# Wedding Pricing?



## FreestyleOutdoors (Aug 29, 2013)

Hey guys, I'm wanting to get started into wedding photography and had a couple questions.

I am an amateur photographer/videographer, but I feel like my work is fairly good. I don't however want to step on the toes of the professionals or mislead clients. I want to start out by catering to couples who may not have the money to hire a PRO, but still want quality pictures.

My questions are:
1. What do you guys think would be a good way to advertise to my intended clientele without having somebody hire me thinking they are getting a PRO for cheap?

2. Am I wrong in assuming I will probably have 30-40 hours of work with shooting and post? If its in that area do you think a range of $400-500 would be acceptable? Too high? Too low?

3. I'm shooting on crop sensors, so would you guys suggest the 24-105 f/4L, 24-70 f/4L, or 17-40 f/4L be my next lens purchase?

Thanks in advance


----------



## runnah (Aug 29, 2013)

DSLR video? How many camera shots? Solo?

Video shoots are orders of magnitude more expensive than photo shoots. I normally charge $125 per hour for editing and about $2,000 a day plus travel expenses for video. I have at least 2-3 people at these shoots and 3 cameras along with 4-5 gopros. Plus mics and sound gear.

Granted this may be overkill for your but it's a good guide point as to what other people are doing and what is expected.


----------



## FreestyleOutdoors (Aug 29, 2013)

No I'm sorry, I meant photography. 

Video in the future, but not until I work on my editing skills more. I have all the equipment, although I would like another external audio recorder or two, but I just want my skills to match my equipment before I start doing video. I don't like half-assing anything


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 29, 2013)

Welcome to the forum.

Many years ago, I took a course that was specifically about getting started as a wedding photographer.  One of the main points of the whole course...was that experience should not factor into your pricing.  If you are good enough, then you should charge for it...and it may not be in your best interest to start out by charging too little (that's why most fail).

Of course, if you are going to charge a professional rate, you need to be able to deliver the goods, which means you have to be good enough (and prepared enough) to do it.  And yes, this is something that you largely acquire with experience, but it can certainly be done with little (professional) experience.  

So if you think that you are good enough and are ready to take on the responsibility of a pro wedding photographer....then have some confidence in that and charge what other professionals in your area charge.  More specifically, you should should write up a business plan that encompasses all the costs, expenditures and required income, so that you can figure out what you'd need to charge...to stay in business and/or make it worth your time.

If you don't feel you're up to that level yet, then maybe look for ways to improve and gain experience, without actually diving into the pool as a 'cheap' photographer.



> 2. Am I wrong in assuming I will probably have 30-40 hours of work with shooting and post? If its in that area do you think a range of $400-500 would be acceptable? Too high? Too low?


$10 per hour...that is barely above minimum wage...and if you include all the expenses you'll have, it's pennies really.  

I think that the time spent may be fairly accurate, but don't forget to include things like meetings, driving time etc.  And part of making a good go of this, is learning to streamline your workflow (especially if you're the type to take lots of photos).  If you're shooting for 8 hours, and spending 30 hours editing...that is very likely too much editing time.  There are many things you can do to keep the editing time more manageable...but that may be a discussion for another day.  

So basically, I'm saying that $400-$500 is very low.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of 'photographers' who are actually charging that much.  But consider that the type of clients who hire those photographers, are the type of client who shops mostly by price.  They don't make the best clients.  A better client is one who hires you because they like what you do, and are willing to pay for it.  It may be one of the hardest things about wedding photography (or any business) but the key is advertising to and attracting those clients...as opposed to being the lowest bidder.  



> 3. I'm shooting on crop sensors, so would you guys suggest the 24-105 f/4L, 24-70 f/4L, or 17-40 f/4L be my next lens purchase?


What do you have now?

I personally find that 24mm just isn't wide enough on a crop sensor (on your main lens).  I shot with a 17-50mm as my main lens on a crop.  But when I upgraded to full frame, I had to sell my 17-50mm (it was for crop only) and by a 24-70mm.


----------



## FreestyleOutdoors (Aug 29, 2013)

I currently have a 100-400mm F/4-5.6L(My main work is wildlife) and 50mm f1.8(right now my main filming lens, but I use it as my walk around photography lens), as well as a Rokinon 8mm Fisheye cinelens (for flying on my Monocam stabilizer)

I figured the 50 is pretty close to the FOV that an 85 gives full frame and I was under the impression that 85 is a good portrait length. I have heard good things about all the lenses I mentioned, just wanted some more opinions on them from people who do weddings


I guess my biggest thing with keeping the price low is that I just don't want to disappoint anybody. I kind of want to be able to help younger couples with tight budgets out as I am also a younger person. Do you think maybe 600-800 would be more reasonable?


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 29, 2013)

For shooting weddings on a crop frame, I'd suggest something in the 17-50mm range, with a max aperture of F2.8.  Canon has a great EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, but it's rather expensive.  I would suggest the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8.  It's much more affordable and almost as good.  

A 70-200mm F2.8 lens is a favorite with many, many wedding photographers.  You certainly could use your 100-400mm for your telephoto needs during a wedding...but the maximum aperture will hurt you...not to mention that it's a beast of a lens to be hauling around during a busy wedding day.  

The 50mm would certainly give you a large aperture option...which is often necessary for weddings.  I prefer a little longer of a lens for portraits, but it's certainly usable.  



> I guess my biggest thing with keeping the price low is that I just don't want to disappoint anybody. I kind of want to be able to help younger couples with tight budgets out as I am also a younger person. Do you think maybe 600-800 would be more reasonable?


I don't want to harp on it too much (there are many old threads around here, talking about how to price wedding photography).
I really suggest you write down a business plan.  There are a lot of things to consider.


----------



## FreestyleOutdoors (Aug 29, 2013)

Thank you for the info


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 29, 2013)

Charge what you want, the prices for weddings range from free to tens of thousands. I'd say start at $850, you'll end up getting more people interested in using you than if you go higher.  All you need to do is put together a web site or portfolio, offer up a couple of cheaper than most wedding photographer photo packages and you'll have people calling.  As long as you feel you can produce the images and deliver a decent number of good images, you're all set.


----------



## wild4alaska (Sep 4, 2013)

What do you use the go pro's for? like where are they placed, and are they all simultaneously recording .


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 4, 2013)

When I first got into photography .. many years ago with  Canon AE-1 for a few years then some absence, then a Nikon N80/D70, then absence again for 5+ years I finally jumped back on with my D7000 I have learned alot lately.

My D7000 camera came with a 18-105 kit lens f/3.5-4.6.  I bought a 75-300 thinking I would use it ALOT.  But I find that I rarely use it.
Doing some kids soccer, baseball, school events, etc I find that I'm using the 18-105 MOST of the time and then mostly at the low end - 18 to 35

I've now gone the opposite of when I first started (going to the short end of the lens instead of the long end).  
In an enclosed environment like a wedding I would think exactly like the pros.  Close up lens and then one to capture a little further away (17-70).  I've been dabbling in interior (real estate like) photography and am using my 24mm and the 18-105 at 18mm ALOT.  And doing family interior stuff really pushes the short end of the lens.

I have a 50mm but don't use that much except for wanting the 1.8 low light ability.  The 24mm lens gets used some but I don't use it much even though it's a f/2.8.  My 24-85 f2.8-4 now is getting used a little bit for lower light shooting/bokeh as the 18-105 just isn't that great except in good sunlight and really no bokeh.  But the 18 (18-105) is actually my main lens again because of the 18mm short end.

I'm also looking at those Tamron 11-16 lens now.  But I see more need to learn more about composition and off camera flash.  I have the lens (on the cheap end) but lack the expertise now.

I would like to do some weddings too, but not large weddings, just small chapel ones to gain experience and more knowledge.
I'm actually planning on going to my church with a few people on off hours and basically walking through a wedding scenario to understand what my lens can and can't do, and what I can identify to improve.  I need to know if I can handle my camera well enough to not flub a wedding.

There is so much to learn in order to provide a good quality pictures.
I see some people who get paid but then I see composition issues ... background bushes growing out of peoples heads,  depth of field being too much where the foreground and background are sharp (kid picking his nose in the background of the bride/groom), etc.  rule of 3rds, etc.

In short, I'm finding composition to be the biggest issue right now as I have good lens but need small focal lengths.  That, plus interior photography needed some good glass (think f/2.8 or better).  I also keep yearning for a D600 FF as I've tried that and a D700 and the FullFrame just seems to be the ticket for interior lower light photos.

But #1 - you can advertise initially by telling your friends about what you want to do.  You may get a client just from that.  Then facebook page, etc. 

that's my .02 inexperienced cents


----------



## raventepes (Sep 5, 2013)

I start at $800, which covers the shooting, processing, cost of materials (thumb drives), and so forth. This is a basic flat fee, where all they get are digital proofs. From there, I have packages, ranging from $60-$200 (or more, if they need/want it, which is generally negotiable). 

As far as lenses go, Sigma has a 17-50 f/2.8, designed for an APS-C body. They also have a 50-150 f/2.8 that pairs with it. If I remember right, and Canon uses a 1.6 crop, that'll give a total equivalent angle of view of 27-240 on a full frame body, which is pretty close to the 24-200mm range that many use. Realistically, I'd urge you to pair the two together, if you can. Fast lenses are indispensable for weddings, as they provide you with better coverage in low light situations. While noted, you have a 100-400 already, while it's an outstanding lens, it's just a bit too slow for wedding work, at least in my opinion, especially if you're inside a church.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Sep 5, 2013)

FreestyleOutdoors said:


> Hey guys, I'm wanting to get started into wedding photography and had a couple questions.
> 
> I am an amateur photographer/videographer, but I feel like my work is fairly good. I don't however want to step on the toes of the professionals or mislead clients. I want to start out by catering to couples who may not have the money to hire a PRO, but still want quality pictures.
> 
> ...



500/40 = 12.50

Go get a mall job instead if you have to do that much work.


----------



## FreestyleOutdoors (Sep 6, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> 500/40 = 12.50
> 
> Go get a mall job instead if you have to do that much work.


I just said that's where I want to start. I just want to cover expenses and make a little amount for my effort, but my main goal is gain experience in wedding settings. After I gain more experience I would raise my prices. 

I feel like I was playing the hour estimate safe. It SHOULDN'T take me 40 hours, I just like to err on the side of caution. At 20 hours(8ish shooting and 12ish editing) I would be making $25/hr minus expenses and that is fine by me right now. I'm not looking to make a quick buck, I'm doing it because I enjoy it and want to keep gaining experience.

Honestly though, I would rather make 12.50/hr doing something I enjoy than working a "mall job" even if it requires more work.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 6, 2013)

OP, you definitely need to consider all the elements that impact your pricing. Once you set your price, and get even a single client at said price, it becomes more and more difficult the more clients you get to raise your prices. You have to have a very good reason (i.e. Moved to a new market, bought better lighting equipment, camera, etc.) Also keep in mind that if you price yourself anywhere below $1000, you're in the Craigslist market. NO ONE with any skill should be in the Craigslist market.

Do what Mike said, write out a business plan, determine your pricing structure from that. These other posters that are throwing out random numbers don't know your local market and they don't know you or your skills. You'd do well to ignore all of those numbers.


----------

