# Weddings... I don't get it.



## sabbath999 (Jul 10, 2007)

Why is it that so many photography newbies want to take pictures at weddings?

Why is it that so many people who see that you own a DSLR are shocked to find out that you DON'T take weddings?

These are two of the many wedding questions I have.

A bit of background. I shot weddings when I was a starving newspaper photographer/reporter/editor. I did it strictly for the money, to put my wife through college. I knew what I was doing, a full set of lights, pro cameras and lenses (Hassy) with backups of everything, liability insurance, etc. I hated every minute of it, but man the money was good.

I can understand experienced photographers wanting to cash in on the wedding photography business... people who know that the business side of a wedding is more critical than the pictures (assuming you want to be in business in the long haul)... Those of you who have been in the trenches know exactly what I am talking about... 

I see so many newbies come to this site (and others) talking about how they want to take wedding pictures... and I honestly don't get the attraction to it.

Perhaps it is from personal experience... one too many bridezillas or momzillas on the most stressful day of their lives... or one too many proof sessions when you show the size-16 bride her perfectly exposed, crystal clear, immaculately composed shots and she looks up in tears saying "All your pictures make me look FAT".... and you want to tell her "honey, you are a porker, what do you expect?" but you know you can't. (BTW, I myself am/have been a porker who always looks too fat in pictures, so I am qualified to make this statement)

Then there is part two of my question.

I have had many, many former clients want me to shoot their daughter's or son's wedding... I am both thrilled that they liked my pictures of their own wedding enough to want me to shoot the ceremony of their child, and horrified that I am THAT old... Ok, satisfied customer, that I understand...

But...

Why is it so many people assume the simple ownership of a camera with an interchangeable lens qualifies somebody to take wedding pictures? I have been asked many times how much I would charge by people who didn't know me "back in the day".

To me, it is rather like seeing somebody walking around Sears with a new socket set, and asking the person how much she would charge to change out a transmission on a car.

I don't know.

I generally tell people that I am a wildlife photographer (wildlife and zoos), and that if their son or daughter is a bluejay, cardinal, dik dik, crested crane, white tailed deer or red tailed hawk, then I am their guy... if not, it might be better to hire somebody who has the professionalism, knowledge and equipment to do the job right... and not "just some guy or gal with a DSLR".

Weddings (except things like reception candids, which are given to the couple without charge) are the domain of the professional, IMHO. I can't for the life of me figure out why anybody would WANT to do weddings (other than the money), but that's me (can you tell how TOTALLY burned out on wedding photography I got over the 8 years I did it?).

Please feel free to share your thoughts.


----------



## hudsonp (Jul 10, 2007)

world class rant!
 :hail:


seriously though, i can understand where you are coming from - i would have no desire to do weddings either


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 10, 2007)

People believe that shooting weddings is where the money is. And there is also plenty of work (or so it would seem).
It is the one event in a couple's life where generally money is no object and having a 'professional' photographer to imortalise it is _de rigeur_.
From the wannabe photographer's point of view all you need is a camera and a suit and you are off. Set up a website and print a business card and before you know it the work starts coming in.
And you can just do them part-time at weekends whilst holding down a day job until you get established.
This has been the situation for over 30 years.
I remember talking to several long established wedding photographers in the late 70's who were moaning about the 'weekend amateur' killing their job. Because the amateurs were doing it as a hobby they were undercutting the pros in terms of price.
Doing weddings is also attractive because it makes you appear important. You get to carry cameras and boss people around. Real high visibility.
I have only ever shot two weddings. Both for friends and both as favours (no money changed hands). And I insisted they still got a 'pro' to do the traditional stuff.
I don't do weddings because I see it as being beneath me :mrgreen:

I will tell you a story.
When I was at College we used to get working photographers to come and show their work, talk to us and get drunk with us after.
Such was Bournemouth's prestige at the time that the top photographers of the day - not to mention Art directors - were queueing up to see us.
One day the Head of School told us that we had a treat in store and he introduced a local wedding photographer. This chap had won National awards and was considered good.
We respectfully listened to him, looked at his work and then asked intelligent questions.
Then he left.
When he had gone the Head of School turned gravely to us, looked at us all for a minute. Then said "well I'm sure having heard him speak and seen his work you have all realised why we asked Mr - - - - to come and talk to you. That's right - that is what will happen to you if you f*ck up your three years here!"
It sobbered us all up.
The guy was supposed to be one of the best in his field - and he was cr*p.

True story.


----------



## julie32 (Jul 10, 2007)

This is the best written post I've ever seen. I'm canceling my interview with the wedding studio.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 10, 2007)

I'm slowly trying to get into the wedding photography business.  Partially because I love shooting weddings...and yes, the money is there to be made.

I started taking my camera to family weddings.  My Wife's family is largely of Ukrainian heritage and are or have been farmers or raised on farms.  The results of that is that we get invited to around 3 to 6 weddings every year.  I started taking photos on my own, then was hired to take photos supplemental to the hired pro...and now I'm finally set up to be the primary.

While often very stressful for us and the clients, the Wedding Day is a special occasion...It _should be_ a once in a life time event.  I love that you have a bunch of people who are dressed up as good as they ever will be (which often comes with a pretty good feeling).  All the girls get their hair done and they look great.  The parents are usually beaming with pride etc.  In short, weddings have a great vibe and it's fun to be a part of that.

As for why the photographically illiterate think that an SLR automatically makes one a qualified wedding photographer...I don't know...that is sort of an anomaly.  All they see is someone holding a camera and pressing the button.  They can tell good photographs when they see them (well, some of them) but because they don't see the whole process (unless you shoot polaroid), they maybe don't put it together that it's a good photographer that makes good photos.  All they see is that (for the most part) a good photographer has a good camera and the photos looked good.  To them, it's just as easy to associate the good images with he camera as the photographer.  

It goes back to the old...."You have a nice camera, it must take great photos."...."Ya well, thanks for the great supper, you must have nice pots"


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 10, 2007)

> The guy was supposed to be one of the best in his field - and he was cr*p.


As with many businesses, quite often, to be successful...one must be a very good salesman and have adequate skill.  Having the best skills and knowledge is impressive to those on the inside...but not necessarily to the public.

So if someone ask what to do to be come a successful wedding photographer...I might tell them to go to business school.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 10, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> Why is it that so many photography newbies want to take pictures at weddings?
> 
> Why is it that so many people who see that you own a DSLR are shocked to find out that you DON'T take weddings?
> 
> Please feel free to share your thoughts.



Man, that is like asking a crying three year old why he stuck his hand in the fire?  I want to hear these thoughts.  I have never have, nor will I ever shoot a wedding.  I hate the things, and that's just as a guest.


----------



## S2K1 (Jul 10, 2007)

The problem is people demand A LOT from the photographer and people around here(Utah) give short notice and are young so they don't have much money. I in no way, shape, or form want to get into wedding photography. I think some people see it as a path to other forms of photography while others see the $$$.


----------



## Johnboy2978 (Jul 10, 2007)

I did my first one as a favor to a friend of my wife.  She had seen some of my previous work of portraits and just miscellaneous photography (still, landscapes, etc) and felt I would do a good job.  I protested for months that I didn't want to do it, b/c I was afraid of screwing it up.  We finally agreed that I would do the engagement pics and if they liked them and were pleased, I "may" do the wedding.  I ultimately agreed and really enjoyed it b/c of the challenge.  It was new, unpredictable (to some degree) and a real test of whether I could do this professionally in the future.  I was pleased w/ the results, and they were thrilled (it was ultimately free work, so why not be thrilled).

Anyway, those pics got passed around to friends, family, etc. and I had a second call.  I didn't have any connection to these people and I decided to charge a reasonable sum.  It didn't go as smooth due to wedding party being late for this and that, but again I was pleased w/ the results.  

I upped my price again and I now have another couple who I will be shooting in October and doing bridals, engagement and the wedding for.  At this point, I don't necessarily market myself.  The wedding jobs and other work I've done for hire have paid for all the equipment I have accumulated so if I get more work in the future that's great and if not that's fine too.  While it's a challenging and fast paced enviornment that keeps you on your toes, it's also a heckuva lot of work afterwards.  After this wedding in October, I will again up my price to be quite comparable to those who do it for a living.  If I get more customers, great, if not, that's fine too but I will at least be paid handsomely for it and make it worth my while. 

I think the $ is the largest motivating factor for most people.  If photography was price controlled and you only made $15/hr for shooting weddings, do you think many of us would be there?  No.  It's also a field where you can make a decent living w/o a degree/training/licensure in the field.  That makes it pretty appealing for folks like me who went to school and earned a master's degree in another field and now loathes what they do for their primary income and considers switching careers in the future.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 10, 2007)

I tell people that I want to shoot weddings just to make enough money to pay for all the cool photo gear that I want...but really it's more than that.  

On one hand, I would be a dream to actually make a living doing something I love as much as photography.  On the other hand, I may not love it as much is I'm relying on it to make my living.  For now, I'm fine with doing it on a part time basis...but maybe I'll change my tune if I can book 20 weddings or more in a year.


----------



## Johnboy2978 (Jul 10, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> On one hand, I would be a dream to actually make a living doing something I love as much as photography.  On the other hand, I may not love it as much is I'm relying on it to make my living.



I too would like to make my mortgage payments w/ my camera most days, but at the same time, I find that I much less enthused about editing wedding pics and seeing that same bride for the bazillionth time than I am when I am editing a nice shot of my daughter.  I tend to take much more time and and enjoy the time spent making her eyes sparkle than the eyes of a random bride, groom, etc.  I wonder if I would like it if I was dependent on that income.


----------



## ANDS! (Jul 10, 2007)

> Why is it so many people assume the simple ownership of a camera with an interchangeable lens qualifies somebody to take wedding pictures?


The same reason that people think a person who tells a funny joke should be a comedian, or that someone who makes a really good plate of pasta should be a chef, or that someone who wrote a cool story should be a screenwriter, or etc. etc. etc.

Its human nature to be impressed by thing, especially when our knowledge on the subject is very limited, and what we are seeing is actually quite amateur.



> This is the best written post I've ever seen. I'm canceling my interview with the wedding studio.


What the f---.  That boggles my mind.  With all due respect to the posts you're referencing, you're basing your decision on two inviduals who have had sour experiences in the field (one of whom Im assuming WAS good - so the quality wasn't an issue).

Why cancel the interview before even having a chance to see their work?  Mind boggling.


----------



## Stretch Armstrong (Jul 10, 2007)

I was thinking of becoming a divorce photographer. What do yall think?:lmao:


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 10, 2007)

Stretch Armstrong said:


> I was thinking of becoming a divorce photographer. What do yall think?:lmao:



Action photography, huh?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 10, 2007)

Stretch Armstrong said:


> I was thinking of becoming a divorce photographer. What do yall think?:lmao:



Capture the happy moment, you mean?
I think you might have something there.
Better yet, become a wedding photographer and include it in the after sales service.


----------



## hawee99 (Jul 10, 2007)

I haven't heard a complaint yet about Weddings than can compare to dealing with the general public in retail, coming into my store to yell at me and treat me like **** about their stupid cell phones for the past 2600 days. hahahahahaha stupid phones


----------



## table1349 (Jul 10, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> Action photography, huh?



No, more like crime scene photography.  :lmao::lmao:


----------



## newrmdmike (Jul 10, 2007)

i wanted to do wedding photography (in fact, the first dslr in my hands was photographing a wedding). . . so i did, and had good experiences and made good money . . . its paying for my 2 1/2 month vacation and all of my gear, gas etc.  BUT, the last one was a nightmare and i will certainly be charging more, and being more selective in my choice of clients if i choose to do more weddings in the future. They are always lots of work, and sometimes fun.  journalism is going to be my field of choice for now . . . and i'm soon going to be interviewed by a wire service


----------



## newrmdmike (Jul 10, 2007)

with good clients though, and good assistants weddings are a blast.

nothing like doing an engagement shoot, and getting payed, then taken to a steakhouse on their bill.  wedding rolls around and its awesome . . . they pretty much listen to me, and it turns out really well.

you can't knock weddings when they pan out like that.


----------



## RMThompson (Jul 10, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> I don't do weddings because I see it as being beneath me :mrgreen:
> 
> The guy was supposed to be one of the best in his field - and he was cr*p.


 
Those two statements just anger me. Even with the smiley attached, indicating your at least half-joking, why would any photographer say that weddings are "BENEATH THEM" Furthermore, why would a college waste money bringing in someone who was crap? Everyone in this college was supposed to become a world-class journalist or nature photographer? I call boloney on your "true story".

As one of the "newbies" who came to this forum talking about weddings, I think I can responsd to this. 

Before I do so I want to preface it with saying that you, Hertz, and the original poster are coming off as extremly arrogant, and quite honestly sound rather mean... but most amazing is that the OP did weddings. Not once, or even twice... but for EIGHT YEARS! 

If that is the case then why do you even need to ASK this question? YOU DID IT...what reasons did you have? I bet they are similar to mine. You make it sound like Wedding Photography was part of your "evolution" as a photographer, and again like Hertz, making it sound like wedding photographers are some lower class photog that doesn't deserve the time of day from truly classy photographer like yourself.

So to the question... why?

Money, surely is a motivating factor. Wedding photographers make money, it's no secret. It's a LOT of work if you're doing it right, and even the new breed of "shoot and cd" (no print) photographer has many hours invested in each wedding, and if they do things right, are paid for it decently. If you sell prints on top of it, your paid even more.

But there is MUCH more to it, or at least their should be. I like people, and I really get along with most people... I am friendly, and am not shy to get up and talk in front of a large crowd. I feel this helps me tackling large groups, like you see at weddings.

Moreover, wedding photography is one type of photography that MOST people enjoy. I mean, some people could give a poopie about seeing the most beautiful picture of a wolf lapping water from a still pond at sunset, but most people love their kids getting married and proudly post those pictures on the wall.  

So why do I shoot weddings, and hope to do it more in the future? Because I ENJOY IT... and you did it for 8 years and hated EVERY MOMENT OF IT? I really feel sorry for you... I can't imagine doing something I hated for 8 years just because the money is good. There are more important things in life buddy.

Also, I'd like to address this line in the OP's post:

"I knew what I was doing, a full set of lights, pro cameras and lenses (Hassy) with backups of everything, liability insurance, etc."

So here we are, always wanting to dispel the myths of photography and you are perpatuating the belief that EQUIPMENT = SKILL.... and yet you go on later on to argue that point with yourself. Silly. 

Personally, I'd rather have ONE GOOD photographer with a point and shoot then 3 equipment heavy ones that have no idea what they are doing. I did my wedding with a D50, a few lenses and one flash. Sure, more equipment could've come in handy, but I think the results were good... and it was me or the 10 disposables on the tables for this bride. I'm not trying to pretend that quality equipment is not important, but I think too much emphasis is placed on it, especially in wedding photography. Even with unlimited money my Wedding Kit would only consist of a decent body and bakcup, a wide angle, a fast Prime and a decent zoom, and two/three flashes. I don't see the need for much more. 

Anyway, go ahead and bash us... the "wedding photogs" consider us "beneath you", but remember, some of us ENJOY doing what we do.


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jul 10, 2007)

Sabbath999........having been a pro shooter for the last 40+ years (industrials and sports), I understand just where you are coming from.

I shoot horse events mostly for the challenge of it all.  Had several MOB's ask for a price for their daughters wedding (guaranteed to get the job). When I tell them "that I would rather slit my wrists and die a slow lingering death", they are quite surprised.

Amateurs, that with entry level DSLR's are all over the place and think that a few hundred dollars is a fortune, have destroyed a once viable market.  
It is the aggravation and haggling after that wears you down. 
You can never explain to the MOB or Bridezilla that her snaggle tooth and facial hair take her out of the fashion model catagory.

Ya' got my vote Bud.


----------



## RMThompson (Jul 10, 2007)

Jon said:


> Sabbath999........having been a pro shooter for the last 40+ years (industrials and sports), I understand just where you are coming from.
> 
> I shoot horse events mostly for the challenge of it all. Had several MOB's ask for a price for their daughters wedding (guaranteed to get the job). When I tell them "that I would rather slit my wrists and die a slow lingering death", they are quite surprised.
> 
> ...


 
You my friend, are the reason I don't come to this board as much as I used to.

Arrogance abounds. Why the HELL do you think you're so much better than I am? 

Disgusting.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 10, 2007)

Let's all play nice.


----------



## RMThompson (Jul 10, 2007)

Mike, It's hard to play nice when you're being attacked and ridiculed. I won't play nice when people are treating us, and you included, like we are beneath them for wanting to shoot weddings.

Ban me, boot me, whatever you want - but those people above are rude and arrogant and this board would be better without that attitude. I am all for discussion, but not ridicule.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 10, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> I will tell you a story.
> When I was at College we used to get working photographers to come and show their work, talk to us and get drunk with us after.
> Such was Bournemouth's prestige at the time that the top photographers of the day - not to mention Art directors - were queueing up to see us.
> One day the Head of School told us that we had a treat in store and he introduced a local wedding photographer. This chap had won National awards and was considered good.
> ...




No, I don't believe this.

I don't believe that the Head of any reputable school would be so disrespectful of another working photographer as to invite him there to present, ostensibly in good faith, and then hold him up as an example of failure. 

Secondly, whether I would want to do wedding photography, or could do it well, I think that wedding photographers can do as good work in their field as any of us can do in ours. 

They deserve respect if only because they are working hard and attempting to provide great memories for people on a happy day.


----------



## ANDS! (Jul 10, 2007)

Awesome FLICKR shots man. . .although its hard to concentrate on "form" and "function" and "blah blah blah" when those models are freakin smokin. . .0_0

This one and this and this are tops.

And +1000 on the comments regarding wedding photography.  If anything wedding photography offers an opportunity to capture some incredibly emotional shots, staged or otherwise.  Sadly, the comments seem to have disuaded one person from getting the service of someone who may well have been able to snap that same emotion, and do so expertly.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 10, 2007)

> Mike, It's hard to play nice when you're being attacked and ridiculed. I won't play nice when people are treating us, and you included, like we are beneath them for wanting to shoot weddings.



I think you are taking this much too personally.  I don't see all that much arrogance...and certainly not any ridicule.  

It's clear to me that shooting weddings can be a grind...and bad experiences will really wear on a photographer after a while.  If they don't want to shoot weddings anymore...because they don't want to deal with those types of clients...that's their choice.



> Amateurs, that with entry level DSLR's are all over the place and think that a few hundred dollars is a fortune, have destroyed a once viable market.


I agree with this sentiment.  There are far too many people shooting weddings with very little skill and for not nearly enough money.  I don't care about the level of camera they have...but typically it would indeed be an entry level DSLR (or high end P&S).

It's perfectly fair of them to undercut the market and charge a few hundred dollars...but that does put a strain on the working photographer who can't charge that little and stay in business.  

I don't plan on charging low prices...and I have to compete against people who do.  This is especially tough while trying to get started...I could go the cheap route...but I choose not to.

When you look at how much work it is to shoot weddings...and how much crap you have to take from the clients...it doesn't always pay all that well.  If a photographer can make just as much or money without all that...I can see where they would say that wedding photography is beneath them.  Maybe it's not the best choice of words...but it's nothing to blow a gasket over.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 10, 2007)

Stretch Armstrong said:


> I was thinking of becoming a divorce photographer. What do yall think?:lmao:



I once had one couple that was separated and on the road to divorce before I got the proof book back to them... we had a sitting so that I could present it to them about 2 weeks after the ceremony (ah, the days of film...) and nobody showed up. I called their house and found out that the bride had thrown the groom out.

Turns out, he had done the "one last time" thing with another woman at the bachelor's party... The moron did it at a party the brides brother was at. Sheesh.

The REALLY bad thing about it (as if that wasn't bad enough) was that the couple had lived together for about 4 years before tying the knot.

Luckily I had payment in advance for the service and the proofs, so although I didn't get any orders (obviously) I at least came out OK on it.


----------



## NJMAN (Jul 10, 2007)

Im not a paid pro, but I like shooting for practice at weddings at the present time.  There is no pressure on me, and therefore, I am not too worried when not all of them turn out.  I am not sure if I ever want to be a pro wedding photog.  I just enjoy getting better at my skill in general, which includes wedding photography.


----------



## Jeepnut28 (Jul 10, 2007)

funny thread.......the original poster sounds bitter and jaded, much like how I feel about marriage.


----------



## RMThompson (Jul 10, 2007)

ANDS! said:


> Awesome FLICKR shots man. . .although its hard to concentrate on "form" and "function" and "blah blah blah" when those models are freakin smokin. . .0_0
> 
> This one and this and this are tops.
> 
> And +1000 on the comments regarding wedding photography. If anything wedding photography offers an opportunity to capture some incredibly emotional shots, staged or otherwise. Sadly, the comments seem to have disuaded one person from getting the service of someone who may well have been able to snap that same emotion, and do so expertly.


 
Thanks man. You think it's hard you FOR you pay attention to form while looking at them, try shooting them. lol (JK, I do a lot of modeling photos, and I am 100% professional during them)

Not only have the comments possibly convinced her to take money out of the mouth of a photographer and his/her family, but they've showed off the arrogance of certain photographers. 

It's pictures man. I don't pretend that Wedding Photos are always going to be art, but damn, can't we try? 

I also love the notion that if anyone makes a decent living at something they must be whoring themselves out.

I left this board, and have been lurking mostly, for a few weeks ago because of attitudes like that. 

Keep my flickr bookmarked though, I am adding stuff nearly daily!


----------



## newrmdmike (Jul 10, 2007)

hahaha. jeepnut,  your funny.


weddings have been my most rewarding jobs, and my most stressful ones.  people who dog wedding photographers clearly never made it far in the industry, or haven't looked at those photographers work outside of weddings.  even more likely weddings didn't go that well for them.

there are wedding photogs out there creating stuff nobody here on this forum can come close too, and walk away a minimum of $10,000 richer.  (except for maybe jose villa who didn't stick around for long on here) i don't know why so many photogs that think of themselves as "artists" or the photojournalists don't like the idea of wedding photography . . . 1/2 bitter over all the money they never made or something.


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jul 10, 2007)

> Arrogance abounds. Why the HELL do you think you're so much better than I am?


 
I have no idea how you got that impression. The OP voiced his experiences and feelings and I, having much the same, agree with him. 

If you do not, then state your case rather than accuse another contributor. 
We do not know each other, but you seem to have formed a very quick and personal opinion of me, that just might not be too accurate.

You might go back over the entire thread to pick up the overall flavor of what the OP had in mind.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 10, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> No, I don't believe this.
> 
> I don't believe that the Head of any reputable school would be so disrespectful of another working photographer as to invite him there to present, ostensibly in good faith, and then hold him up as an example of failure.



What you believe is of no interest to me.
It happened.
And he was not held up as an example of failure. He was held up as an example of someone who stopped seeing Photography as the prime motivation of his job and instead had relegated it to second place.
We were there to learn to become Photographers, not businessmen. 

As for respect. Respecting someone for earning a living is one thing, but that does not mean I have to respect them for the end product they produce. For every 'good' wedding photographer there is at least one who has ruined someone's special day through sheer incompetence.
If people want to try and earn a living as wedding photographers then that is OK with me. Just don't tell me that I should see them as anything more than service providers.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 10, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> It happened.
> And he was not held up as an example of failure. He was held up as an example of someone who stopped seeing Photography as the prime motivation of his job and instead had relegated it to second place.
> We were there to learn to become Photographers, not businessmen.



Did he tell the photographer in advance that he was being invited as a 'bad example'?  

Nothing I would say be more more illuminating than your example about how real photographers have a higher calling than businessmen.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 10, 2007)

well, I did not read all the posts here, but I am happy that I do not do weddings, never thought it to be something I would want to do.

To me it always seemed very stressful and boring at the same time.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 10, 2007)

RMThompson said:


> Before I do so I want to preface it with saying that you, Hertz, and the original poster are coming off as extremly arrogant, and quite honestly sound rather mean... but most amazing is that the OP did weddings. Not once, or even twice... but for EIGHT YEARS!
> 
> If that is the case then why do you even need to ASK this question? YOU DID IT...what reasons did you have? I bet they are similar to mine. You make it sound like Wedding Photography was part of your "evolution" as a photographer



Well, I can't speak for Hertz, so I will just speak for myself. I am sorry if I sound arogant to you in my post. It was not my intent, but intent and execution are often totally different things.

I did wedding to pay the bills. I did weddings to put my wife through undergraduate and graduate school. When she got done, I quit too. 

As to why I asked the question, I did it strictly for the money, as I stated in my post. But... I know there are other reasons, and I wanted to hear them. 

You said the following:



RMThompson said:


> I like people, and I really get along with most people... I am friendly, and am not shy to get up and talk in front of a large crowd. I feel this helps me tackling large groups, like you see at weddings.
> 
> Moreover, wedding photography is one type of photography that MOST people enjoy. I mean, some people could give a poopie about seeing the most beautiful picture of a wolf lapping water from a still pond at sunset, but most people love their kids getting married and proudly post those pictures on the wall.
> 
> So why do I shoot weddings, and hope to do it more in the future? Because I ENJOY IT...



I thank you for posting that... WHY people do it, even with all of the difficulties that both of us know exists. If I had already known your answer, I wouldn't have asked, and I am glad to see your view is here to counterbalance mine. I never said I was right, I just gave my observations from my experience.

You also said:



RMThompson said:


> and you did it for 8 years and hated EVERY MOMENT OF IT? I really feel sorry for you... I can't imagine doing something I hated for 8 years just because the money is good. There are more important things in life buddy.



I was working 60 hours a week on my "day" job, and frankly I can't think of a single thing using my skill set that I could do to make as much money as I made shooting weddings in that amount of time... and on weekends. Sometimes you do what you can to make a living in this world. Wedding photography was something I was good at, I could make money at, and that didn't interfere with my "day" job which I dearly loved but which paid squat. I had a family to take care of, and that means that sometimes we have to do things we don't really want to do work-wise.

If someone wants to feel sorry for me about that, then that's fine. At least I wasn't clerking in a WalMart all weekend long, making a quarter of what I could earn by shooting a wedding.

There ARE more important things in life... like being able to keep my "day" job, where I was actually doing GOOD for the community that I lived in, and paying for my wife's education so that she could become the outstanding college professor that she is today. I did it eight years, because that is how long the goal took to achieve.



RMThompson said:


> Also, I'd like to address this line in the OP's post: "I knew what I was doing, a full set of lights, pro cameras and lenses (Hassy) with backups of everything, liability insurance, etc."
> 
> So here we are, always wanting to dispel the myths of photography and you are perpatuating the belief that EQUIPMENT = SKILL.... and yet you go on later on to argue that point with yourself. Silly.
> 
> Personally, I'd rather have ONE GOOD photographer with a point and shoot then 3 equipment heavy ones that have no idea what they are doing. I did my wedding with a D50, a few lenses and one flash. Sure, more equipment could've come in handy, but I think the results were good... and it was me or the 10 disposables on the tables for this bride. I'm not trying to pretend that quality equipment is not important, but I think too much emphasis is placed on it, especially in wedding photography. Even with unlimited money my Wedding Kit would only consist of a decent body and bakcup, a wide angle, a fast Prime and a decent zoom, and two/three flashes. I don't see the need for much more."



Respectfully, I was talking about 1983-92... that was a long time ago, and it was an entirely different world. The quality difference between somebody shooting Hassys with pro lenses and somebody shooting 35mm was astronomical. You don't get to crank your ISO up to 1600 with film... I shot 100 ISO film that wasn't even temperature stable (you had to keep the stuff refrigerated. I am not kidding).

I realize that pro equipment doesn't make a good photographer, but in the world of the 1980's it sure helped.

There were no point & shoots of the quality of the cameras today, so somebody showing up with a P&S in 1985 REALLY wouldn't have worked... and even if there were, 35mm film was not adequate to capture the images in a professional way. Yes, there were 35mm wedding photographers who just carried a single flash... but frankly, their work was pretty well across the board awful. The 1985 SLR was not wedding equipment, and I used an SLR at work every day so I am pretty darned sure I know what I am talking about on this one. There was no photoshop, you had to get it right the first time, in the camera... and you also had to shoot with crop lines in mind (different aspect ratios for 5x7, 8x10, 11x14) because you were going to have to mask the negatives (literally, with these funky little cardboard masks).

As far as the dispelling the myths of photography, you can go ahead and call me silly but leave me out of the royal "WE" you use there. I think that professional wedding photographers (i.e. people who get paid to take wedding pictures and who make some and/or all of their income from wedding photography) SHOULD have the best equipment, along with the best skills they can aquire. Equipment may not = skill, but skill plus the best equipment means better pictures for the client... and isn't that what the whole idea of wedding photography is all about? The simple fact is, by and large, better equipment in the hands of a skilled photographer will give you better pictures. The equipment doesn't make up for skill, but to me the obvious answer is to have BOTH.

And lastly, you wrote:



RMThompson said:


> Anyway, go ahead and bash us... the "wedding photogs" consider us "beneath you", but remember, some of us ENJOY doing what we do.



I am not bashing anybody. I just see a LOT of people who have the goal of taking wedding pictures, and I think that since wedding photography is such as small and extremely specialized niche, it is rather difficult (for me at least) to see why such a large number of people want to do it...

I have a lot of respect for the people who do wedding photography well, and who know what they are doing (people who act professional, who have back-up equipment and have back-up arrangements made with other photographers to fill in on an emergency basis, who carry the proper insurance, who use signed contracts with their customers, etc.).

Sorry if you felt like I was disrespecting professional wedding photographers... that certainly wasn't my intent.


----------



## RMThompson (Jul 10, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> What you believe is of no interest to me.
> It happened.
> And he was not held up as an example of failure. He was held up as an example of someone who stopped seeing Photography as the prime motivation of his job and instead had relegated it to second place.
> We were there to learn to become Photographers, not businessmen.
> ...


 
So, this college was teaching that businessmen were evil, and "making money" should be avoided?

For every GOOD art-taking photographer, there are a dozen pretentious, snobby, non-talented hacks who take themselves too seriously. Mind you, I'm not saying that's you, just saying they are out there.

What's wrong with service providers though? You are so elitist it drives me crazy. Is the guy who makes your french fries at McDonald's so beneath you? What about the guy who serves your martinis? What about your mechanic? Your dentist? 

All service providers. Something wrong with them? I just don't get that attitude in life. Get off your high horse, and take some good pictures (and then, maybe, post them?), and forget all about me... but remember, the guy who made that camera... he's just a service provider.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 10, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> Did he tell the photographer in advance that he was being invited as a 'bad example'?
> 
> Nothing I would say be more more illuminating than your example about how real photographers have a higher calling than businessmen.



As is usual, you fail to understand what is being said.
He was not being used as a 'bad' example of anything.
And I did not say that Photography was a 'higher calling' than being a business man. Only that if you are learning to be a photographer then that is what you learn to do.
In the same way that if you are doing Business Studies you are not expected to learn how to be a chef.

If you want to critique my posts then just say and I will put them in the appropriate forum. But then I will take that as being permission to award you the same treatment.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 10, 2007)

RMThompson said:


> Get off your high horse



Try taking your own advice.
I did not say there was anything wrong with service providers, nor even suggest it.
I would say that you might think a little before making personal attacks on people for things they haven't said. But I suspect you wouldn't listen.


----------



## danalec99 (Jul 10, 2007)

I do weddings because I enjoy and love doing them. I have a fresh, beautiful and an important (usually once in a lifetime event) story to cover. Everyone is gay (as in happy :mrgreen, dressed up and don't mind the huge fly on the wall. Money is just a small bonus. 

As opposed to the general assumption, money from wedding photography is nothing when compared to good commercial jobs, _unless_ you are catering to the high end market. 

Wedding photography for years have been the ugly step sister in the "pro" photography world; primarily due to the lack of creativity that wedding photogs employed. Thumb through your mom's or grandmother's wedding albums, book after book, the images were all predictable. f8, potato masher and the Shot List. Not that those are bad, but most were static. Cut off the heads from all the albums, most of the images looked the same.

This changed when people like Dennis Reggie, Joe Buissink, Yervant et all came to the scene. They rewrote the script and have raised the bar. In case anyone's interested, here are few of the known top players in the market. Check out their work. It is no longer the ugly sibling even though photogs in the other areas do not acknowledge it (then again, who cares? :mrgreen: )
A lot of photojournalists have jumped ship and are content with the new satisfying niche. Pulitzer winner Greg Gibson, Josef Isayo and Paul Gero comes to my mind quickly.  

As for the zillas. Who said you (as in the general 'you', not anyone in particular) have to deal with them? It's called Pre-Screening. With the first or two phone calls/emails (this is actually the last stage of the filtering process), I can gauge if she's gonna be a zilla material. If it is the case, we part ways. No feelings involved. It's just like they exercise their freedom in choosing a photographer they like. I _refuse_ to endure through a job. Period. It's only one life.
Of course, this is something that one shouldn't pursue if you are going to hate it. But that applies to any occupation.

And as for the newbies plaguing the market, if someone is hiring their cousin because s/he has the latest entry level toy in the market, then they are not my client in the first place. No worries here personally, at all, regarding the 'weekend warriors'. But most of them are directly affecting the photogs who cater to the low income bracket. Undercutting is not good when the 'pro' has to put food on the table, whereas the weekender has a steady job+perks, no matter what.

Dan


----------



## tempra (Jul 10, 2007)

What a cracking thread! 

carry on...


----------



## jstuedle (Jul 10, 2007)

Well, I have had this little rant here in the recent past. Not that I begrudge any newbi for shooting weddings, but I immensely dislike the whole scene of wedding photography. Like I said, I have posted my little rant already and don't see the need to repeat it. But I recently attended a local club meeting and ran into a couple that work together at a engineering firm. They discovered they both had recently purchased DSLR's, one a XTi and the other a D200. The young man with the 200 didn't know anything about aperture and shutter speeds, didn't know why he would ever change ISO. The young lady could operate the camera as she had "studied the manual for weeks" but neither really understood comp. They wanted to get into the business because "If So-and-So photography could charge $1000,00 for the crap they put out, I know we can do better". I just smiled and thought to myself "Go and knock yourself out honey". Anyway, if you can make money in that segment of the market and not go bonkers, more power to ya. 
     As an aside, I'm glad I'm not the loan stranger here when it comes to my feelings about weddings. And this thread has been throughly entertaining, at least to my feeble mind. It's memories of the feuds and fights, in laws and outlaws that have kept Cathy and I together and married for 33 years. So for all you guys and gals who want into that mad-house, have fun and I hope you do very well. I suspect that in 5 or 10 years, if you are real good at what you do and stay into photography, we will see a lot of you in a similar thread on a forum somewhere. 
    And with respect to the PM I recently received, looks like it's more than just three of us.


----------



## Stretch Armstrong (Jul 10, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> I once had one couple that was separated and on the road to divorce before I got the proof book back to them... we had a sitting so that I could present it to them about 2 weeks after the ceremony (ah, the days of film...) and nobody showed up. I called their house and found out that the bride had thrown the groom out.
> 
> Turns out, he had done the "one last time" thing with another woman at the bachelor's party... The moron did it at a party the brides brother was at. Sheesh.
> 
> ...



So what you are saying is that my original idea isn't original at all, eh? And, I suppose you feel that divorce photography is beneath you too? Gawd, Sabbath you are so bitter and jaded! :hug::

I guess I will go back to my other idea of Bris Milah photography. I hear the tips are good.:lmao:


----------



## Leigh (Jul 10, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> =
> 
> 
> I agree with this sentiment. There are far too many people shooting weddings with very little skill and for not nearly enough money. I don't care about the level of camera they have...but typically it would indeed be an entry level DSLR (or high end P&S).
> ...




I believe you get what you pay for.

Ive got 2 weddings planned for next year. I've never shot a wedding in my entire life, I have explained this to both of the brides yet they still want me to do it. One of them is my cousin and one of them is a girl i went to school with. I explained to them both that i will do the shots but i wont charge them as I obvioulsy would be blagging my way through the whole day. The girl I went to school with has still insisted on paying me for the day and so we agreed on £150.

I thrive on stress and I work so much better under pressure so I'm really looking forward to both of them.

If they want drop dead gorgeous stunning pieces of artwork then obvioulsy, that would come at a price unfortunately thats not something I can give them and I dont try to pretend that I can.

Basically, I believe that whoevers wedding it is, they will only get the standard of photography that they are willing to pay for.

If you are happy to do the shots for free - great!  Do it!!
but on the otherhand, If you believe you could charge £1000 for a days work, and you find customers willing to pay it, then even better.


DO WHAT YOU LOVE, AND LOVE WHAT YOU DO!!!!!!!

I work in a contact center on a repair line for a domestic aplliance company. All day long  I take abuse from people demanding and engineer to fix their dishwashers. I really want to tell them to stop being so effin lazy and wash up, its not going to kill them and it'll get them off their backside for 20mins. But I cant say that cos i'd lose my job
so i sit there
with my headset on
and take abuse as tho its my fault
and people get really vicious and hurtful and sometimes very personal. 
They dont understand that things could be worse and their are more important things in life than the fact they might actually have to wash up for a week.

I thought that was pathetic and yet here we all are arguing the toss over who should shoot weddings, why and for how much.

If you wanna do it - do it! if you dont, then dont!
but for pitys sake lets just get on with what we wanna do and leave everyone else to do the same. What does it matter who shoots what? As long as we're all happy shooting what we shoot, our clients are happy with the results and we're not doing anyone any harm

Thanks for allowing me to rant !!


----------



## RMThompson (Jul 10, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> As is usual, you fail to understand what is being said.
> He was not being used as a 'bad' example of anything.
> And I did not say that Photography was a 'higher calling' than being a business man. Only that if you are learning to be a photographer then that is what you learn to do.
> In the same way that if you are doing Business Studies you are not expected to learn how to be a chef.
> ...


 



Hertz van Rental said:


> Try taking your own advice.
> I did not say there was anything wrong with service providers, nor even suggest it.
> I would say that you might think a little before making personal attacks on people for things they haven't said. But I suspect you wouldn't listen.


 

You said "The guy was supposed to be one of the best in his field - and he was cr*p."

To me, that insinuates that one of the best wedding photogs is crap. 

Furthemore, you then said that even if he does his job well he is nothing more than a service provider. Again, arrogance rears it's ugly head.


----------



## RMThompson (Jul 10, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> Sorry if you felt like I was disrespecting professional wedding photographers... that certainly wasn't my intent.


 
I respect your opinion and accept your apology. I do understand where you are coming from, and I suspect you know where I am now as well!


----------



## hawee99 (Jul 10, 2007)

From what I can tell, the original question was why do so many newbies want to shoot weddings?  I am a newbie and I want to shoot Weddings really bad.  But I don't have a huge interest in Weddings at all.  However, I feel it will give me a great opportunity to learn my camera and learn about all the equipment.  And there are alot of Weddings around so I think that is why it catches the immediate eyes of a newbie.  There a tons of people I know and their friends are always getting married.  What a good opportunity for me to practice with my camera.  I will do my absolute best to make their pictures what they expect.  And it's nice to get instant feedback from the people.  Arguing about it is stupid if you ask me.  It does suck to have someone "newbies", take away business of the "pros",  but as Big Mike said, that's perfectly fair.  I guess the pros were newbies once to. Imagine that. I would rather shoot Nature BY FAR.  but for know I'll take what I can get.  What a funny post to read. ahahahahahahahaha  :hug::


----------



## JIP (Jul 10, 2007)

Wow!!! I don't even know what to answer.  Personally I enjoy shooting weddings for many reasons.  Also as some people here are implying it does take alot of skill to shoot a wedding _properly _and that is the keyword.  I think alot of noobs want to shoot weddings for alot of reasons one of wich I think is they think it is easy money and is not a challenge and any of them that actually do them change their mind after the first one.  Oh yeah and Hertz I'm not sure what great artistic form of high art photography you do right now and I am sure what I am about to say does not apply to you so don't take this personally but, when I was in school I knew alot of people who had the same attitude as you.  They thought wedding photography (even though they never did it) was "beneath them" and all I can say is there is no lack for laborers where I live.  I do think this thread is getting very condescending to alot of peple I'm not sure why you (you know who I mean) can't let peole enjoy what they do.  I know we all can't all be well respected artists with photography but some of us do take pride in and enjoy wedding photography and I don't think it's right to dis-respect peope for what they do.  I guess I'm rambling a little here but my head is spinning after reading this thread and I really can't get all my thoughts straight.


----------



## smyth (Jul 10, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Sorry, I disagree. If you are learning to be a photographer, as your job, and by job I mean bring in money, you'd better have at least some business knowledge... how else are you going to make money? Your work is'nt going to sell itself.


----------



## craig (Jul 11, 2007)

I am not surprised that this thread runs a little on the vicious side. We seem to be forgetting that photography is a beautiful art form. If you got burned out on weddings; so be it. I have been there (not weddings) and can relate hours of stories. Took me three years of suffering before I understood that my commercial work is going to take 110%. Never put down a particular aspect of photography.

Love & Bass


----------



## crownlaurel (Jul 11, 2007)

I have a question for those of you who actually did do wedding photography.  I'm just curious... How many years of experience did you have before you shot your first wedding?  Did you have all high end equipment before your first wedding?  If so how long did it take to pay it off?  What formal photography training did you have before your first wedding?

No one in my immediate (and much of my extended) family had a professional photographer at our weddings.  If it hadn't been for my aunt and my step grandmother, neither of whom had anything more than a 35mm film camera (digital was not even heard of then by most of us), I wouldn't have had pictures of my wedding.  I gave the same favor to my dad and a young couple in our church who had to cancel all their  "big wedding" dreams and get married in a little country church with puke green carpet.  I had digital so I got to take hundreds of photos and I got to get better angles and when I handed the brides their disks of 4X6 crops, they were so happy.  Neither of them was going to hire a photographer.  My point and shoot and lack of experience didn't get in anyone's way and my price didn't beat any competition.  I did it for free and it made the difference between no pictures and set of memories.  It wasn't a choice between the $1500 base package of someone with the big guns or my free pictures...if they'd had the money to pay for the big guns, I wouldn't have even offered.

For years I have asked "real photographers" questions and gotten brushed off.  Not one has has offered any advice or tips.  One wanted my children to model for him but wasn't willing to show me the ropes.  I asked another about his camera and got a snotty answer.  And to my knowledge, none of those had formal photography training.  

Now, as a "newbie with an entry level dSLR" I'd love to go into wedding photography...but I never said I wanted to do it with my entry level dSLR and I never said I was applying for my tax ID tomorrow.  I think sometimes when a seasoned photographer hears "I want to go into that" they automatically assume you mean "right now."  That's not always true.  In my case it may never be true.  I get inquiries for taking people's kids' pictures and so far I haven't accepted any.  They don't ask because I have a "big camera." (which I don't...I have the smallest dSLR I've seen, but they asked long before I got it).  They ask because they've seen my pictures of baptisms taken from behind the baptistry and they've seen my pictures of my kids and of the free weddings I did.  What they don't see is that it takes me hundreds of pictures to get one or two I'm satisfied with.  Until that number is more on my side (and it is going to require not only more experience but better equipment as well), I have no plans for setting up shop...but I'd still "love" to do it.

I'd also love to go sky diving, but you don't see me out renting a plane and buying my parachute just yet...because you see I am petrified of heights. So although I'd love to do it, it's not in my immediate future.


----------



## ERS1121 (Jul 11, 2007)

I have read a lot of complaints about noobs are coming in and under-cutting the pros prices, face it guys that is a part of any business. And like it or not, there is a big demand for what Ill call budget wedding photography. 
            Unlike in days past, today not every couple is able or even willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a big wedding. (I was a guest at one this past weekend, they didnt get much for 12,000.00) I dont do a lot of weddings, but most of them are for those in the low budget category. I do believe that no matter what you financial situation every couple deserves quality photos of their big day. 
            For those that I do shoot, I meet with the couple at least twice to see exactly what they want. And to get a good feel for their personalities. I consider myself a good judge of people, and I try to deal with people not likely to suffer a meltdown under the wedding day stress. So far Ive been lucky.
            I usually do the ceremony and the formal shots, and then Uncles Tom, Dick and Harry with their shiny new DSLs handle the reception. Some couples dont even want wedding albums anymore, they want the images on a disc then they upload them to a digital picture frame, creating a permanent slide show. 
             I have had couples ask about doing a big wedding, and they had the money to pay for it too, those I do refer off to the full-time pros. I do know my limits, its not about my ability, or about the money, Im pretty sure that I could do it, am I positive that I could give every detail the attention it deserves, no! 
            Like it or not I think that the low budget work is here to stay, and will probably be a growing trend. I also believe that there is more that enough work out there for everyone, some just may have to work a bit harder to get it.


----------



## jstuedle (Jul 11, 2007)

smyth said:


> Sorry, I disagree. If you are learning to be a photographer, as your job, and by job I mean bring in money, you'd better have at least some business knowledge... how else are you going to make money? Your work is'nt going to sell itself.



I am a firm believer that if you are n school studying photography, you also should study Business Management. I really don't think it would hurt to make that your major if you really have a fire in your belly for photography. That fire will carry you through, the management degree will enable you to be profitable at it.


----------



## holga girl (Jul 11, 2007)

i will say this... 

i enjoy shooting weddings. yes, it is a long day, the people are not always in the best of moods, nothing goes as planned, and it requires a lot of work on my part. but, it is also fun. you get to meet a wide variety of people, , learn about different cultures, and share in one of the most important days of their lives. i think that is neat.

as far as weddings being beneath you... i have this to say.... i have done portrait, studio, fine art, product and nature photography in addition to weddings. of these, weddings have the most difficult shooting conditions, the largest time crunch, & the absolute that there is no 'do over'. 

if anything, i think it takes a special kind of person to work under that sort of pressure, in those conditions, for clients that have the highest of expectations, and still yeild fabulous results. it takes skill.

that being said, lets go back to the OP's origional question. "why are so many newbies attracted to wedding photography?" who knows?...the money, the feeling of playing an important role in someones life?

i will tell you why i chose wedding photography when i started 6 years ago... because it was what i saw as an easy medium to break into. i didn't know where to start with my photography on a professional level. so, i started assisting for wedding photographers. it was that simple. if i hated it, i would have moved on, but i like it, and i plan to do it for sometime now.

so hopefully that helps answer why newbies want to do weddings. those of you who shoot weddings, why did you start? be honest. i think the true question of this post was not to belittle the wedding photographer, but to find out why one of the most difficult jobs a photographer can take on seems to have the most appeal.


----------



## newrmdmike (Jul 11, 2007)

if hertz is questioning the business part of photography then he must not make much money with it(or not be in business for himself or a small co).  ask any full time pro that does weddings, sports, or ANYTHING, especially the freelance guys and they will tell you when they are home they are on the phone.  or are working on arranging their next work, marketing themselves etc.

while some work falls into your lap you certainly can't rely on that for your income.


there are business men in photography, and their are photographers in business.  either way it takes both to be successful


----------



## jstuedle (Jul 11, 2007)

RE: Crown and Ed,
     I don't think we "retired" pro wedding shooters are complaining about the family member who shoots a relatives wedding on the cheap. Or the startup that thinks he can offer a reasonable priced wedding on CD. Those are facts of the business these days. I believe the voices heard are in awe of the number of "Gee I just got a camera, now I too can become a millionaire." To do a wedding right, it's more than show up, shoot for an hour, had them a CD and collect $10,000.00. It boggles the mind the number of get rich quickies out there that see dollar signs when the pick up that brand new and shiny wal-mart special. But, my complaints revolved around the drudgery I felt doing them. The abuse I endured as a young professional in a ritzy neighborhood being treated as a doormat was unbelievable. If I were to go into it today I would have more experience dealing with panicking brides and abusive mothers. And I would choose a different market. Not an upscale neighborhood of jewelers, lawyers and doctors that felt they did you a favor by allowing you to attend a wedding of there little princess. It was entertaining after being treated like a servant, meeting the family to view the proofs. Payback time. I think that was already mentioned in another thread. But, been there, done that. Bought the tee shirt and ain't go'in back.  I now enjoy my craft, I don't wish to "work" it ever again.


----------



## RMThompson (Jul 11, 2007)

After calming down a bit I thought I would feel different, but I don't. I feel like several people were talking down to us wedding photographers, and especially us "Budget Wedding Photographers."

Listen, I am in the same boat as many people. I never asked to get started professionally doing photography at all. Someone asked me to do pictures for her, to make a calendar for her boyfriend. I did, with my Canon A610 PNS, I shared the shots, and next thing I new I was being inudated with requests from friends and family and friends of friends... etc. That's when I came to the forum. I learned SO much from you guys, and bought my own entry level DSLR, a Nikon D50, and I shoot more now then ever. I set up an account on Model Mayhem, and I get requests to shoot all the time. I don't have fancy equipment, and I know I still have stuff to learn, but i don't charge a great amount either, just enough to cover my time. Most model shots are like 50 - 75 dollars, and the first wedding I did was under $500. 

Sunday I am meeting with a Bride-To-Be who happens to be a model I worked with in the past as well, she contacted me and asked my rates. She is having a small ceremony, and she asked if I could do it, since they couldn't afford even $1000 for the smallest package from a "big-time" pro.

It leads me to believe that there is a HUGE call for a middle range, budget wedding/event photographer. Not everyone HAS the 2k + needed for a decent wedding photog, and for many people, including me when i got married, this means no professional shots.

So what if, and this is STILL a What If right now, someone like me, still learning their craft, without the huge overhead, can offer some decent shots at a decent price? What's WRONG with that? It allows me to build my portfolio, they get their money's worth of photos, and everyone is happy. 

The arrogance against this practice is what has kept me away from here for awhile. It seems though, from the support on the last 5 or so posters, that I am not alone and that's good.

I am NOT pretending that equipment/experience are not a requirement for wedding photography, but people here over-blow what you need. When iw as told what I would need, it was like a D200, a backup D200, 5 lenses minimum, 3 flashses, 10gigs of space, blah blah blah... and the simple fact is you DON'T need all that. Would it be NICE to have all that, yes, but you DON'T need it. Really.


----------



## Tyson (Jul 11, 2007)

I have been away for a few weeks but I have to say I am sorry to have missed this ongoing saga! 

WOW It makes me want to get married again!! Any volunteers?


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 11, 2007)

newrmdmike said:


> ask any full time pro that does weddings, sports, or ANYTHING,...



I sometimes joke that I'll take ANYTHING that comes along...  I'd even paint your garage.  But seriously....




newrmdmike said:


> there are business men in photography, and their are photographers in business.  either way it takes both to be successful



Good point, Mike.  Back in the day when I was active in the PPA, I saw just as many Masters go out of business just as quickly as rookies.

As for the original question, so many start-ups want to do weddings for the same reason as some other businesses like...  oh...  carpet layers, and painters.  The start-up cost is low and you don't need a building.  I did my first wedding with a 35mm, one lens, and flash bulbs.  I didn't need a studio.  I loved making photographs so much it seemed like free money.

But Hertz is right...  the vast majority of wedding photography is no more than providing a service.  It's simply a matter of deciding if you agree to provide that service.  Some of us choose to, and some of us don't.  And those of us that do....  some enjoy it, others tolerate it.

Pete


----------



## RMThompson (Jul 11, 2007)

In the writing field, one of my other jobs, it's said "Teach a writer about business and soon he quits writing"... it's true, writers usually have not a CLUE about selling themselves, and I would suspect a lot of Photogs are the same way. So much time is focused on making art, people don't know how to market it!

Truth is, call me a service person, a hack, whatever, I enjoy making money from taking pics. Like Christie says... it almost seems like free money.

(remembers the late bride who cut herself, the arrogant groomsmen who cursed me before I arrived, the officiate in the see through dress, the family member who followed me and took every pic I did and the wedding on the beach with people in their bathing suits in the background of every shot.)

Almost.


----------



## killcrazy (Jul 11, 2007)

Im 21. and live in the North East of the UK. 
Around here, a basic package for a wedding costs around £700. thats $1400 to you kids accross the pond. 

£700 for photographs. 
To a "pro" photographer, that might be pennies, for all the work that goes into it. All the equipment they need, the stress, the endless post processing, travel expenses. etc etc. and everything else iv missed out. 

But to a couple, who are arround my age, or even an older couple! who are earning about £600-£800 a month. and who are probably getting a morgage around the same time they wed. 
To a couple around this age, who know NOTHING about photography, 
To a couple who dont know the effort that goes into creating a fantastic wedding album, 

do you think that they can always justify spending a WHOLE MONTHS WAGES on a few "snapshots?" 
some, maybe. some might take the attitude "its the only ever time im getting married so lets do it properly" 
some might think "daddies paying for it, so lets just get the most expensive..." 

But some people might not be able to afford £700, for a basic photoshoot.
when they take into account the dress, the other outfits, the cars, the venue, the reception etc etc etc. 

So what will they do? they'll turn to that friend of a friend of a friend who was pretty handy with a camera. And give dad the camcorder, but make sure he doesnt get too drunk.... 

As a video editor, i get pretty angry when i see people using the free software that comes with an apple mac, or a PC to make a DVD and they think they are a pro.. cos they arent. Iv spent 3 years at uni learning how to shoot film, and edit it properly. and im nowhere near what i would call a professional. 
But at the end of the day, 90% of wedding videos are usually shot by either the best man or the father of the bride, and they are usually using a cr*p camcorder, and most likely blind drunk. But that is the "accepted" version of a wedding video these days. 

So if that's the accepted version of a wedding video, and everyone does it. why not get a friend to shoot the pictures? that friend who has a fancy camera, who knows how to use it? you know the one, who took those amazing pictures of your dads mates band? and got a loverly shot of ur cousins christening? 
Seems like a good idea to me! give him 150 notes, and hes sweet. and "we" save £550! spot on.... 

This is how people think. Whether you "professionals" like it or not. When it comes down to it, photographers are on the list of things to book for a wedding, but they are FFFAAAARRRRR from the top in all the ones iv been involved with. 
And at the end of the day, it comes down to MONEY. 

Joe bloggs, out on the street might be able to tell the difference between a really good photograph, and a really bad one, but they might not be able to spot the difference between a meadeocre shot and a pretty good one... 
If a bride (and groom) are happy in their decision to use a budget photographer, or a friend, or a relative to capture their special day. Then who are you to argue? 
You might look at a weding album shot by a n00b, and think its cr*p. 
But the bride might get it out every so often and see herself on the happiest day of her life, in what you might call an average shot. and she might cry cos shes remembering the day. 
not the fact that the best man's elbow was cut off of the end of the picture and theres a little too much sky in it... 

I doubt very much that a "pro" protographer might think about any of this as they walk past a church and see an obvious n00b taking photos of the wedding. 
But think about it from your customers point of view. Everyone is different. So to all these "pro" photographers, out there who hate the n00bs for stealing their business.... it probably wasnt ever going to be your business anyway. and that "n00b" probably doesnt consider themselves a photographer, they are in 99% of cases going to be a friend or relative doing the couple a favour.


----------



## JIP (Jul 11, 2007)

To address the question of why so many noobs want to get into wedding photography.  I think alot of people like to take pictures at weddings for the same reasons people like to shoot flowers.  There are so many opportunities for beautiful images.  Everyone is dressed in their best clothes and the B+G are looking (for the most part) as good as they will ever look in their lives.  Their are great locations, great flowers and, everyone (almost) is willing to get their picture taken.  Another thing I think is alot of wannabee gearheads see the wedding photographer with their big cameras and big lenses taking command of the wedding while you are forced to sit where you are told, eat when yo are told and, even refrain from dancing till you are told to do so.


----------



## ERS1121 (Jul 11, 2007)

Hey RMThompson,
Don't get me wrong, I was not putting down "the budget wedding photographer", thats pretty much the same group i'm in. I do not walk into a wedding with 10,000.00 worth of digital equipment hanging around my neck. I can't afford all of that fancy stuff, I only have 1 DSLR, definately not high end, but not junk either. 
Actually unless there is a specific call for digital I usually carry 2 Canon F-1's,(about 25 years old),2 Sunpak flashes, and pardon my use of nasty four letter words(film). 
When I retire from my full time job in 4 years I would love to go out and 2 Canon 5D's, and all of the nifty little toys to go with them. But whatever happens well....thats in the future.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 11, 2007)

> I am NOT pretending that equipment/experience are not a requirement for wedding photography, but people here over-blow what you need. When iw as told what I would need, it was like a D200, a backup D200, 5 lenses minimum, 3 flashses, 10gigs of space, blah blah blah... and the simple fact is you DON'T need all that. Would it be NICE to have all that, yes, but you DON'T need it. Really.



You don't really need to wear seat belts either.  You don't really need to have insurance on your house.  You don't really need at that...but when the sh!t hits the fan...saying sorry just isn't good enough.

I'm not saying that it's an absolute requirement to have the best gear and backups for everything...but that's the difference between a real pro and someone who is doing it 'just because'.


----------



## Southerngal (Jul 11, 2007)

> As far as the dispelling the myths of photography, you can go ahead and call me silly but leave me out of the royal "WE" you use there. I think that professional wedding photographers (i.e. people who get paid to take wedding pictures and who make some and/or all of their income from wedding photography) SHOULD have the best equipment, along with the best skills they can acquire. Equipment may not = skill, but skill plus the best equipment means better pictures for the client... and isn't that what the whole idea of wedding photography is all about? The simple fact is, by and large, better equipment in the hands of a skilled photographer will give you better pictures. The equipment doesn't make up for skill, but to me the obvious answer is to have BOTH.



I agree w/you that professional photographers should have the best equipment, but the amateurs have to start somewhere.  If you shoot pics @ a wedding, well anywhere, using what you have and you don't hide the fact that you are still learning and need more equipment, I dont see the harm in it.  I have taken pics for years and decided that I really love doing it and that I wanted to give it a shot.  I have had several people interested in my taking pics for them.  I dont lie to them....I dont claim to be the best....I am up front and honest about what I have and about the quality that I can provide them.  I dont right now and would never charge what a so called PROFESSIONAL would charge, but for a perfect stranger, I wouldnt do it for free.  They know what they are asking for and what they will potential receive and my time and effort, at this point, shouldnt be completely free no matter what type of equipment I have.  You can have the best equipment, years of schooling, sharp technical skills and still no eye for it.



> I am not bashing anybody. I just see a LOT of people who have the goal of taking wedding pictures, and I think that since wedding photography is such as small and extremely specialized niche, it is rather difficult (for me at least) to see why such a large number of people want to do it...



I am a NEWBIE, and my goal isnt to take only weddings.  I would love to be able to do them well.  I see weddings as one of the best learning experiences....all the pressure, the time, etc.  Everyone has to start somewhere......you did.  Im sure your first wedding pics werent perfect, and if you claim they were, well .



> I have a lot of respect for the people who do wedding photography well, and who know what they are doing (people who act professional, who have back-up equipment and have back-up arrangements made with other photographers to fill in on an emergency basis, who carry the proper insurance, who use signed contracts with their customers, etc.).



In the end it is up to the BG and what they want.  If the amateur is asked to do a wedding by a BG that have seen his/her work and that knows his/her experience than there is no harm.  I think that these days, at least in my area, people are hiring more for the eye and creative side....rather than your trunk load of equipment and crew of professionals.

I hope to one day be a great photographer, and I feel that I will be.  I will take the jobs that I am ASKED to do, if I feel that I can do the job well.  I will never lead someone to believe that I am something I not.  And I will defend myself as an amateur any day of the week.


----------



## tempra (Jul 11, 2007)

This reminds me of when web design and simple html coding was a highly paid job, Macromedia brought out dreamweaver, kids got hold of cracked copies and lo and behold, they were web developers.

Nowadays, few of them do it - I used to do it in my spare time, but it was also part of my day job and I built a nice little portfolio with lots of repeat business. What I didn't do was charge bedroom office prices as if I was doing it in my spare time, I treated it like overtime, so charged a decent rate for it.

My day job changed and I started working more remotely, so had to call time on most of the development work that I was doing for myself however if I ever wanted to kick it off again, I still have the network of people that I used to use back then - they were the ones doing it for real, and the bulk of them are still in the business and are pretty successful with it. 

The bedroom warriors have long since moved on as they saw the coder bubble burst and realised that anything more than HTML started to get a bit complicated even with dreamweaver.

I think the same thing is happening with photography - it used to happen in the past with the film crew, but the onward march of digital and the resurgence in the SLR market is driving it on.

As has been said, there's a market for all levels of experience and if people feel they are being undercut, then are they the right clients or are you aiming at the right market? I often got people asking me if I could update their site for them as the kid who wrote it has gone off to university / college / jail often they were shocked that to redo a site and get it working properly was about 4 times more than they had paid for it in the first place till I pointed out that what they had bought was a broken site and no backup.

A few of the kids though carried on, learned more coding languages and became more than proficient in what they were doing and are now sought after developers in their own right and can run rings round the professionals from ten years ago (me included) 

I think the same will be true of photography, weekend warriors will always be there because there is a market for them,  most of them will do it for a while, get bored and move on, some of them will ruin peoples days - you pays your money you takes your chance! - and some of them will turn into the best money can buy.

Don't knock them for having a go, don't knock them for undercutting you, make your own name, make your choice of direction, define your market, and do whatever it is that you want to do - be a weekend warrior if you like, nobodies business but yours.

I think I'll stop now, I was just going to say 'when I were a lad, all this were fields....'


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 11, 2007)

And that road over there was...

Great post Tempra!

Also...  If anyone has the least concern for what others think of them just remember:  If they were half the man or woman that you are then they would only be half a man or woman.  

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## NJMAN (Jul 11, 2007)

tempra said:


> This reminds me of when web design and simple html coding was a highly paid job, Macromedia brought out dreamweaver, kids got hold of cracked copies and lo and behold, they were web developers.
> 
> Nowadays, few of them do it - I used to do it in my spare time, but it was also part of my day job and I built a nice little portfolio with lots of repeat business. What I didn't do was charge bedroom office prices as if I was doing it in my spare time, I treated it like overtime, so charged a decent rate for it.
> 
> ...


 
Very well said Tempra!  

I agree.  The ones who are truly PASSIONATE, TALENTED, AND TENACIOUS will survive and find a way to thrive.


----------



## glaston (Jul 11, 2007)

I think it's all due to the appearance of the camera. Most people own little point and shoot cameras, and most peoples photos from said cameras look pretty much the same.
No composition, bad lighting(too light or too dark) washed out whites from using the camera with it's default settings, no color correction or post for the most part (maybe some redeye removal), improper ISO setting and no depth of field.
So the average person sees someone with an SLR and they assume that he's a reasonably experienced photographer because he owns an expensive camera that they themselves wouldn't even know how to operate.
They know enough to know that an SLR takes better photos than a consumer point and shoot. Which is after all true to an extent. Most DSLR's have a higher Megapixel count, and the lenses are usually high quality which results in a better image even in the hands of someone with no experience.

Nowadays many people also figure that if you own a camera like that you probably know how to use Photoshop well.
Which the average person thinks is amazingly complex.

Advertising and symbolism plays a huge role here also. Just look at the logo for the PhotoForum. It's an SLR!
This symbolism is engraved into peoples minds, and just the image of an SLR means 'photographer'.

As to weddings, it seems that alot of people view that as a right of passage, or an early stepping stone to becoming a pro.
Maybe even something that future employers or clients are gonna expect to see in your portfolio.


----------



## JIP (Jul 11, 2007)

glaston said:


> As to weddings, it seems that alot of people view that as a right of passage, or an early stepping stone to becoming a pro.
> Maybe even something that future employers or clients are gonna expect to see in your portfolio.


A stepping stone to what exactly?!?!??!!?! There are plenty of people out there who do just fine with only wedding photography.  I'm not sure what you do with photography but when you talk about "future employers" I'm not sure who you are talking about.  Most photographers who do well work for noone but themselves there really are not too many "employers in the traditional sense.


----------



## crownlaurel (Jul 11, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> And that road over there was...
> 
> Great post Tempra!
> 
> ...


 

:lmao:   :hail:  You made me laugh out loud.


----------



## Chas (Jul 11, 2007)

tempra said:


> I think the same will be true of photography, weekend warriors will always be there because there is a market for them, most of them will do it for a while, get bored and move on, some of them will ruin peoples days - you pays your money you takes your chance! - and some of them will turn into the best money can buy.
> 
> Don't knock them for having a go, don't knock them for undercutting you, make your own name, make your choice of direction, define your market, and do whatever it is that you want to do - be a weekend warrior if you like, nobodies business but yours.
> 
> I think I'll stop now, I was just going to say 'when I were a lad, all this were fields....'


Very sage advice if I may say. Who knows, I might do a bit of Weekend Warrior'ing myself some day (in semi-retirement?). But it isn't fair, you've got the advantage of a Hook Norton 4X when the situation gets really tough ..... and I'm not talking zoom range here folks 

Oh for a proper pint in a proper pub (like the _Lamb and Flag_) .... but you speak certain truths in your splendid post Sir - _sub specia aeternis_ or whatever. 

Now when I were a lad, aarrrr, thar was forest on tham thar farms .....


----------



## glaston (Jul 11, 2007)

> A stepping stone to what exactly?!?!??!!?!


 A stepping stone from doing photography as a hobby, and as an actual profession.
I'm not here to argue the validity of that as a concept. I don't condone or support it, but if that's a persons perspective then so be it.





> There are plenty of people out there who do just fine with only wedding photography


. Absolutely. No argument there.
I'm just saying that many people want to get there work out there as a step toward whatever goal they are trying to reach. That could be specializing in wedding photography, product shots, baby pictures, etc.
For those that don't intend to specialize in wedding photography, they might still do them to generate income in order to take other steps toward doing what they really want to do.

My background is in illustration, that brought me into a hobby of 3D design, which generated an interest in photography which is where I am now.
I've never done weddings, but I frequently do local product shots and promotional photography for local businesses to put on their websites.
I'm slowly getting more and more work, and I could end up making alot more in the future.
It's not what I really want to do though.
I use it to make money while in the meantime learning to do digital matte paintings. 
Which IS what I really want to do.
I don't have children so I can do that.



> I'm not sure what you do with photography but when you talk about "future employers" I'm not sure who you are talking about.


I'm talking about the people who pay you for your services.
Could be a wedding party, or a local businesses products, etc.
People who hire you ask to see samples of your work don't they?

That's all I'm trying to say.
Many people use weddings the same way I'm using local business photography. To make money, and gain experience that will bring me further toward my goals.
Many people want to do their own thing, and realize that a diverse portfolio is something that potential clients like to see.
Businesses like the fact that I have 3D design experience. They associate it with product photography. I don't know why.
Alot of the clients I get come to me because I can do almost anything with an image. I can work logos into the image, and pull stuff out of the image they don't want and replace it with part of another image.

Stuff like that isn't important in wedding photography, and since those are the aspects of digital photography that I enjoy most I wouldn't be happy shooting weddings all the time.
But I would do it to make money. I couldn't dedicate myself to weddings though.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 11, 2007)

crownlaurel said:
			
		

> Did you have all high end equipment before your first wedding?



I used old, cheap gear:  a Pentax K1000 35mm SLR and a Norita 6x6 SLR.  I wouldn't be afraid to use it to shoot a wedding today as long as I had back up gear.


----------



## tempra (Jul 12, 2007)

Chas said:


> ...you've got the advantage of a Hook Norton 4X when the situation gets really tough ..... and I'm not talking zoom range here folks
> 
> Oh for a proper pint in a proper pub (like the _Lamb and Flag_) .... but you speak certain truths in your splendid post Sir - _sub specia aeternis_ or whatever.
> 
> Now when I were a lad, aarrrr, thar was forest on tham thar farms .....




Nothng wrong with a pint of hooky when the going is good either! :thumbup:


----------



## THORHAMMER (Jul 19, 2007)

weddings are a means to an end for some people,  it can allow someone to break out of their day job and into full time photography, and its hard and it takes training. So, when you get to the point you can command and lead the shooting of a wedding you have reached a certain level, its a good feeling, but there is always mroe to learn of course... 

its a lot harder to break right into commercial or fashion work when you are working all day. Weddings can be a bridge for some people, I think its a fair and honest trade just like any other type of shooting. 

Some people just love shooting them ... money aside.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 19, 2007)

Just looking over this I had a thought as I agreed to shoot a wedding for someone tomorrow for $120. I am no pro. Laymen tell me I shoot fantastic photos, but thankfully there's pros out there to offer real criticism and it does not take much looking to realise most wedding photographers are much better than I am.

So now I am doing a wedding tomorrow at a ridiculous discount. But I am not undercutting anyone or stealing anyone's business other than fellow amateurs. The reason being is if it did not agree to do this wedding there simply would not be a wedding photographer, and no pro would be willing to work for $120. Those people who genuinely want decent wedding photos would not take me on, and would be more than happy to hire a pro.

I think the only wedding photographers who harbour hostility to the amateurs in the industry are the ones who don't understand their target market.


----------



## mortallis288 (Jul 29, 2007)

As a newb, and a wanna-be wedding photographer later on in life, i wanna do weddings because i enjoy making people happy. I hate going to weddings my self, but when you think about the expression on their face when they see their precious day that you took for them and they say thank you means more to me than money.
But that doesn't mean i don't wanna make money, i am going to school as a finance major with a minor in marketing. But i am not gonna come out of school making the money i am going to need to support a family doing wedding photography when i have no business. So yes a lot of "newbs" want to do weddings and a lot of people are way to underqualified to think about doing weddings. But some of us "newbs" aren't all that bad


----------



## Leo (Jul 29, 2007)

I just didn't happen to buy a digital camera and decide to be a wedding photographer. I was first handed down by my dad a Nikon FE, started taking pictures back then about 20+years ago. Then I traded it in with a Minolta 5000si. I started taking weddings for friends and families and my niece even commented as to how my pictures came out better than the pro she hired. Anyway I moved to San Antonio TX from California, and my sister in law is in the Wedding/Debut business. She sells souvenirs, invitations, centerpieces, etc. My wife then joined in the business and startes selling formal gowns. Long story short they kinda forced me into getting into photography. I took some photography classes at one of the adult evening classes and then I started taking pictures of weddings and debuts. I enjoy taking pictures and I just love to see my customers happy with the pictures I took. Of course I had a few customers that were not happy with my pictures. I think that just comes with the nature of the business. You can't please everybody. You can also count me as a Budget Wedding Photographer. Being that I am close to the Southside of town. Majority of my customers are not well-off. So charging them less than what they can actually afford is an attraction to them. Yes I am devaluating myself. But if I charge $1500 per wedding or debut, I will be driving my customers away. I started with $300 per wedding and debut. Yes that is dirt cheap. But only because I did not have any portfolio. Presently I charge $500 and is still on the cheap side. Anyway, even if I only charge $500, I am only doing it on a part time basis. Do you think I am tired of taking debuts/weddings? Yes actually I am tired of taking wedding/debuts. Sometimes I get burned out but the joy of seeing customers happy with their pictures is priceless. To me seing them happy is worth more than the money I charge them. Shall I continue doing this, absolutely. Just as long as they keep on hiring me.


----------



## ClarkKent (Jul 30, 2007)

And then there are a few of us who like taking pictures.  For me..I just like taking pictures.  They could be photographs of just anything really.  Then I started to get more serious about what I was photographing.  So then it sparked my interest to see what all the hype was about.  For me I do it for the learning aspect, and seeing what I have been taught in picture form, and knowing that hey, I did that, and it put a huge smile on someones face.  I like to do weddings not only for the money, but for the experience.  I have worked with a pro a couple of times, helping with lights and what-not.  And I have done some simple ones on my own.  And I have to say, I think its actually pretty fun.  Its the one thing that I can enjoy doing.  Sure there are going to be a couple that may or may not like your work, thats given in every buisness.  I come from a long line of retail sales, and for me...some you make happy,, some you don't.  For the ones you don't make happy, all you can do is your best.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jul 30, 2007)

I went to a wedding this weekend, and I'm glad I'm not the person who had to shoot it.


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Jul 30, 2007)

Ya' know Chris, you may have just discovered a very important transition in this part of photography.



> I think the only wedding photographers who harbour hostility to the amateurs in the industry are the ones who don't understand their target market.


 
In the beginning of 'wedding' photography, Grandpa/Grandma had a formal shot taken in a studio (think hand colored or sepia print).

1930-1950's  cameras became 'portable' and the wedding scene got expanded to the ceremony + reception shots.  The 'pros' built up packages and formalized the album concept. An entire business concept evolved.  By its nature, film was fairly expensive to work with.

Since 1999-2000  Digital has phased in. The cost factor for equipment and processing of images has dropped to insignificant amounts. The "consumer" can now enter a former market that was once the domain of "Pros" exclusively.

Overhead, which was a limiting factor in business, has been reduced a significant amount.  In most businesses, this is often used as a profit increasing factor, rather than a price reducing tool.

Unfortunately, many newcomers to wedding (and other) photography have no previous experience in business practices.  The first thing that comes to mind is gaining advantage by using price as a buying tool.

Like it or not, the wave will continue until a new level of pricing will become the norm.  There are just too many people that enter the wedding photography market on a regular basis.


----------



## rmh159 (Jul 30, 2007)

Man so much hot air in here. 

Jk... though I will say I think RMThompson has a few good points and the elitist mentality that's often on these posts is a little annoying. Such is life.

I'd like to blow a little hot air onto this thread too and say that the people that comment on how newbs with dSLR's are ruining the business need to stop smoking the drugs and take another look at the market. Most people don't want to drop a few grand on pictures and are more than happy to sacrifice some quality for the huge savings. Good cameras are becoming easier to come by and more people will have them... not just pro's. Those that charge several grand will need to rething their strategy and figure out what else of value they can add to justify the high cost.

Businesses make this mistake all of the time and go out of business while they whine about the new guy who's doing it cheaper and faster than them.


----------



## DSLR noob (Jul 30, 2007)

If I ever shoot a wedding, it will be as a guest with a camera, not as "THE photographer".

Another thing pertaining to your 2nd question, it seems like anyone who sees a DSLR (or SLR) at all thinks that you are a professional. I got out my entry Rebel XT with the ceapo nifty fifty at a car show and 5 or 6 people asked what magazine I worked for, 20-ish people wanted to give me their number to shoot their cars on another date and pay me. I told them I'm no professional, and I'm a 17 year old hobbyist, and 3 people still agreed. i'm scheduled to shoot a Miata in mid august.


----------



## shorty6049 (Jul 30, 2007)

well i ended up reading the first 20 or so post on here and then just got sick of the meaningless arguement. from MY point of view, nobody was taking shots at anyone else, and some people just got a little too hot under the collar for no reason which just snowballed this whole thing... I dont shoot weddings and i doubt i ever will. Why? because they dont sound like fun. Sure i like taking pictures at weddings, but thats because there's no pressure. I cant get hired for a wedding and tell the couple afterwards "well, i got a few good ones...." I'd rather keep photography as a hobby so i dont risk loosing the enjoyment of it.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 31, 2007)

I'm loving this thread.  From the first post I knew that this was train wreck waiting to happen.  This has been one of the most fun threads to follow.


----------



## StreetShark (Aug 1, 2007)

Well I'm to lazy to read all this but When my cusin gets married I'm gonna shoot for fun. The main resion for this is the experiance and the fact that I like to shoot what I see.


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 1, 2007)

Hi all, me again.  I was going over this thread again when it struck me why I like doing the occasional wedding.  It's the same reason I like climbing rocks or white water canoing or taking a chicayne on the top of your shocks.  You might crash and burn but manOman, what a rush!

Those of you who are doing weddings for little or no money needn't worry about it as the people who can and will afford the higher price won't be asking for a cut rate price in the first place.  They will have a higher expectation for the finished product and will  already be looking at a price point for that quality.  As for a "pro" bitching about being under cut all the time- don't sweat that either.  As any true Capitalist knows there will always be a churn in the supply/demand stream and it's their job to stay afloat, not yours.

mike


----------



## quackzed (Aug 7, 2007)

... i just dont see how someone can take 2000 $$$ in good concience for a day or two of work... what's up with that. sure, you have a good eye... but sheesh. seems like many 'pro's' hide behind all this expensive equipment and just look down their noses at amatuer photographers because in order to be a 'pro' you need camera x and y and z and etc...
   doing weddings is good dough. simple. and personally, i don't think your paying for anything other than equpment quality... buy the best camera and your a pro... it's not science ... but the prices some wedding photographers charge is rediculous, no wonder people want to get into it!!
and also no wonder people turn to amatuer photographers for a better deal.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 7, 2007)

quackzed said:


> ... i just *dont* see how someone can take 2000 $$$ in good concience for a day or two of work... what's up with that. sure, you have a good eye... but sheesh. seems like many 'pro's' hide behind all this expensive equipment and just look down their noses at amatuer photographers because in order to be a 'pro' you need camera x and y and z and etc...
> doing weddings is good dough. simple. and personally, i don't think your paying for anything other than equpment quality... buy the best camera and your a pro... it's not science ... but the prices some wedding photographers charge is rediculous, no wonder people want to get into it!!
> and also no wonder people turn to amatuer photographers for a better deal.



Let me say this in the nicest possible way. 
You have no idea what you are talking about. 
Read the thread.


----------



## sabbath999 (Aug 7, 2007)

quackzed said:


> ... i just dont see how someone can take 2000 $$$ in good concience for a day or two of work... what's up with that. sure, you have a good eye... but sheesh. seems like many 'pro's' hide behind all this expensive equipment and just look down their noses at amatuer photographers because in order to be a 'pro' you need camera x and y and z and etc...
> doing weddings is good dough. simple. and personally, i don't think your paying for anything other than equpment quality... buy the best camera and your a pro... it's not science ... but the prices some wedding photographers charge is rediculous, no wonder people want to get into it!!
> and also no wonder people turn to amatuer photographers for a better deal.



Except for your logic, facts, grammar, spelling and punctuation, you are exactly right!


----------



## Jim Gratiot (Aug 7, 2007)

> i just dont see how someone can take 2000 $$$ in good concience for a day or two of work...


 
Gotta agree with Sabbath on this one when he says:



> Except for your logic, facts, grammar, spelling and punctuation, you are exactly right!


 
$2,000 to produce something that people will treasure forever actually seems quite low.  (Which is, of course, why some people charge MUCH more than $2K.)


----------



## quackzed (Aug 7, 2007)

oh, come on. sure they will treasure the memory forever. it's their wedding!! but as the photographer it's not as though you're dressing them up and building the altar etc... of course theres talent involved, and good technique etc... but still, it's hardly back-breaking work.You can't take credit for the moment, just because you catch it! And you shouldn't charge up the bill just because you know people want to have a record of THEIR moment!


----------



## sabbath999 (Aug 7, 2007)

quackzed said:


> oh, come on. sure they will treasure the memory forever. it's their wedding!! but as the photographer it's not as though you're dressing them up and building the altar etc... of course theres talent involved, and good technique etc... but still, it's hardly back-breaking work.You can't take credit for the moment, just because you catch it! And you shouldn't charge up the bill just because you know people want to have a record of THEIR moment!



You are completely wrong. Wedding photographers earn every dime (and then some) if they do a professional job. Been there, done that. To say somebody isn't earning their money when you haven't walked in their shoes is not fair at all.

No, it isn't "back breaking" work per, but neither is performing surgery, or flying an airplane, managing a store or any of the other jobs that people do that uses brains over brawn. In many ways, back breaking work is easier than work that requires talent, creativity, artistic ability and intense concentration for hours on end.


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 7, 2007)

It's worse than that.  Over the course of the first 20 years of marriage a wedding album will save a marriage several times just in reminding the 'Bride' why she married that twit in the first place and then give him another chance.  

Divorces cost a lot more than $2000.

Add to that the ability to sit down on a couch with your children and then grandchildren remembering and sharing the day and the people who were there -now living and dead- and having physical evidence that you can touch and hold up close is priceless.

The shame of it is that so many people can't see how important their past is to their future.

mike


----------



## Kimber57 (Aug 7, 2007)

Why is it that so many photography newbies want to take pictures at weddings?

****************************************************

I have to say that your post had me chuckling!  I loved it!

I have been shooting photographs for just about 6 months now.  People that I know who know that I've fallen in love with photography have, almost without fail, have told me "Oh, you should get into wedding photography!!"

I have NO desire to be a professional photographer, let alone a WEDDING photographer!!  I can't even imagine the pressure!!  The stressed-out brides, the stressed-out parents, the pressure to take perfect pictures with only once chance to do so!!  Imagine if all your pictures come out blurry!!  OH my lands!!  I couldn't handle the pressure -- MONEY OR NOT!!!

So, I will just enjoy the hobby.  I take pictures of things for FREE -- there's no pressure in THAT!!  HA HA

Loved the post.


----------



## Jim Gratiot (Aug 7, 2007)

> No, it isn't "back breaking" work per, but neither is performing surgery, or flying an airplane, managing a store or any of the other jobs that people do that uses brains over brawn. In many ways, back breaking work is easier than work that requires talent, creativity, artistic ability and intense concentration for hours on end.


 
Well said!


----------



## jstuedle (Aug 7, 2007)

quackzed said:


> ... i just dont see how someone can take 2000 $$$ in good concience for a day or two of work... what's up with that. sure, you have a good eye... but sheesh. seems like many 'pro's' hide behind all this expensive equipment and just look down their noses at amatuer photographers because in order to be a 'pro' you need camera x and y and z and etc...
> doing weddings is good dough. simple. and personally, i don't think your paying for anything other than equpment quality... buy the best camera and your a pro... it's not science ... but the prices some wedding photographers charge is rediculous, no wonder people want to get into it!!
> and also no wonder people turn to amatuer photographers for a better deal.



WOW, this sounds like sour grapes! And I HATE shooting weddings. And, yes, you haven't a clue........

Lets see. You meet with the couple for a couple hours 18 - 36 months in advance, sell them a package and schedule engagement pix. On a day between the 60 - 80 weddings you have scheduled from years before, you squeeze in a few hours, often on location way out of your way to shoot the engagement shots. This while trying not to rush them, giving them your undivided attention and convincing them they are your most important clients ever, but still making that portrait shoot in the executives home on the other side of town. As the "event" nears you need to confirm they are still engaged. Maybe negotiate the balance of the deposit that's due, or explain that sorry honey, but your deposit is non-refundable. And besides, the check was signed by your ex-boyfriend. If it's canceled, you race to fill the weekend, if not start planning. Contact the minister and see if he has flash restrictions, or places he does not want you to shoot from. Schedule a meeting at the church and meter the alter, see what external lighting you might need to set up. Visit the reception hall and do more of the same. Contact the DJ and MAKE him understand the needs you have for him to keep his light show off until you finish, negotiate a time with him to do so that you both can agree to. Go to the rehearsal, shoot it if that's in the contract. If not shooting, talk with the party to let them know what you will/won't shoot and where you will be and where they need to pause or stand for this or that shot during and after the ceremony. This is when you will get your first full dose of the evil Mother. His or hers, don't matter, one of them will be your worst enemy after the bride gets what she wants. The Bride claims that title until they say "I Do". The rehearsal is the time to deal with them in a preemptive manner as best you can while keeping that butter won't melt in your mouth smile tattooed on your kisser the whole while. Next comes that "special" day. ALL day. Don't expect to show up 30 min. before the service and have everything go as planned. Never did I attend a wedding and it go as planned. Then the reception. Expect a drunk relative to spill a drink on your camera, or worse in your pelican case. The DJ will play the "Let's pi$$ of the photographer game all night. If you are lucky the best man wont make a pass at the bride or your wife after he's had a few drinks and get his teeth rearranged. And there's more, always more. But let's move on, to editing, ordering prints, frames, mattes, and albums. Then assembling the package. Hopefully you did your part and exposure is right on, composition is outstanding, and the processor or printer did his job without a huge color shift to bright magenta. Now spend an evening assembling the album, framing the large prints and getting the mattes right. Including the appropriate packaging, wrapping, boxes, and written material that makes a pro look like a pro. Schedule a time good for you and them, mainly you and show/present the package. UNLESS, by the time they are to show up, they have already filed for devorice. (Try getting the balance paid then.) But I digress.....  Sell your reprint services and advise how long prints will be made available for what price. Collect the remaining funds if needed and wipe the sweat off your brow.  Anyway, if you smoke, it's time to light up a congratulatory cigar. I just have a diet Coke. Then race out the door and make it to that pet protrait you wonder why you scheduled anyway.

Yea, one and a half to three years of grief, planning, expense, and abuse for a couple a grand is really hiding behind all that expensive equipment. Makes me wonder why I quit weddings. NOT!


----------



## Garbz (Aug 8, 2007)

I do weddings for friends. I don't like it. I charge them a few hundred for the honour, and I rarely attend the reception (bit more $$$ if I did). Why do I do it? A little bit of pocket money and a favour since they don't want to hire a pro.

Those people who never have but do want to get into wedding photography generally do not have an idea what it's like to follow 2 people around, take photos often from uncomfortable positions, trying hard to be as quiet and out of the way as possible while still getting the photos, rant, rant rant.

Fortunately I tell people what they can expect. If you charge 1/5th of the going rate they really can't complain if I make them look fat. Still I'd rather be with friends doing portraits, or at a sunset, chasing birds (both kinds), or down at the pub.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 8, 2007)

quackzed said:


> oh, come on. sure they will treasure the memory forever. it's their wedding!! but as the photographer it's not as though you're dressing them up and building the altar etc... of course theres talent involved, and good technique etc... but still, it's hardly back-breaking work.You can't take credit for the moment, just because you catch it! And you shouldn't charge up the bill just because you know people want to have a record of THEIR moment!



Troll!  Troll!  Troll!







"What is a troll?

The traditional definition of a troll refers to a member of a community or usenet group who makes posts deliberately designed to attract responses of outrage or indignation. It is the troll's intent to "hook" unsuspecting members into responding, (hence the term "trolling"), thus providing him/her self with the satisfaction of knowing they have impact on others.

A distinction must be made between true trolls, newbies who are undergoing growing pains as they attempt to adjust to community standards, and regular community members who simply have strong but otherwise harmless, dissenting opinions. Trolls should be removed, newcomers assisted, and contributing community members given at least a modicum of respectful distance."

_source: http://communitiesonline.homestead.c...ithtrolls.html_


----------



## sabbath999 (Aug 8, 2007)

Don't hold back not, Traveler... tell us how you really feel...


----------



## quackzed (Aug 8, 2007)

look, i have no interest in continuing this argument, you have a different opinion, fine. you are calling me names now... fine. i havent attacked anyones opinions, or tried to belittle others with name calling or 'cleverness'. i feel many wedding photographers are overpaid. no one has said anything of substance to change my mind, all i have seen is a few members overreacting to my opinions, which are neither designed to irritate or start an argument. feel free to continue if you will, but i won't be reading or responding. the last word is yours, enjoy it and then please move on.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 8, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> Don't hold back not, Traveler... tell us how you really feel...



Well, I couldn't believe that someone who actually had taken a picture sometime in his/her life and could read well enough to parse this thread could not understand that equipment costs and time on-site shooting are only a fraction of the real value, completely ignoring talent, experience and ability - (not to mention post-processing and presentation time.)

So I assumed he/she was either doing a Oscar-worthy job playing dumb or was a troll.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Aug 8, 2007)

I can't really speak from the photography side of things, because I am just coming back to this "world" after a 5 year break, but I was a club DJ and I can say that Mobile/Wedding DJ's were most definitely looked down upon.  But in that case, most of it is because there is no art form in it.  You are playing what people tell you to play, and not doing any edits or mixes or anything creative with it.  Now, one could argue that they are "business men/women" who are doing it because they like it, and because they want to.  Thats fine, but don't expect me to think of you on the same level as a club DJ who pours their heart and soul into their work.  I used to work on edits and remixes and my own tracks for WAY more time then they put into marketing themselves.

*Not that any of this applies to weddings!*

I personally would never shoot weddings, I don't want to mess up someones perfect day, and certainly don't want to deal with brides or grooms telling me that my pictures make them look fat (especially when they are).  Plus, I generally just don't like weddings, but I feel that I have seen some very artistic/creative shots on this site.  I don't think that anyone should look down on anyone else, unless you use a P&S (JUST KIDDING!!) :lmao:

Just my 2 cents!


----------



## Iron Flatline (Aug 8, 2007)

jstuedle said:


> Lets see. You meet with the couple for a couple hours 18 - 36 months in advance, sell them a package and schedule engagement pix. On a day between the 60 - 80 weddings you have scheduled from years before, you squeeze in a few hours, often on location way out of your way to shoot the engagement shots. This while trying not to rush them, giving them your undivided attention and convincing them they are your most important clients ever, but still making that portrait shoot in the executives home on the other side of town. As the "event" nears you need to confirm they are still engaged. Maybe negotiate the balance of the deposit that's due, or explain that sorry honey, but your deposit is non-refundable. And besides, the check was signed by your ex-boyfriend. If it's canceled, you race to fill the weekend, if not start planning. Contact the minister and see if he has flash restrictions, or places he does not want you to shoot from. Schedule a meeting at the church and meter the alter, see what external lighting you might need to set up. Visit the reception hall and do more of the same. Contact the DJ and MAKE him understand the needs you have for him to keep his light show off until you finish, negotiate a time with him to do so that you both can agree to. Go to the rehearsal, shoot it if that's in the contract. If not shooting, talk with the party to let them know what you will/won't shoot and where you will be and where they need to pause or stand for this or that shot during and after the ceremony. This is when you will get your first full dose of the evil Mother. His or hers, don't matter, one of them will be your worst enemy after the bride gets what she wants. The Bride claims that title until they say "I Do". The rehearsal is the time to deal with them in a preemptive manner as best you can while keeping that butter won't melt in your mouth smile tattooed on your kisser the whole while. Next comes that "special" day. ALL day. Don't expect to show up 30 min. before the service and have everything go as planned. Never did I attend a wedding and it go as planned. Then the reception. Expect a drunk relative to spill a drink on your camera, or worse in your pelican case. The DJ will play the "Let's pi$$ of the photographer game all night. If you are lucky the best man wont make a pass at the bride or your wife after he's had a few drinks and get his teeth rearranged. And there's more, always more. But let's move on, to editing, ordering prints, frames, mattes, and albums. Then assembling the package. Hopefully you did your part and exposure is right on, composition is outstanding, and the processor or printer did his job without a huge color shift to bright magenta. Now spend an evening assembling the album, framing the large prints and getting the mattes right. Including the appropriate packaging, wrapping, boxes, and written material that makes a pro look like a pro. Schedule a time good for you and them, mainly you and show/present the package. UNLESS, by the time they are to show up, they have already filed for devorice. (Try getting the balance paid then.) But I digress.....  Sell your reprint services and advise how long prints will be made available for what price. Collect the remaining funds if needed and wipe the sweat off your brow.  Anyway, if you smoke, it's time to light up a congratulatory cigar. I just have a diet Coke. Then race out the door and make it to that pet protrait you wonder why you scheduled anyway.
> 
> Yea, one and a half to three years of grief, planning, expense, and abuse for a couple a grand is really hiding behind all that expensive equipment. Makes me wonder why I quit weddings. NOT!


Yup, like I said, I'm glad I don't shoot weddings.


----------



## drawingguy (Aug 8, 2007)

To answer the original question:

I shoot pictures at weddings because I like to take pictures, of anything.  If was ever hired to do it then I would be doing it because I like to take pictures and also that I like to make money.  There's a lot worse ways to make a buck.

So that's that.

I will say that, being a photographer myself, I appreciate the talent that it takes to make unique and beautiful images.  That said, wedding photos are one of the most overpriced things on the face of the planet.  Why do people pay $2000+ for a bunch of pictures that they never look at?  I guess some people do look at them, but no one that I know.  I will be just as happy getting a friend to take a few pictures at the church, and then pick and choose from the reception photos.

Do I want nice pictures of my wedding?  Yes.  Do I think they are worth $2000?  not a chance.  If someone was willing to pay me $2000 to shoot their wedding would I do it?  Absolutely.

I will say this, nice photography is nice photography, no matter if it's weddings or whatever.

I think that's it.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Aug 8, 2007)

Heh...  I spent a LOT more than  $2,000 on my wedding pics. 

I'm glad every day that I did.


----------



## little_earthquakes (Aug 8, 2007)

I couldn't agree more. 

Personally, I don't feel nearly qualified enough to shoot a wedding. I'd do it if someone asked, provided they knew the caliber of my work, were totally ok with it, and I'd also get someone to second shoot for me. 

The attraction, I think, is the money, and also...people are all dressed up for weddings, everyone looks good, you know you're going to get a lot of pretty shoots (assuming you know what you're doing). 

I, on the other hand 1. don't love to shoot high pressure shoots, which weddings are, and 2 shudder a little at the thought of trying to figure out how to get detail and how to capture the white balance between the groom's black tux and bride's white dress.

Oh...and I spent about $500 on my wedding photography (we couldn't afford anything better, it was at the last minute...we didn't even know we were going to HAVE a photographer at all). I wish I wasn't a photographer myself, that way I wouldn't know how bad they were. *cries* She did try, and they weren't as bad as they could be. But they are bad. I wouldn't say we didn't get our money's worth, they're just not great photos.


----------



## danalec99 (Aug 8, 2007)

As in any other business you will find photogs catering to all income levels in the wedding photography business. So I don't see why an "overpriced" photog should bother anyone, unless s/he has a gun to your head . You can get a stock photo for few cents at istockphoto.com, yet, ad companies hire photographers for several thousand dollars. Why?

Price is what the Customer willingly pays for the _value_ they see in a product.

I had never heard of Jeff Ascough when I got married. If I did, I'd have flown him in from London to cover my wedding. Is it because there aren't competent photogs in the US? Certainly not. It's just that I (the customer) place _value_ in his work and that is what dictates the price.


----------



## little_earthquakes (Aug 8, 2007)

Well said, Danalec.


----------



## Pixie42 (Aug 12, 2007)

I am a newb and I have no desire whatsoever to be a wedding photographer.

I would, however, LOVE to be allowed to photograph a wedding for my own personal amusement. I think I could get some really great candid shots from a wedding.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 12, 2007)

Pixie42 said:


> I am a newb and I have no desire whatsoever to be a wedding photographer.
> 
> I would, however, LOVE to be allowed to photograph a wedding for my own personal amusement. I think I could get some really great candid shots from a wedding.



I feel approximately the same about honeymoons.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Aug 13, 2007)

Years ago when I first got into photography, I shot a few weddings. It did not take me long to realize that my personality was not suited for this type of work. 

It became obvious on my last wedding shoot. While I was showing the new bride her proofs, her mother and her were fighting and bickering about every little thing, much like how they acted at the actual wedding.

After several minutes of this and after feeling like my head was going to explode I told the new bride that in the end it pretty much would not matter which shots they went with because the odds were good the album would be in the trash within two years when her husband divorced her.

She started crying, the mother almost attacked me- I barely got out of there alive.

That was the last wedding I ever shot.  There is way too much BS involved.  And for anyone who thinks that wedding photographers are overpaid, they do not have a clue as to what this type of work is like.  My hat is off to wedding photographers.:hail:  

I have been a photojouranlist now for years.  I had rather shoot in Iraq than ever shoot another wedding. :mrgreen:


----------



## table1349 (Aug 13, 2007)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I'm loving this thread.  From the first post I knew that this was train wreck waiting to happen.  This has been one of the most fun threads to follow.




Sorry,  I just had to reiterate my feelings on this thread.  The Great Chatsworth Train Wreck on August 10, 1887, has nothing on this one.  :mrgreen::lmao::mrgreen::lmao:


----------

