# Post Bridal Pics Session



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

After everyone told me last week stay away from constant lights I gave it up and went to the real constant light, the sun, to take pics of this adorable girl.
I was a bit humbled by the event as I realized this is much harder than it looks. Anyway, she seems happy. Here are a few of them to be grimaced at and I appreciate the critiques no matter how harsh, I am trying to learn here.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...97t-post-bridal-pics-session-i-8nkzfww-x2.jpg

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...99t-post-bridal-pics-session-i-h9gr2vc-x2.jpg

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...01t-post-bridal-pics-session-i-j3gbs6b-x2.jpg

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...902-post-bridal-pics-session-i-xjkgsb5-x2.jpg


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

#1 the background is too close to the subject
#2 I like
#3 doesn't fit the motif well, it's a masculine pose in a feminine setting.
#4 best of the set. Her expression isn't quite bridal but it shows character.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 11, 2012)

Pretty much exactly what Trever said!


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

Nice! You've lost a bit of detail in the dress in the first two -- if you have the raw files you might go try to pull a little more out of there (possibly even selectively, a careful and lightly handled composite of a detailed dress on the image you've already got can be pretty successful if you use a light touch).

The levels on her face in #3 seem a trifle high -- it feels lens-flarey slightly. There's a lot of blown stuff here, but whatever, it looks like bright sun which is was. The face looks slightly misty, though, I would darken it just a hair, and maybe push a wee bit more contrast in there, just locally on the face. A light touch so it all blends nicely, though.

If you cropped, and have the ability to re-crop:

I would move her slightly to the left in the frame in #2, to get a little more of the tree and avoid clipping off her dress, and to give her sight-line left-to-right a little more room to breathe.

I would move her face up and to the right, slightly, in the 4th one, to balance her face and the bouquet a little better in the frame.

These are, of course, quibbles and not major issues. Well done. She looks lovely.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Thanks for the replies and advice folks I appreciate you taking the time. Here is the kink in the road, I didn't take those, a professional took them. 
16 years at it she said.
These are the photos I took standing beside her.
My better half likes mine better than the professionals, what do you folks think?


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

Ooops, better change those to links, since you don't own 'em! Unless you have permission to post them?


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Well we bought them so I guess they belong to me.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

I think that tactic is of low character and if I was a moderator I would ban you immediately.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

Aaaa, you foxed me. Now that I look at them, the fill is obvious, isn't it?

You did a much nicer job with the dress than the pro. The pro blew it out by overfilling, pretty consistently.

Your are much more natural looking, she's smiling instead of posing. I like your #4 better than anything else here. Yours have a bit of a blue cast from the shade, which I think you could fix easily - warming these up a tad would make them nicer all around. I miss the #1 pose from the first set though, which is wonderful. I love the background that close, it's a great contrast, and with the dress off to one side you get some nice visual tension.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

and add to that that your images are NOT better, they lack the light that the originals had.


----------



## willis_927 (Sep 11, 2012)

I prefer the first ones. Alot actually. The second set you posted have under exposed faces, and require fill light. While the dress has more detail in the second set, it also has a blueish tint. I also much prefer the smaller depth of field in the first set.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

Ditching the blue tint helps enormously:


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

The first set are definitely doing a "thing", they're going for that sun-kissed warm thing, which definitely looks nice and cozy. You can warm yours way way up, if you like. They won't look sun-kissed, but they'll look cozy (and, I think, slightly weird, since shade is supposed to be cool).

The first set does stuff like lose the detail on the dress, which is very disappointing -- the dress matters.

I don't have much preference for whether faces are fill-flashed or not, I think yours look different but it's not as if her nose is invisible in the shadows. It's just a different look. Neither set has much modeling in it, yours has slightly more, I think, and there's more local contrast in the face making her look a little more dramatic. The fill-flashed look is "what all those other wedding photographs" look like, so it's expected and therefore people will tend to think it's better. I think it's just different.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

Your edit Amoltor does nothing to improve this image. It's dull, flat and still too blue.


OP, you are no pro. Putting up another's images and not identifying them as such to begin with is in very poor taste. You have a lot to learn about photography and morality.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Sorry I offended some folks, I actually posted these that way because there seems to be so much animosity swirling around in these forums and I didn't want it to taint the opinions.
Thank you amolitor for behaving like a consummate professional.

Now please tell me how to get rid of the blue.

I agree that mine are a little under exposed, but I think that hers are way over exposed and it cant be fixed like mine can.
It also looks to me that she just has a plain old smudge on some part of her glass that cause a greyish area at the top left of her shots.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Well Trever thank you for telling me that my morals are in the gutter and I dont know squat about photography.....

I guess I'll go stick my head in a bucket of sulfuric acid now..............


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

I thought it was pretty amusing. Interesting how nobody saw the obvious fill, when we were told that it wasn't there, eh? What a nifty and informative experiment.

My edit is definitely still blue, but I didn't want to push it too far. If you color her like she's in the sun when she is clearly not, that's likely to look odd.

Color balance can be altered in pretty much any photo editor, often there's a dropper tool which you can use to select a spot that is supposed to be white -- the editor will then alter the color balance to make that spot white. You may also have a color temperature slider, which you can adjust warmer or cooler. Or, if you use primitive tools like me, there are just sliders for Cyan/Red, Magenta/Green, and Yellow/Blue. Push the Cyan/Red toward red, the Magenta/Green toward green, and the Yellow/Blue toward yellow.


----------



## willis_927 (Sep 11, 2012)

You can use the quick select tool in PS, select the dress, then go image, adjustments, hue and saturation, and then desaturate the blues.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

Don't be tempted into being a dick about it, YoBenny. Nobody likes to be tricked, just respect that and let it go. You're not evil.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

I don't like misrepresentation. Maybe it's just me but I never look at someone Else's work and mine in a comparative manner. It's irrelevant if they suck or are fantastic! It's what I do that matters. If you had simply posted your images I would have given critique the best I could've. 

Posting another photographer's work is against forum policy. You do not own copyright just because you have print rights. 


Now I'm not saying you don't look at another's images and learn from them but you weren't doing that.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

I can't seem to open the original post links. Might be my phone. 
The ones you posted a re good basic images with potential, but they need some editing to make up for some light issues and give them some pop beyond the basic snap. There is a bit much DOF or too much sharp on the background/grass. Pretty simple processing/editing fixes. 

I didn't read all of the replies because I am stuck on my phone so forgive me if I am repeating: just because you paid the original photography does not mean you own the copyright and unless you have a written release that states you can do anything with the images (such as print or copyright) you actually own the right to do just about nothing with those images besides look at them on your computer.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Thats actually interesting about copy and rights, I will look into that, because if those didnt come with her price then we want a refund because we dont think much of her work and we sure arent going to pay for nothing....


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Trever I don't know what to say to you man, you want it your way and I don't do things the way others want them to be done unless I think like minded, and you are obviously too angry about a silly post on a forum and being "tricked" as was said. Get over it or do me a favor and just stop talking in my threads because I have no intention in using your suggested exposure settings for reality.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

Benny, let it go, man. Be the bigger guy here.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

I never gave you any exposure setting advice


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> Thats actually interesting about copy and rights, I will look into that, because if those didnt come with her price then we want a refund because we dont think much of her work and we sure arent going to pay for nothing....


If you expect the COPYRIGHTS with the images you best expect to pay her THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. photographers do not give up copyright. The right to print is different. 
Frankly, you have no right to demand a refund for anything unless you signed a contract saying she was shooting this session for you and providing something in writing that you didn't get. You paid her for a service-for the time she spent working for you taking those pictures and processing them. It cost her in her equipment and time to do that. 
If you weren't real impressed with her to begin with perhaps you shouldn't have hired her to provide a service for you.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Well thats all very interesting, I never thought of photography as a line of work where you sell somebody something but then don't give it to them.
In fact I think that is absurd.

I pay for a diamond ring, give it to my bride, but I dont really own it, the jeweler still owns it, we are just getting to wear it.

That is just absurd.................


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 11, 2012)

Well, you certainly cannot go to your family and friends and claim to have carved and made that ring yourself!


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

Well, MLeeK, you don't actually know the details of the contract in play here. Anyone who hangs out on TPF and watches the resident pros shout down the "MWAC"s knows there there are a bewildering array of contracts and deals being offered out there.

Consult your paperwork, YoBenny. Nobody on here has the faintest idea what it says, or what you bought. It could be pretty much anything, based on what we know, which is nothing.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 11, 2012)

Hey guys....I have a set of BARELY-USED, antique flintlock dueling pistols in a lovely hardwood case!!! Benny, Trever1t, are you guys up for limbering up these old-timey flintlock .58 caliber beauties? What say we all meet in Indianapolis this Sunday around 8 AM, somewhere outside of town. We can all get together, have a drink of whiskey or two, and then fire off a couple of rounds, and then uh, I have TWO tickets to the Vikings vs Colts game which starts at 1:00, so *ONE of you* can come with me to the game! Sound like a plan?


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

I'll take you up on the game but I don't need a gun, I'm bullet proof ;-)


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 11, 2012)

I think we should get back to the images. YoBenny was schooled,   apologized for the mistake, and corrected the problem. does he need to  be crucified before his dept to TPF society is paid?


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Maybe I should make another mistake so I can apologize some more?


----------



## tirediron (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> Well we bought them so I guess they belong to me.


Nice try, but it doesn't work that way.  You bought (unless I'm very much mistaken) prints, and NOT the rights to the images.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 11, 2012)

media rights are VERY different from purchasing other physical items. partly due to the fact that they can be reproduced, and not a finite item like a car, or a ring. also, the photographer needs the right to use images as advertising. If you give that right away every time you do a job, you will have no portfolio.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

But Derrel, are you taking the winner or the loser?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 11, 2012)

amolitor said:


> But Derrel, are you taking the winner or the loser?



Hmmm...I guess that depends on one's point of view...


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

Read my profile  I'm a crack shot 

BUT, no need for bloodshed here


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Awe shucks just when I thought others might accept me ripping your throat out.......... ;-)


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> Well thats all very interesting, I never thought of photography as a line of work where you sell somebody something but then don't give it to them.
> In fact I think that is absurd.
> 
> I pay for a diamond ring, give it to my bride, but I dont really own it, the jeweler still owns it, we are just getting to wear it.
> ...


You are paying for the service. You don't expect to have someone do a bunch of work for nothing, do you? Should you choose not to purchase that fee covers the time you contracted that person to work for you. 
There are many photographers who don't have a session fee, but a minimum order which is due at the time of your session. Then that amount is credited to whatever you may purchase. Their prices on prints are higher to cover the costs of the photographer doing the work for you. 

I suspect that if she gave you the full sized jpeg files that you probably were to receive a print release to go with it. If you didn't receive that either on the disc or in writing you need to consult with your photographer in order to find out what your rights are to the images and get a written print release. 
That does not transfer COPYRIGHT to you, only the right to use those images in print. Copyright is totally separate and gives the right to claim the image as your own and edit. No photographer is going to give you that without a gigantic fee. Not just us here, every one of us. 
You have not said a word regarding contract which leads me to suspect you do not have one and the photog didn't use one. I'm guessing again here, but is this a craigslist photographer? One who is relatively new to the game here?


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

I will tell you this, if her time (2 hours shooting and one hour running batches in Adobe) is worth $1,300, then I am in the wrong business, for sure.

For that price the woman needs to take the photo of my choice and sew me a quilt of it for $1,300 dollars, and ownership of said photos should be a given---- the person who paid for them.

That is just wrong, I'm sorry to hear that's how the deal is spun. All they have to do is get written consent to use the images for marketing purposes just like the said blood donar gets a document saying they are entitled to the same. That's a bunch of B.S. 

I am definitely in the wrong business. 3 hours of her time for THAT is highway robbery..........


----------



## Haya.H (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> I will tell you this, if her time (2 hours shooting and one hour running batches in Adobe) is worth $1,300, then I am in the wrong business, for sure.
> 
> For that price the woman needs to take the photo of my choice and sew me a quilt of it for $1,300 dollars, and ownership of said photos should be a given---- the person who paid for them.
> 
> ...



Yikes... Then you dont even wanna know what my sister paid for her photographer... no prints, or rights. Just proofs. 
But really how do you expect them to make money? They spend WAY more time than the orignal 2 hrs of shooting.. PP takes time considering how many images she/he has to retouch. When you actually take the total amount of hours the photographer works with y'all and after the session and then divide it, she really wont be making that much.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

She had them available for viewing within hours on the web, she didn't spend days in PP tweaking anything. She got paid $1,300 for a couple hours work and as I said, I am in the wrong business for sure. How do I expect them to make money? Well robbery wouldn't be my first choice.....

Hell at that rate and with my marketing skills, I could be up to making 4K a day no PROBLEM in no time.............

Now if those pics of hers were FAR AND AWAY much higher quality than my amateur series, then MAYBE it would be worth SOMEthing, but they just aren't that good, in fact some of mine are better. And thats a 12 year veteran shooting that? 

Like I said, I'm definitely in the wrong business.............................

If I had been doing this for a living for 12 years I would be giving Ansel Adams a run for his money...........


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> Hell at that rate and with my marketing skills, I could be up to making 4K a day no PROBLEM in no time.............
> .



if thats the case, i would get on it right away...you dont want to lose any more 4k paydays than you have to.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> I will tell you this, if her time (2 hours shooting and one hour running batches in Adobe) is worth $1,300, then I am in the wrong business, for sure.


Plus the time preparing for the shoot, driving too and from, etc.  I would be very surprised if anyone could post-process a two hour shoot to a finished prodcut in only one hour.  If they can, they're certainly more skilled in the pixel-room than am I.



YoBenny said:


> For that price the woman needs to take the photo of my choice and sew me a quilt of it for $1,300 dollars, and ownership of said photos should be a given---- the person who paid for them.


  Ever looked at the EULA on a piece of software?  You don't own that either, you've paid for the right to use it, under certain, very specific conditions.  A photograph is the same thing.  



YoBenny said:


> That is just wrong, I'm sorry to hear that's how the deal is spun. All they have to do is get written consent to use the images for marketing purposes just like the said blood donar gets a document saying they are entitled to the same. That's a bunch of B.S.
> I am definitely in the wrong business. 3 hours of her time for THAT is highway robbery..........


Tell you what... come on up to my neck of the woods... I'll lend you a kit, set up a shoot, and you can see just how hard that woman probably had to work for her $1300!

By the way... welcome to the real world.  It's not always a nice place, and it's seldom fair, but it is real!


----------



## Haya.H (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> She had them available for viewing within hours on the web, she didn't spend days in PP tweaking anything. She got paid $1,300 for a couple hours work and as I said, I am in the wrong business for sure. How do I expect them to make money? Well robbery wouldn't be my first choice.....
> 
> Hell at that rate and with my marketing skills, I could be up to making 4K a day no PROBLEM in no time.............
> 
> Now if those pics of hers were FAR AND AWAY much higher quality than my amateur series, then MAYBE it would be worth SOMEthing, but the



I didn't get to see her pictures, so I cant really say which is better (not that I would know anyways ) BUT, when your putting that much money into a service shouldn't you go over details? (what you expect from the shoot and what rights you have? and more importantly if shes even good enough to get the job done? Looking at her profile and such. Also... you knew what you were getting into paying her $1,300 dollars so its not really robbery. She offered you a service and you bought it.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> ...Hell at that rate and with my marketing skills, I could be up to making 4K a day no PROBLEM in no time...


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

That's not how the law works and for $1300 there is no way in hell any photog worth their salt is going to sign away their copyright. $13K maybe a few. MAYBE. 
Who the hell did you pay $1300 for a bridal shoot to? That's an  expensive shoot and I would expect it to be one hell of a good photog. I  haven't seen the original images to know, but I can tell you that most  of us are not charging $1300 for a bridal session with images on disc. Hell, most decent photographers have a bottom of the barrel wedding package starting at about $1500. It's bare bones with nothing included, but that's where they start!
It would have been a $350 session fee for me and for 20 edited images on disc with an unlimited print release you would have then paid $500. I am not cheap. I am not top of the barrel, but definitely not cheap. That's what I have to make off of a 2 hour session to pay my bills and my salary. Not much cushion in there. 
If you think that batching professional images with full edit/touching takes 2 hours you are mistaken again. And there is FAR more than batching that goes into the administration of a business. 

The average hour of shooting costs 4 to 6 hours of processing, administration and office work. One two hour session is EASILY an 8 hour day for an experienced photographer. A shoot and burn order is closer to 4 hours, a print order is more like an additional 6 hours after shooting. 

 We really aren't trying to snowball you or anyone else here. This isn't as easy as you think it is-or anyone who is just starting out. 

Think about it-the images that you shot and posted in your other post that were fully processed.
You had to go to wherever you shot at.
You had to shoot
You had to return home.
Load the images into your computer and edit/process them. 
That process includes cataloging, keywording and a few steps you may not be doing that might take us an additional whopping 10 minutes. 
HOWEVER... That's not where we end at either. 
We have to do all of the administrative paperwork/computer work that goes with the session. We had to answer your call or email to set up the appointment, take the time to deal with all that goes with setting up an appointement. Depending on the photog that may be anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour. I keep details on EVERYTHING. I make a file for the client that includes my notes and all of the pertinent information, prepare the contract, print it, get a packet ready for giving to the client (those also cost money beyond my time...)
We have to get the gear ready and loaded. Yes, gear should be at the ready, but each session is really planned for optimal outcome. I wouldn't want to go to a family session with a telephoto lens and one flash... However I could go to a simple portrait session with that gear... See where I am going here with that? 
That is all time that is part of that session that the customer doesn't see. 
After that we have the proofing and ordering. Dealing with that can take hours depending on the client. THEN we go back to the book/computer work. Accounting, tax reporting, file finishing, etc. 
There is a LOT of time that goes into this that has absolutely nothing to do with shooting. I wish I could cut all of that time out, but unfortunately if I want to run a business it must be done.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

I stood and watched her work, her every move, if you call THAT hard work, I need to move to your neck of the woods for sure. 
Prep time? She showed up with a shoot sack and two lenses, what did she have to prep? Plug her battery in?
Drive time there and back? 35 miles total? .82 cents a mile, $28.70 fair enough.

$1,300 dollars? PPPFFFTTTTTT! She should have shot the whole thing for $500 and thanked us for the opportunity!


----------



## Haya.H (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> I stood and watched her work, her every move, if you call THAT hard work, I need to move to your neck of the woods for sure.
> Prep time? She showed up with a shoot sack and two lenses, what did she have to prep? Plug her battery in?
> Drive time there and back? 35 miles total? .82 cents a mile, $28.70 fair enough.
> 
> $1,300 dollars? PPPFFFTTTTTT! She should have shot the whole thing for $500 and thanked us for the opportunity!




If you thought she was charging to much... why didn't you just go to someone else in your price range?


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> I stood and watched her work, her every move, if you call THAT hard work, I need to move to your neck of the woods for sure.
> Prep time? She showed up with a shoot sack and two lenses, what did she have to prep? Plug her battery in?
> Drive time there and back? 35 miles total? .82 cents a mile, $28.70 fair enough.
> 
> $1,300 dollars? PPPFFFTTTTTT! She should have shot the whole thing for $500 and thanked us for the opportunity!



just...wow. 
instead of blaming the photographer, why aren't you blaming the ones who HIRED the photographer? who OBVIOUSLY didn't look into it very well. 
plus, according to your projections, you can easily make 4k a day doing this so it shouldn't be too much trouble to help them out with that bill.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

These are all the brides choices as she goes around spending somebody elses money for her wedding, I dont get to make decisions in this or I can assure you that all this would have been worked out. All I can do is smile and watch, but I don't have to be happy about it and I have been around the damn cherry tree a few times and I know when something is over priced and that is WAY out of line but how would the young bride know that?

I'm just sayin folks, that's HIGH, for Christs sake, for that much money, buy a D3200 kit and an extra lens and a good book and practice for a month and get your monies worth....


----------



## tirediron (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> ...I'm just sayin folks, that's HIGH, for Christs sake, for that much money, buy a D3200 kit and an extra lens and a good book and practice for a month and get your monies worth....


If your pro showed up with a D3200 and a couple of kit lenses, maybe you did get hosed, BUT...  no one forced you to hire her...


----------



## Haya.H (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> These are all the brides choices as she goes around spending somebody elses money for her wedding, I dont get to make decisions in this or I can assure you that all this would have been worked out. All I can do is smile and watch, but I don't have to be happy about it and I have been around the damn cherry tree a few times and I know when something is over priced and that is WAY out of line but how would the young bride know that?
> 
> I'm just sayin folks, that's HIGH, for Christs sake, for that much money, buy a D3200 kit and an extra lens and a good book and practice for a month and get your monies worth....



:er: if the young bride doesn't know any better, you dont think it would be smart to suggest something else? "Hey yeah shes really good.. but look at this one just as good and a little cheaper" I mean COME ON... your arguement is very unreasonable. You knew the prices going into it... if it's THIS big of a deal for you, you shoulda mentioned it to the bride. 

Oh and im pretty sure its gonna take more than a d3200 and a month to become a photographer, hell even to become a decent amauture takes longer than a month.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny, you do realize a certain percentage of membership here is Pro and $1300 is NOTHING for a wedding photographer in the USA where talented photographers charges start at over 3x that much. 



It sounds like YOU didn't hire this photographer at all. What did you pay for?


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

I get the sense that YoBenny might be the father of the bride?


----------



## deeky (Sep 11, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Think about it-the images that you shot and posted in your other post that were fully processed.
> You had to go to wherever you shot at.
> You had to shoot
> You had to return home.
> ...



AND they have to deal with PISSY PEOPLE!!!


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> She had them available for viewing within hours on the web, she didn't spend days in PP tweaking anything. She got paid $1,300 for a couple hours work and as I said, I am in the wrong business for sure. How do I expect them to make money? Well robbery wouldn't be my first choice.....
> 
> Hell at that rate and with my marketing skills, I could be up to making 4K a day no PROBLEM in no time.............
> 
> ...


You are blind. Totally and completely blind to what it costs us to do this. 
Here we go...

COST OF DOING BUSINESS CALCULATIONS:
Office or studio overhead (go cheap, home based office in a CHEAP house) $2000 per year
Phone/fax (Cheap again, just a landline that is only $25 a month) $300
Photo Equipment (we'll say you don't have top of the line and you are only replacing about every 5 years) $2000 annually
Equipment servicing and repairs (everything has to be tuned up every year, sensors cleaned and shutters checked.) $500
computers and hard drives/storage, software (back up setup, hard drives for storing everything get eaten up FAST. computer systems replace about 2 years) $800
internet ($60 per month)720
web hosting (we'll go with supremely cheap ass at $5 per month. Not really possible, but hey, we can pretend) $60
Vehicle or transportation expenses (you can either figure mileage or actual cost, either way you HAVE to have transportation to and from everything) 2400
office supplies and furniture (gotta have a place to put the computer and a chair to sit in. gotta have paper and supplies those are expensive!!!) $500 
postage (every time we order something WE pay the shipping!) $300
ongoing education (I sure hope any photog I hire is keeping up on the changing techniques. I spend probably $2k or more a year, but...) $1000
advertising (You have advertising experience, it's not cheap! We'll pretend for your sake that it is) $500
subscriptions or dues (My PPA membership is about $350. I have other professional memberships, but we'll say that's the only one you have) $350
Insurance-equipment and business and indemnity (can't be in business without your equipment. Better have it insured in case something happens! You damn well had better have liability insurance if one of your light stands falls on someone. And if you make a mistake you'd better have indemnity. We'll stay on the cheap again) $500
legal and accounting services (Yes, we really do have to consult an attorney to make sure we are 100% legal on our contracting, etc. And I am  NOT an accountant so I am NOT about to take a chance with guessing at my taxes.) $1000
Taxes (self employment) This all depends on what you want for your salary, but we'll say you aren't making $20K at this. $5000
Payroll (we'll just skip payroll because we're being cheap and don't have anyone to assist answering phones or a second shooter or assistant)
Utilities (You kind of need electric to run that computer and charge those batteries at the very least. Usually you need some heat and/or AC cheap again) $500

ALL of that adds up to $21330 whether you have one client or a thousand. That's what it costs to be in this business WITHOUT A DIME TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER!!! 
If you shoot 48 weeks out of the year, working 40 hours a week-which comes out to shooting about 2 to 3 full time days-You can expect to bill for about 144 days of shooting. 
Your cost of doing business for a week is $426.60 or $1834.48 per month. BEFORE YOU ARE PAID. Cost per day of shooting is $148.13. COST. As in paid out. Did not go to you at all. Not a dime to the photog. 

Seeing how you are working in a professional position at a 40 hour a week job what is reasonable to be paid per hour? We'll be cheap and say $15 (That will be a rare find and probably someone only just starting out who doesn't know what they are doing yet, but hey! It could happen!) Add another $600 per week to that. Is that worth working 40 hours a week for? Um, no. You still have to pay some things like your personal insurance that is usually paid by an employer, etc out of that too, so you just netted about $375 for a week. 
HOWEVER you just added that to your weekly CODB to come up to $1026.60 per week or now a cost of $4414.38 per month and $50130 per year. Cost of doing business for a day of shooting is $342.20 

_*And you aren't making enough to put groceries on the table yet. *_


Are you rollin' in the dough now? 
Your photographer might be making enough to put food on the table. Maybe.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

deeky said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Think about it-the images that you shot and posted in your other post that were fully processed.
> ...



who think we are so unreasonable to CHARGE THEM MONEY for a couple hours of shooting and processing. It's SO EASY!


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

You pay $5000 in taxes with no clients?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 11, 2012)

Dangit...there goes MLeek laying out facts and reason....STOP IT! This is Benny's rant thread! 

Okay...who wants to *Google* around for that list of "*Most Overpayed Jobs*"? It lists wedding photographer at, as I recall, #1...and Orthodonist is like #2 IMMSMC, WID. Not sure, but I THINK Benny was a co-author on the article.

Oh, yeah....BTW,yesterday I shot a can and bottle drive for the Cub Scouts local den...got payed $1,975 for 31 minutes of work and 35 DVD's of images. Yuppp....and I'm gonna blow all that moolah on BEER!!!!! (not even remotely true....except the beer part...I *am* gonna buy some beer!]


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Dangit...there goes MLeek laying out facts and reason....STOP IT! This is Benny's rant thread!
> 
> Okay...who wants to *Google* around for that list of "*Most Overpayed Jobs*"? It lists wedding photographer at, as I recall, #1...and Orthodonist is like #2 IMMSMC, WID. Not sure, but I THINK Benny was a co-author on the article.


I know... I really should learn not to mess things up with FACTS. Takes the fun out of everything. 

I really wish my CODB were that low!


----------



## tirediron (Sep 11, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Dangit...there goes MLeek laying out facts and reason....STOP IT! This is Benny's rant thread!
> ...


Heck, you never even factored in parrot chow...  gotta keep the assistants fed and watered!


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

tirediron said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


They work for peanuts! Literally.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 11, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...


Which is apparently what we're supposed to do.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

tirediron said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...


Crap. I don't even like peanuts. 
I am in the WRONG business!


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Oh come on yall who cant cook up some book numbers to justify most anything? Listen, let's say $1,300 is a fair price for a days work, let's give it 2 hours shooting and 6 for the rest of it so you work a normal day.
That's $162 dollars an hour, and at that price folks, all those little nit pic "office expense THIS" and transportation THAT" are beside the point.

Because if you actually worked a normal year in hours like the rest of the country seems to have to, that comes out to $311,000 a year and like I said for THAT kinda work I am in the WRONG business.....

I would say the Achilles heel of photographers has to be their lack of marketing skills because with that kinda potential I would be buying myself a new sailboat here right shortly...


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> Oh come on yall who cant cook up some book numbers to justify most anything? Listen, let's say $1,300 is a fair price for a days work, let's give it 2 hours shooting and 6 for the rest of it so you work a normal day.
> That's $162 dollars an hour, and at that price folks, all those little nit pic "office expense THIS" and transportation THAT" are beside the point.
> 
> Because if you actually worked a normal year in hours like the rest of the country seems to have to, that comes out to $311,000 a year and like I said for THAT kinda work I am in the WRONG business.....
> ...



LOL! You're an idiot. Obviously you've not run a business of any sort. Let alone a photography business. 

I am lucky if I net $20 an hour. Get over yourself.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

What are you doing here? Seriously? First you start this thread to badmouth another person, now you want to badmouth the profession of Wedding and Event Photography? You ask these same people in other threads to help you? 


You've sparked real interest with me, what do you do?


----------



## tirediron (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> That's $162 dollars an hour, and at that price folks, all those little nit pic "office expense THIS" and transportation THAT" are beside the point.


  No, that is the point.  Running the office costs money!  Buying new gear costs money...



YoBenny said:


> Because if you actually worked a normal year in hours like the rest of the country seems to have to, that comes out to $311,000 a year and like I said for THAT kinda work I am in the WRONG business.....


They don't charge income tax in Texas?  Right off the bat, you can knock probably 40% of that amount off for taxes, before you even talk about expenses (and BTW, NO photographer I know of earns full hourly rate 40 hours/week, 50 weeks/year except in their dreams.


YoBenny said:


> I would say the Achilles heel of photographers has to be their lack of marketing skills because with that kinda potential I would be buying myself a new sailboat here right shortly...


I would say you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

The trouble, Benny, is that you can't actually book a $1300 session every day. If you can get in a couple a week, you're probably doing pretty well, and that's less than $70K a year for yourself and the small business you're running, which is probably equivalent to around a $35K salary in a Real Company, plus or minus $10K.

If you can keep the appointment book full, yeah, you can make a ton of money. But generally, you can't.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 11, 2012)




----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

at least you get some sort of health insurance working for 'da man' 

spitting in the wind here.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Oh I'm retired, I sold my second business that I built myself for 7 digits and sold the for one for the high 6's so I really dont know much about making money running your own business.
I shoulda got 8 digits is my only regret.

I can see it all now.........

I just need to drop a million into a web portal to gather up all you consummate professionals and charge you a finders fee to keep you busy and make another 7 digits but I digress hehehehehehe.

I'm just talking here Trever you are the one who caint take a joke why dont you lighten up some eh? hehehehehehehehehe


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

An average session for me:

The phone rings and I have to answer it, talk to the client and set up the appointment 10 minutes. 
Create the client file on my computer and in my files. Get a welcome  packet ready, create the contract and print it in duplicate. We'll be  fast as hell 10 minutes
Prep time: I have to charge batteries, clean gear daily, get out what I  need for each session and pack it all in my car. Being FRUGAL that takes  me 1/2 hour
Drive to session assuming it's very local to me 10 minutes
Shoot the session 1-2 hours
Drive home 10 minutes
Log my driving mileage in my log book (gotta do that sh!t for the IRS),  file my signed contract, download the images to my computer. Back them  up to an external hard drive. Keyword the entire file of images.  Sort/rate them and choose the final images. Put gear and props away. 1/2  hour
Process the images (notice I said PROCESS, not edit, but I do 3 full  final edits for examples of what a full retouch will look like) 2 hours
Resize and create the slideshow for proofing. 15 minutes.
(for me I'd then set up a viewing session, but for your photog she  evidently uploaded them for proofing, so that's what we'll assume)
Call and email the client to notify them that the session is ready for viewing. 10 minutes
Wait for the order... (no time billed there)
Order comes in and I have to read it and be sure there are no questions  on it. Open each image the client ordered and retouch, size to the  ordered size, sharpen, etc. Upload the order to the lab. 1 hour
Do the accounting and paperwork for the order. The IRS, State and Sales  Tax guys are kind of a pain in the butt like that. 10 minutes.
Order arrives from the lab it has to be received, sorted, checked, packaged and then delivered. 1 hour.

That's just shy of 8 hours. 
Remember I just charged you $750 for that 8 hours. MY cost of doing business per day is somewhere around $350 (notice how my fee covered my COSTS) BEFORE I am paid anything. That's a GROSS of $400 BEFORE taxes and my personal health insurance. NET to me out of that is somewhere just south of $200 or about $25 per hour. 

I have about 20 years experience and an extensive education which I keep up to date constantly. I am SO underpaid. I should have become a mechanic. God knows they're raking it in at $85 an hour. Cuz we all know they have no overhead that is paid out of that!


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> What are you doing here? Seriously? First you start this thread to badmouth another person, now you want to badmouth the profession of Wedding and Event Photography? You ask these same people in other threads to help you?
> 
> 
> You've sparked real interest with me, what do you do?


This wasn't even for a WEDDING. It was a bridal session!


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)




----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> Oh I'm retired, I sold my second business that I built myself for 7 digits and sold the for one for the high 6's so I really dont know much about making money running your own business.
> I shoulda got 8 digits is my only regret.
> 
> I can see it all now.........
> ...



Benny, my man, there are so many "this is all bull****" flags in here, I can't even tellya. Doesn't mean it's not true, but it sure smells iffy to me, and I've been around the block a few times.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:


> Oh come on yall who cant cook up some book numbers to justify most anything? Listen, let's say $1,300 is a fair price for a days work, let's give it 2 hours shooting and 6 for the rest of it so you work a normal day.
> That's $162 dollars an hour, and at that price folks, all those little nit pic "office expense THIS" and transportation THAT" are beside the point.
> 
> Because if you actually worked a normal year in hours like the rest of the country seems to have to, that comes out to $311,000 a year and like I said for THAT kinda work I am in the WRONG business.....
> ...



I had that dream once. 
It landed me into the middle of this really expensive business. 
I don't have the sailboat yet, but I will... some day... If I win the lottery!


----------



## MikeyTopping (Sep 11, 2012)

MLeek points out the CODB then YoBenny comes back saying you make $162 an hour......

I'm no mathematical genius but...


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Nawe seriously folks I just wonder how long you guys can stay in  business with those kinds of numbers, that's below the poverty line  isn't it? 
It's gotta be tough, and tougher still to know that the  King Of Idiots YoBenny can pull a camera out of the box and shoot as  good or better pics than a 12 year veteran....
Why you can almost buy enough technology to defy the necessity for skill! That's gotta be scary, food stamp scary I mean....

I  might try bumping my wages to $3,300 a day, and call it art, and get  the idiots that pay for art to pay my bills. After all, all you have to  do is SAY IT, right?

Anyway in all fairness I will say that I didn't care much for her pics, but she did know very well exactly  what she needed to say to get the bride to do what she wanted and she  was very smooth about it and personable too, she had her at the gate and  I can see that this is no easy skill to develop because you have to  have your own personality to work on to do that.

I know it's a lot of work and I'm just funnin yall about it because I wanted somebody (thank you MLeeK) to tell the "I used to walk 10 miles to school" story once hehehehehe


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

You've really ingratiated yourself to the crowd here. 
I am sure we'll all feel the love to help you out.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

Aww, sailboats are free. It's the maintenance and sails that'll kill ya!


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

While her images were not the quality I'd expect for the $ you say, yours were certainly a lot worse, don't kid yourself on that level at least.


----------



## YoBenny (Sep 11, 2012)

Well I like you anyway MLeek but you need a different barber and a nose job AWEful bad.........


----------



## Derrel (Sep 11, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> While her images were not the quality I'd expect for the $ you say, yours were certainly a lot worse, don't kid yourself on that level at least.



I still have those two Colts tickets...and I've completely cleaned and lubricated the dueling pistols, replaced the flints, got some new priming powder AND main charge powder...I even heated up the mould and hand-casted ten shiny new solid lead semi-wadcutter .58 caliber hollow-base slugs...just sayin'...


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 11, 2012)

YoBenny said:
			
		

> Well I like you anyway MLeek but you need a different barber and a nose job AWEful bad.........



That is completely out of line...even if you come back and claim it tounge in cheek.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

I'll only need one, thank you Derrel


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

I thought Benny's were pretty ok, and I am ok with disagreements on that point. However, they might not have been nearly so OK without the pro directing and posing the bride, though. There's real value there.


----------



## Overread (Sep 11, 2012)

Ok I think that is more than enough.


----------

