Canon, and the body itself has features that are more valuable to me.


----------



## danalec99 (Jan 15, 2007)

Jeremy Z said:


> My wife and I just got back from Borders, where I picked up a copy of this book:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Weddi...id=1168833153/ref=sr_11_1/102-1515611-3296121


I'd also hit the local library for Bambi Cantrell's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Art-Wedding-Photography-Professional-Techniques/dp/0817433252/s"]The Art of Wedding Photography: Professional Techniques with Style  [/ame] - it's one of my all time favs. 
She also has her '[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Art-Digital-Wedding-Photography-Professional/dp/0817433244/sr=1-1/qid=1168879062/ref=sr_1_1/105-0119217-0586003?ie=UTF8&s=books"]digital[/ame]' book out.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 15, 2007)

I shoot weddings with Canon gear, and Pentax has been behind the curve with digital, but I think their new DSLRs look pretty good for the money.  I would have definately considered Pentax more seriously for my first DSLR if they'd had models like they are making now.  I like that they feel like a camera that costs more than $1000 deserves $1 worth of rubber gaskets so it's somewhat weather proof.  Canon can't even give us that in a $3000 camera.


----------



## JIP (Jan 15, 2007)

Jeremy Z said:


> For a pro, there may be a reason to stick with Canon or Nikon. (Fuji & Kodak only because they take Nikon lenses) For an amateur, there is no reason. I can get all the lenses I need for Pentax, the optical quality is as good (better, in some cases) as Nikon or Canon, and the body itself has features that are more valuable to me.


 
You are contemplating charging people $1200 for shooting their wedding even though you consider that bargain basement pricing I think the people that are paying you that kind of money are hoping you are a pro. See what happens if you screw up one of those "bargain basement" weddings (not saying you will or that a Pentax will cause you to) you _will_ be sued like a pro.  And I also was very inspired by the Cantrell book it is another one of my faves.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 15, 2007)

JIP said:


> See what happens if you screw up one of those "bargain basement" weddings (not saying you will or that a Pentax will cause you to) you _will_ be sued like a pro.


 
Well, if I do screw it up with my Pentax, I doubt that a Nikon or Canon would magically save my hide.  Just to be safe, I will carry my two Olympi as backups.   Oh!  and I have my Canon SD600 Elph.  That should ensure that I don't screw up.  Lighten up a little please.

As for the pricing, I have to do _something_ to make up for the fact that I only have a couple weddings worth of photos in my portfolio!  I have to start _somewhere._  It damn sure isn't going to be backing up some pro, for free, who probably isn't any better than I am.

But that is a good point.  What do I do to protect myself against being sued?  Do I have to make them sign a waiver?  Do I have to buy insurance?  :meh: 

The scary thing is that I could do exactly what I set out to do, and if someone decided that I screwed up and decided to sue me frivilously...  That would not be cool.

About the book, I will take it one book at a time.  I'll come back to those others.


----------



## markc (Jan 15, 2007)

Stuff like that should be covered in your contract, and you might want to get some business insurance.


----------



## steve817 (Jan 16, 2007)

Jeremy Z said:


> As for the pricing, I have to do _something_ to make up for the fact that I only have a couple weddings worth of photos in my portfolio! I have to start _somewhere._ It damn sure isn't going to be backing up some pro, for free, who probably isn't any better than I am.


 
Who said you had to do it for free? A lot of them around here will pay a second shooter up to $200.00, sometimes more. In some ways that is a better deal. 

It gets all the liability off of your back, you hand the files over at the end of the day and you are done with it, You don't have to worry about the cost that go with marketing, you don't have to haggle with potential clients over the price (and trust me, no matter how little you charge you will have to)  I could go on and on.


----------



## JIP (Jan 16, 2007)

Jeremy Z said:


> Well, if I do screw it up with my Pentax, I doubt that a Nikon or Canon would magically save my hide. Just to be safe, I will carry my two Olympi as backups.  Oh! and I have my Canon SD600 Elph. That should ensure that I don't screw up. Lighten up a little please.
> 
> As for the pricing, I have to do _something_ to make up for the fact that I only have a couple weddings worth of photos in my portfolio! I have to start _somewhere._ It damn sure isn't going to be backing up some pro, for free, who probably isn't any better than I am.
> 
> ...


 
I did not say anything about Nikon or Canon "saving your hide" I was just responding to you saying "for a pro there may be a reason to stick with Nikon or Canon" when you charging someone $1200 or more to shoot a wedding actually makes you a pro of sorts.  Also, having backups will not ensure you will not screw up a wedding your memory cards could fail your computer could explode right in the middle of downloading your images or the bride's mom could decide when she sees your images that you mis-represented yourself as a wedding photographer and she does npt like your images all far fetched scenarios I know but it can happen.  And as far as lightening up goes, I spent 3 years getting paid crap as a wedding photographer after investing $3500 in pro gear to learn how to shoot weddings to get to a point now 5 years later where I feel I can justify charcing someone $1000-$2000 for shooting a wedding and I see this all the time "I bought a DSLR and now I want to become a wedding photograper how hard can it be" when I spent $4000 on my digital gear to shoot weddings with.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 16, 2007)

I took a course from a long time pro photographer...one of the most important points that he repeatedly made to us...was that experience shouldn't have much (or any) influence on your price.  Of course it's important that you are competent (and confident).

Getting a client to pay a good amount...may require a good portfolio.  One way to build your portfolio is to assist as a 2nd shooter for someone...but there are other ways.  Another way, for example, would be to rent (or even borrow) a wedding dress from a store and find a good looking female friend or relative.  Or even hire a model for the day.  If you are a smooth talker, you can pay for the dress and model with prints.


----------



## markc (Jan 16, 2007)

JIP said:


> And as far as lightening up goes, I spent 3 years getting paid crap as a wedding photographer after investing $3500 in pro gear to learn how to shoot weddings to get to a point now 5 years later where I feel I can justify charcing someone $1000-$2000 for shooting a wedding and I see this all the time "I bought a DSLR and now I want to become a wedding photograper how hard can it be" when I spent $4000 on my digital gear to shoot weddings with.



I can understand where it might be grating, but just because you shelled out the cash on equipment doesn't mean everyone feels the need to. I think it's important to have backups, but it's not gobs of equipment that makes you a wedding photographer. And people have to get started sometime. They don't just become a great wedding photographer without actually shooting weddings. I think the scenarios you mentioned could happen to anyone, so they come across a bit as straw men arguments.

I'm usually one that cautions people about jumping into wedding work, but your post does come across as sour grapes. Having said that, I haven't seen much of Jeremy's work yet. It may be that I would strongly suggest to him that he spends some more time with his photography before he jumps into weddings. I personally think you should have made sales elsewhere, like a local gallery, before you go into weddings.


----------



## JIP (Jan 16, 2007)

I do_  not_  think it is necesarry to shell out millions of dollars on equipment to be a good photographer wedding or otherwise so I am not complaining about the gear I personally purchased my original comment was to try and _walk_ before you run by trying to assist or shoot for a lower cost studio and get some experience before you go out and charge someone $1200 to shoot their wedding and also to consider buying a Nikon or Canon system if he was going to go further with wedding photography. I really do not consider that sour grapes I simply wanted to give some idea of some steps to take before going right into it.  I say if you can get someone to pay yo $1200 or more to shoot their wedding and do a good job of it with your Pentax more power to you good luck and welcome to it I was just adding my point of view.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 16, 2007)

> and also to consider buying a Nikon or Canon system if he was going to go further with wedding photography


While I can see where you are coming from, with your other points...I can't fathom why this would make a difference.  :scratch:


----------



## JIP (Jan 16, 2007)

It really _was_ just a suggestion I did not want it to turn into some big thing.  I personally think if someone, and this is just responding to big Mike is going to get into shooting weddings professionally they should get into one of what are considered the 2 better systems for Dslr's again this was just a suggestion given to someone who was asking for some advice on starting to shoot weddings.


----------



## BAB (Jan 16, 2007)

JIP said:


> It really _was_ just a suggestion I did not want it to turn into some big thing. I personally think if someone, and this is just responding to big Mike is going to get into shooting weddings professionally they should get into one of what are considered the 2 better systems for Dslr's again this was just a suggestion given to someone who was asking for some advice on starting to shoot weddings.


 
I believe your point is a valid one purely from a PR/marketing perspective and I believe that is where you were going with your reply. Whether Canon & Nikon are the "two best" is contoversial, subjective and probably incorrect because as we all know, a lot has to do with the talent and ability of the photographer and other systems can do quite well in the right hands.  The fact is that to the lay person whether right or wrong, Canon and Nikon are generally recognized as "professional equipment", and while it may not be true of all wedding couples, a certain expectation often comes when they write that check for $1,200 or whatever, that they are hiring a pro and sad as it may be, image often does matter.  When discussing a wedding to a couple of prospective couple's, I have been asked what kind of camera do you use?  Obviously, right or wrong, in these cases brand meant something to the customers that asked.


----------



## JIP (Jan 16, 2007)

Thank you you said it a little better than I could in genera if you make a good impression like it or not they will like the end result better.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 16, 2007)

> I personally think if someone, and this is just responding to big Mike is going to get into shooting weddings professionally they should get into one of what are considered the 2 better systems for Dslr's


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.



> The fact is that to the lay person whether right or wrong, Canon and Nikon are generally recognized as "professional equipment", and while it may not be true of all wedding couples, a certain expectation often comes when they write that check for $1,200 or whatever, that they are hiring a pro and sad as it may be, image often does matter. When discussing a wedding to a couple of prospective couple's, I have been asked what kind of camera do you use? Obviously, right or wrong, in these cases brand meant something to the customers that asked.


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.


----------



## Jeepnut28 (Jan 16, 2007)

steve817 said:


> Who said you had to do it for free? A lot of them around here will pay a second shooter up to $200.00, sometimes more. In some ways that is a better deal.
> 
> It gets all the liability off of your back, you hand the files over at the end of the day and you are done with it, You don't have to worry about the cost that go with marketing, you don't have to haggle with potential clients over the price (and trust me, no matter how little you charge you will have to) I could go on and on.


 


......and you dont get to benefit from the profit for a hard day of work.  someone else does.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 16, 2007)

Hehehe, we will see how it goes. If I find myself losing potential customers because I reply "Pentax" instead of "Nikon", I will reconsider. Now that the subject has been brought up, I will consider my reply, should I ever be asked that question. I think think I will reply "My primary camera is a Pentax K100D. Are you familiar with it? It is quite nice." (brings camera out) and judge their expression. If the expression goes sour, I will say: "Would you like to see some of the photos it has captured for me?" If they suggest that Canon or Nikon is better, I can always explain that Canon & Nikon both make some unsuitable cameras in additio nto their pro level stuff, and that the brand name is not what provides the results.

If the couple is so closed-minded/ignorant about a camera brand, I probably do not want them as a client anyhow.  That would be the kind of couple that would try to sue me for not getting a perfect shot of grandma.

Honestly, I appreciate every viewpoint. Some are more optimistic than others, but each reply will prepare me for a different scenario/question.

Right now, I am having a hard time getting the photos together for my portfolio & website. The first wedding I shot was of my friends wedding. The woman is currently looking for the negatives. The second one I shot was my sister's. She has divorced her first husband and is dating another guy. Things are looking up for them, but I'm not at all sure she saved the photos or negs from her wedding.  

My wife actually mentioned the idea of renting a wedding dress and posing for some photos for me to use for promotional purposes. Kind of a variant of Big Mike's idea. I may try one of those two ideas. I will see what I come up with from the two weddings I've shot. I do have a few months before it is the right weather for that kind of thing.

I have another idea to help me get going without first having to be someone's little assistant. (that would be a last resort for me. I'm already a good enough people photographer that I would resent it, I'm afraid) 

I thought I would offer an Engagement Photo Package that would be separate from the wedding package. It would cost quite a bit less, and the couple could get to know me and see my work of THEM, first-hand. They would then be comfortable either contracting with me for my services or continuing their search.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 16, 2007)

Jeepnut28 said:


> ......and you dont get to benefit from the profit for a hard day of work. someone else does.


Nevertheless, it is worth considering. 200 bucks would cover gas & expenses, and probably $15 an hour. It beats a sharp stick in the eye, right?

If I try with all my means to strike out on my own and fail, I will tuck my tail between my legs and consider it a bit further. :mrgreen:


----------



## JIP (Jan 16, 2007)

The whole idea of doing a wedding for someone else or assisting someone on the cheap is to_ learn_ I understand you say you are a good people photographer that is not all shooting a wedding is.  When you shoot a wedding for a friend or a relative for free or cheap you are part of the fun there is no pressure the whole wedding does not ride on you.  Shooting a wedding is alot of pressure and stress and as good as you may say you are it is alot to just go out there and just start.  If you can do it I say more power to you but saying you would resent assisting someone just doesn't make any sense even longtime professionals can learn something by following other photpgraphers around for a wedding or 2.  Who do you think goes to all these seminars all the time surely not all of them are just first time photographers.


----------



## markc (Jan 16, 2007)

JIP said:


> The whole idea of doing a wedding for someone else or assisting someone on the cheap is to_ learn_ I understand you say you are a good people photographer that is not all shooting a wedding is.  When you shoot a wedding for a friend or a relative for free or cheap you are part of the fun there is no pressure the whole wedding does not ride on you.  Shooting a wedding is alot of pressure and stress and as good as you may say you are it is alot to just go out there and just start.  If you can do it I say more power to you but saying you would resent assisting someone just doesn't make any sense even longtime professionals can learn something by following other photpgraphers around for a wedding or 2.  Who do you think goes to all these seminars all the time surely not all of them are just first time photographers.



I completely agree with that. I don't think there's anything demeaning about being an assistant. I did a couple of weddings where I mostly walked around with the flash for the photographer and didn't take many of my own, but I'm really glad I did it. It's a good low-pressure way to get started and gives you a great vantage point for seeing how other people do it.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 17, 2007)

Well fellas, I've finally found some of my wedding photos, and a bride is going to bring me the negs.

I'm sad to say that they are not _quite_ as good as I remembered.  Most people would be happy with them as wedding photos, but they're not quite up to my standards now that I've been here bit.  Specifically, the indoor flash photojournalist-style pix have the subject exposed correctly, but with pitch black background.  The outdoor ones were very good though, and my candids were also good. (again, except for the black backgrounds)

My only worry about that now is this: If I call some photographers and offer to be a second shooter, would they be happy to have cheap assistance or would they say no because they don't want to help out any prospective competition?

To you wedding photographers here, how would YOU react if someone in your area wanted to shadow you, and you knew he would become competition some day?  I know I'd have to think about it if I were the pro...


----------



## markc (Jan 17, 2007)

You are going to get a varied response as much as people are varied. I think if it's something you want to try, that you'll just have to put yourself out there and see what happens. I've found that networking really helps here. I've met some great people at the local photo club, community darkroom, and gallery openings. People tend to be more comfortable dealing with someone they know, and it's a great way to get to know people. Some people are closed-lipped, but most of the photographers I've met have been happy to share their knowledge.


----------



## JIP (Jan 17, 2007)

I know when I first started but that was as a main shooter for a lower-end studio I was given initial training and sent out to shoot I was given weddings weekly as part of the deal I had to sign a contract that I would not shoot any weddings on my own for a given pieriod of time, I think it was a year this was hard but I learned alot and had his backing if I made any mistakes.  In general if you are going to work for someone they should have no problem teaching you I guess it depends on who you go to but as you can see on here most potographers are happy to share their knowledge and of course you will be helping them either carrying bags and herding people around to pose for group shots or just shooting as a second shooter.  As well as all this I think training new people rather than them just starting out on their own improves the quality of photographers in their community so it helps everyone.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 17, 2007)

I'm a one person operation most of the time.  I have a couple of photographer friends who I occasionally call upon when I need help.  One is a professional photog, but makes his money from from landscapes and architecture, not people.  The other is a long time amateur/semi-pro who has a real job, and isn't planning on leaving it.  I love hiring these guys because I know they know what they are doing, and they'll probably never be my competition.  

If I was hiring an assistant for wedding photography I'd just assume they were doing it because they wanted to do it for a business at some point.  I live in a college town, so my strategy would be to hire a college student who'd be moving away in 4 years to be somebody else's competition.   

I'd expect them to have the technical aspects of running the camera and the flash pretty well figured out.  I don't mind teaching someone how I go about a wedding shoot, but they should have the fundamental photography skills mastered.  They need to be able to run the camera and the flash in manual, and get consistantly good exposures.  At least good enough for print film or raw files.  

Being a wedding assistant isn't even half taking photographs, mostly it's hauling gear, setting up gear, taking down gear, holding gear, and guarding gear.  I need to be able to tell them how I want cameras or lighting set up, and they get it the first time.  Most of the training is going to be on the job, in front of the client; it doesn't look good to have to explain something more than once, and we just don't have time.     

Skills in customer service, retail sales, or working with the public would be a bonus.

I'd want to see a portfolio of at least 12 prints, mostly with people as subjects.  This is going to determine who I'd hire.  Obviously they need to be an asset to my business, and create photos that please the client.  I wouldn't mind so much that they will be potential competition someday, because if they have the skills and the eyes, it would seem to be inevitable with or without my help.


----------



## uberben (Jan 17, 2007)

I didn't learn from anybody in particular...more by reading and getting everything planned out in fine details so I knew what to expect.. I did talk with a handful of wedding photographers at photog gathers we have around here, but i started doing weddings last year sorta on accident. My brother in law's photographer bailed on him on his wedding day.  He gave me a call that morning and asked me to help him out. I borrowed an extra camera, called a photog friend to help out and off we went.  I feel very lucky that it went well and that the sites that they picked were well lit and beautiful.  I did 4 more weddings that year and pretty much read everything I could and spent hours learning how to use my flash in odd situations.  I relate wedding photography to being at war....I always have to be on my feet, dodging drunks, protecting my gear, keeping people on time, and sometimes the worst job is keeping the other "photographers" out of my way.  Seems like I always have 5 or 6 people with nice gear there (and 100 people with p&s cams) and they always try to get in my way.  If you don't have your skills dialed in and still want to survive with amazing photos....good luck.  Don't underestimate the backup gear...I had one of my 20d's err99 on me as the bride was walking down the isle with her dad. I just dropped it and swung the other 20d around and got the photos.  So many variables to have to cover, it isn't about the money early on, its about building relationships so you can get the word of mouth machine going. I booked 9 weddings this summer already via word of mouth marketing.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 17, 2007)

uberben said:


> ...I always have to be on my feet, dodging drunks, protecting my gear, keeping people on time, and sometimes the worst job is keeping the other "photographers" out of my way.  Seems like I always have 5 or 6 people with nice gear there (and 100 people with p&s cams) and they always try to get in my way.  If you don't have your skills dialed in and still want to survive with amazing photos....good luck.  Don't underestimate the backup gear...I had one of my 20d's err99 on me as the bride was walking down the isle with her dad. I just dropped it and swung the other 20d around and got the photos.



Excellent description of what it's like.  Fortunately error 99 hasn't struck me in a vital moment, but I've definately forgot to put in a new CF card, and fallen victim to "CF FULL" !  Arrgghhh!  Doh!!


----------



## uberben (Jan 17, 2007)

Oh man...the dreaded CF FULL....I started to use the tamrac digital boomerang on all my photos.  It has two CF holders on the neoprene neck strap.  its so comfy and the cards are really easy to get to if i'm not in a drop the camera moment, but a i have 20 seconds to swap out cards moment.  When I first started I only had about 6 gbs of memory...and I used to worry about accidently erasing a card before it was dumped onto my laptop. Thank god CF is so cheap now...i stocked up.


----------



## Hair Bear (Jan 17, 2007)

I surprised there is'nt more talk of insurance on this, USA or UK

I have friend who does a little photography on the side and he runs without insurance.

I run a business (not photography) and my clients dictate I'm insured to a certain level.

Just imagine the the problems if your negligence resulted in a claim. Even a small claim could ruin you.

Think 'trip over a tripod' or kit box, broken ankle wrist. Get insured and factor it into your cost. You may find that certain insurance will cover kit failure and allow for claiming a re shoot of at least the bride and groom

Is you kit covered on your home policy? what if its nicked or dropped during the shoot.

And finally it could be a good selling point in your sales pitch, use it as a joke to close the deal 'and I'm insured against everything except the weather' laugh and hand the contract to them?


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 17, 2007)

Good point.  

I mentioned it briefly but it should really be something to take note of.  Not only could a law suit ruin your business...but you could loose your home etc.

It's not so much getting sued over poor performance (missing that shot of Grandma)...but as you mention...liability and personal injury.  

I'm guessing that there are many thousands of 'weekend photographers' who are shooting weddings...getting paid under-the-table (not paying taxes) and without any business licence or insurance.  I can understand that some people would start out this way...but it really hurts the whole industry if people continue to operate that way.


----------



## JIP (Jan 17, 2007)

Hair Bear said:


> the bride and groom
> 
> *Is you kit covered on your home policy? what if its nicked or dropped during the shoot.*
> 
> And finally it could be a good selling point in your sales pitch, use it as a joke to close the deal 'and I'm insured against everything except the weather' laugh and hand the contract to them?


One thing I found out recently from my homeowners ins. carrier is thac cameras are covered under "electronics" in my policy but this is very limited as far as value and when the items are used for a business all bets are off you need seperate coverage.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 17, 2007)

So that I know what to expect, how much are you guys paying for your business insurance?

Where are you getting the insurance from?  Would it be a special insurance company, or could I get it from the same place that carries my car, bike, and homeowners insurance?


----------



## BAB (Jan 17, 2007)

Jeremy Z said:


> So that I know what to expect, how much are you guys paying for your business insurance?
> 
> Where are you getting the insurance from? Would it be a special insurance company, or could I get it from the same place that carries my car, bike, and homeowners insurance?


 
IMHO it would be far more instructive to check with a good insurance broker or agent who can provide information on all the options and cost to you, and you will get a more accurate picture.  This is not to diminish the relevance of what people here might reveal on their costs, but a reflection of the insurance industry and the simple fact that insurance costs vary all over the map.  There are just so many variables it boggles the mind.  Another suggestion is to consider an umbrella policy which generally covers all or most personal liability claims that do not come under other forms of insurance or where those limits are insufficient to cover the claim.  While this most likely will not cover loss of your equipment, or a lawsuit because of a screw-up, it should cover liability such as a lawsuit involving let's say an injury because a guest tripped over a lightstand kind of thing.  Again check with a good insurance broker or agent, perhaps you already have one for homeowners, rental or auto insurance.


----------



## ladyphotog (Jan 17, 2007)

Jeremy Z said:


> So that I know what to expect, how much are you guys paying for your business insurance?
> 
> Where are you getting the insurance from?  Would it be a special insurance company, or could I get it from the same place that carries my car, bike, and homeowners insurance?



You can get a rider to your homeowners policy to cover your equipment, etc. A rider is usually less expensive than a separate policy.

As far as price that depends on where you live and how much coverage you need.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 17, 2007)

> You can get a rider to your homeowners policy to cover your equipment, etc. A rider is usually less expensive than a separate policy.
> 
> As far as price that depends on where you live and how much coverage you need.


That's what I have for all my camera gear...but I don't think that covers my gear if used in a professional capacity.


----------



## ladyphotog (Jan 17, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> That's what I have for all my camera gear...but I don't think that covers my gear if used in a professional capacity.



Here in GA it doesn't matter what you use it for, be it professional (ie. making money) or as a hobby. It even covers the equipment if it gets stolen out of your car. 

One other thing, get a good contract that covers you in the event of something bad happening, equipment failure, acts of God and you can't get to the wedding, etc. They are very important and can save yourself alot of stress.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jan 17, 2007)

I vote for liability insurance.  If you knock the walmart punchbowl off it will be billed as a family heirloom before it's finished.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 17, 2007)

I know the amount varies from state to state and person to person, but couldn't I get a straight answer or two?  Maybe say how much it is and what it covers?


----------



## JIP (Jan 17, 2007)

If you really want insurance as a photographer try wppi they have a package especially for photographers I do not have it yet but I know some of the people where I shoot weddings fo have it they are the ones who suggested it to me.

http://www.wppionline.com/


----------



## Hair Bear (Jan 18, 2007)

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.

Thats actually a interesting point, if there is money changing hands between you and the wedding party for the shoot you could find the location get upset if you don't have insurance.

Insurance is always a gamble, cars/life/health, if you don't need to claim, and most people don't, then its just an expense.

But that one claim can make it all worth while. However, in 10 years in business I have only claimed twice. Once when we had the celling come through after a big rain storm and once when some kit left the table and hit the floor.

I am also covered for supplier mistakes in print etc and I did try and claim when I had a print job go very badly wrong but the client split the cost with me and I avoided the excess.

So insurance? Take it out and sleep well knowing your covered, or stick the money on a horse and bank any winnings in case of a claim?


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 18, 2007)

Hair Bear said:


> 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.


----------



## Hair Bear (Jan 18, 2007)

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


----------



## steve817 (Jan 18, 2007)

Jeremy Z said:


> 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.


----------



## BAB (Jan 18, 2007)

steve817 said:


> 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.


----------



## steve817 (Jan 18, 2007)

Jeepnut28 said:


> ......and you dont get to benefit from the profit for a hard day of work.  someone else does.



Please elaborate.


----------



## steve817 (Jan 18, 2007)

BAB said:


> 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


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 18, 2007)

> 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.


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 2, 2007)

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


----------



## BWP-by-RK (Feb 17, 2007)

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


----------



## Jeremy Z (Feb 27, 2007)

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.


----------



## steve817 (Feb 27, 2007)

Good for you JZ. I think you will thank yourself later.


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Feb 27, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> 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 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


----------

