# Cost for Royal Wedding photographer?



## doziergraphic (Apr 27, 2011)

Curious if there is anything officially in print that gives the cost for Hugo Burnand's photography services for the Royal Wedding. I'd like to know so I can adjust my rates accordingly


----------



## mikehaugen (Apr 27, 2011)

One BILLION dollars!

damn, I can't remember what movie that was from.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 27, 2011)

mikehaugen said:


> One BILLION dollars!
> 
> damn, I can't remember what movie that was from.


 Austin Powers (the first one, I think).


----------



## doziergraphic (Apr 27, 2011)

[video]http://youtu.be/jTmXHvGZiSY[/video]


----------



## Paul D. Van Hoy II (Apr 27, 2011)

I would say that he's being compensated somewhere in the range of 250k-500k with absolutely no rights to the images aside from an allowance to credit himself to future clients as the "Royal Wedding Photographer".

Toronto Wedding Photographer


----------



## KVRNut (Apr 27, 2011)

Judging by the looks of some of his work, he ain't cheap but the Royals seem to like him.  Hugo Burnand Photography

Looks like he likes using large and medium formats for the majority of his photography.  The Royal shots look like LF.  Would like to see the camera equipment he uses.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 27, 2011)

I heard he was hired through a Craigslist search, and the price is supposed to be $300, and all the images on a DVD.


----------



## KmH (Apr 27, 2011)

Knighthood?


----------



## doziergraphic (Apr 27, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I heard he was hired through a Craigslist search, and the price is supposed to be $300, and all the images on a DVD.


 
oh, then I'm priced about right!


----------



## camz (Apr 27, 2011)

Paul D. Van Hoy II said:


> I would say that he's being compensated somewhere in the range of 250k-500k with absolutely no rights to the images aside from an allowance to credit himself to future clients as the "Royal Wedding Photographer".
> 
> Toronto Wedding Photographer


 
Taxpayer's money well spent! lol


----------



## ghache (Apr 27, 2011)

He's using a kit lens. probably his 18-55 with a rubber hood


----------



## mikehaugen (Apr 28, 2011)

maybe we'll hear from him on here asking what camera and lens to buy and what he should charge.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 28, 2011)

:lmao:


----------



## gsgary (Apr 28, 2011)

It would not suprise if he is shooting it for free


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 28, 2011)

The payoffs in simply being known as the Royal Wedding Photographer in getting him other business are going to be huge.


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 28, 2011)

His website is pretty craptastic... and man, he doesnt even have a wedding album?  Probably means that it's his first wedding...


----------



## Cyclographist (Apr 28, 2011)

I don't know. I heard he wasn't shooting any pictures himself and that he was just handing out disposable cameras to be collected after the wedding.


----------



## ghache (Apr 28, 2011)

he's probably a friend from the familly


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 28, 2011)

What royal wedding?  You'd think something like that would get some sort of coverage.


----------



## skieur (Apr 30, 2011)

I am surprised that no one here seems to know. The photographer's fee was about $2,600 if I remember correctly.

skieur


----------



## Rao Katrag (May 2, 2011)

i think this is too expensive..


----------



## JohnBoy (May 2, 2011)

Have not heard anything about the financials but I heard via the media here in Australia that he is the chief photographer for Tattler magazine and he shot the wedding using three digital Hassys

Cheers


----------



## skieur (May 2, 2011)

Rao Katrag said:


> i think this is too expensive..


 
The group shots were quite elaborate productions, so I don't think that $2,600 was too expensive at all.

skieur


----------



## gsgary (May 3, 2011)

skieur said:


> Rao Katrag said:
> 
> 
> > i think this is too expensive..
> ...



If he was paid it would be a lot more than $2600 thats only the price of medium wedding tog over here


----------



## Josh66 (May 3, 2011)

skieur said:


> I am surprised that no one here seems to know. The photographer's fee was about $2,600 if I remember correctly.
> 
> skieur


 Is that a joke?  I mean, it has to be, lol.  There's no way they only paid that little.

"Normal" people pay more than that.

I don't really care one way or the other how much they paid, but I would expect to see two digits in front of the comma...


----------



## skieur (May 3, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > I am surprised that no one here seems to know. The photographer's fee was about $2,600 if I remember correctly.
> ...


 
Well, that was the figure that was released to the media and reported, so....................

skieur


----------



## Josh66 (May 3, 2011)

If that truly is the price they paid - I am shocked.

Do you have a link?  ...It's not that I don't believe you, but I would like to read more about it...


----------



## Formatted (May 3, 2011)

Dam lies, statics and more dam lies! (Or something like that)


----------



## Josh66 (May 3, 2011)

He certainly is getting a lot of publicity though...  Just a minute ago, they were plugging his website on Entertainment Tonight (again).


----------



## skieur (May 5, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> If that truly is the price they paid - I am shocked.
> 
> Do you have a link? ...It's not that I don't believe you, but I would like to read more about it...


 
I don't have a link, because it was in a regular in-depth news broadcast related to the wedding on television.  I don't get all my information from the net.

skieur


----------

