Reading mode: Light Dark

Overpaid Wedding Pros?

Go to last post
Shooting a wedding is not only a TON of work, but it's quite stressful, and a world of criticism typically follows. Ugh. That said, it's a good paying profession if you're any good, is emotionally rewarding, and keeps you on your photographic toes both artistically and technologically. If you don't like paying a pro, then go pay an amateur and enjoy your results smirk

Miles
Jamie W said:
I think this is simply an example of folks not knowing all what
goes into photographing a wedding. Photographing a wedding is very
hard work, yet unless one has actually tried to do it, it may not
look that difficult.

To me, its the same as a major league baseball player....wow, what
a great job. Tons of money to play a game. But of course, we
don't see the travel, the bruises, sprains, loss of privacy, public
ciriticism, etc.

If one knows not of what one speaks, one usually looks foolish.
Whoever wrote the article illustrates that well.

--
Jamie W.
Kindness. Compassion. Understanding. Respect. Courtesy.
I try to live up to these words. Do you?

Colossians 3:8 --> But now you must rid yourselves of all such
things as: anger, rage, malice, slander, and foul language.

PLEASE keep in mind that I am not saying that I am perfect and
never do such things. Nothing could be further from the truth.
However, I do my best to live by this, and encourage you to do the
same! =)
Click to expand...
--
m i l e s t
 
Jim Van Donsel said:
Yet let's face it; much of their work is mediocre. Have you ever
really been wowed flipping the pages of a wedding album handed you
by recent newlyweds?
Click to expand...
That is true, they are not interesting at all.

Annie Leibovitz and Richard Avedon they're
Jim Van Donsel said:
not, but some charge fees as if they're in the same league.
Click to expand...
This is not true, Annie and Richard can charge 75/100.000 a DAY!!!

Andrea
 
Seems here like the people earning money shooting weddings are of course going to say its very hard work. If your just an amature with a nice camera the though its that anyone can do it for the most part

I think the truth is somewhere in between. There is a bit of experience that you do need to have. Though also with a 10D, unlimited shots and a few good fast lens you can get alot of great shots.

There are "pros" ive seen that cant even expose a shot properly and still chraged $2k and tried to sell out of focus shots for $80 for an 8x10.

There are amatures out there though that totally botched the first job they did as well

There are pro's that do amazing work and some amatures have done some amazing work as well.

Really its the photographer and his/her eye. Dont assume you get what you pay for. Ive seen wedding "pros" show up hung over and not deliver and some set the example everyone should try to live up to.

Look at the persons work and pick what you like if your the one paying. Theres tons of competition and your in the drivers seat. Tell them what you expect as to how they will behave, dress, interact with the guest.

http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
 
Jim,

I just think that $40.00 for a print that I KNOW they printed at Walmart/Sam's club is a bit much! How do I know this? I happened to see a photographer that was at a wedding I attended picking up the prints. Not much of a "pro" if you ask me.

$40.00 for an 8X10 is a fair price "IF" there was some serious post processing done, but not if it is straight from the camera. If it's a straight shot, then a 400% + markup is not quite right.

The photographer I had at my wedding had 5 weddings to shoot that weekend, and he was booked 8 months out. I would say that $4250.00 a weekend (average) was pretty good. And he didn't have to worry about getting film developed or prints done. Once the wedding was done, so was he. I would say that the headache part is what he was removing from his part! He recommend a great lab that we then went to.

For a 16X24 portrait, there would most likely be some post processing being done. $150.00 is a reasonable price in that case.

I just have a problem with some of the "pro's" charging for there "professional" services and not delivering "pro" level service or goods.

Paul S. R.
Shutter. said:
Paul S. R. said:
After the wedding comes the SERIOUSLY inflated pricing for prints,
I have seen 8X10's quoted for $40.00!!!! You can get the same
print at a "pro" processing house for less than $10.00, or
Walmart/Sam's for less than $3.00.
Click to expand...
This is practice for ANY photography, not just weddings. It's also
the way it should be. Hours are spent before/after the wedding
preparing and processing. The buyer isn't just paying for the time
shooting, but also for the skills and abilities of the
photographer. How much do you think is appropriate to charge for
an 8x10? I actually think $40 is pretty reasonable. Portrait
photographers often charge over $150 for a 16x24!

$850??? A photographer is supposed to make a living on $850 a
weekend?

I agree that many are overpaid for what they produce, but for a
good professional photographer... how much is too much?

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase.
-Percy W. Harris
Our existence is determined by the truths we tell.
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
Click to expand...
 
As I just posted on another thread, it's hard, stressful work. And it has to be right first time. Paying for a decent photographer is insurance for it being done well.

That list seems totally arbitrary to me. I suspect whoever wrote it just got married. What about the actors that get paid multiple million dollars per movie, or "pop stars" who don't even write or produce their own music?

Let's not even mention lawyers, or striking supermarket workers who make $14/hr!
 
Jim Van Donsel said:
Don't blame me here, I'm only the messenger, but here is a clipping
from a cbs.marketwatch.com story listing the 10 most overpaid jobs
in the US. Number 10 is "Wedding Photographer":
-jim

QUOTING:

10) Wedding photographers

Photographers typically charge $2,000 to $5,000 to shoot a wedding,
for what amounts to a one-day assignment plus initial
client-meeting and processing time. Yet many mope through the job,
bumping guests in their way without apology, with the attitude:
"I'm just doing this for the money until Time or National
Geographic calls."

They must cover equipment and film-development costs. Still, many
in major
metro areas who shoot two weddings each weekend in the
May-to-October season can pull in $75,000 to $100,000 for six
months' work.

Yet let's face it; much of their work is mediocre. Have you ever
really been wowed flipping the pages of a wedding album handed you
by recent newlyweds? Annie Leibovitz and Richard Avedon they're
not, but some charge fees as if they're in the same league.
Click to expand...
 
IMHO, $800 for 5 hours work was ripping you off, if all he did was give you the film. The post processing is what gives you the professional package along with the photographer's skill and experience. I can get a machine print (8x10) from a lab for about $3.50 but if you want cropping, burning and dodging, that print increases to about $15.00 a print. Retouching and special effects will be an additional $18 to $20 per hour. 4x5 or 4x6 proofs will run about $.45 to $.50 each at a lab. Albums are sold in three peices, Cover (front and Back), pages (usually in packs of 6) and mats (usually in packs of 10). Each page holds 2-8x10's and reguires 2 masks. It is not uncommon for a decent album with 24-8x10's to cost a photographer about $300 to $400. Add to that a proof album with 150 proofs and the cost is an additional $125 to $150.

So, for $800 on a 5 hour wedding job, I would also be very accomodating and maybe even kiss your feet, if you did everything else. In another thread you say this photographer does 5 weddings a weekend. There is no way he can do the wedding event justice. Basically he is a wedding hack - shoot and scoot.
Paul S. R. said:
When my wife and I got married, we found a photographer that GAVE
us the film when he was done shooting. We OWN the images and the
rights to them. We can do anything we like with them. He charged up
$800.00 for 5 hours work, was not rude and very pleasant to work
with.
Click to expand...
 
Paul,

Your last comment is the best - this is the basic problem. There are too many "pro photogrpahers" that produce cr@p and charge as if they were providing something. If the market willbear it, then I guess there is nothing to complain about - except the buyers need to beware!

I don't think in terms of someone being over paid or under paid - I just think about what they deliver.

Frank
Paul S. R. said:
I just have a problem with some of the "pro's" charging for there
"professional" services and not delivering "pro" level service or
goods.

Paul S. R.
Click to expand...
To err is human, to really screw things up requires a computer.
 
This is the point -I have read all the replies (here and on Zuga - it is hot there...) and to me the problem is that there are people selling cr@p and charging as if they knew what they were doing.

I am just starting and I refuse to charge for a wedding until I KNOW I can deliver the goods.

Anyone can shoot 2000 images at a wedding and reception and cherry pick a few - a pro can deliver the goods no matter what circumstances throw at them.

And having the "EYE" is the most critical thing of all. I don't have it yet, but I am learning thanks to the generous B&G's that take a chance and let me learn at their weddings.

Frank
The Big Bad said:
Really its the photographer and his/her eye. Dont assume you get
what you pay for. Ive seen wedding "pros" show up hung over and
not deliver and some set the example everyone should try to live up
to.
Click to expand...
--
To err is human, to really screw things up requires a computer.
 
Jon,

There are lots of jobs that are hard and stresfull - that is not relevent. The point is a real wedding photographer is an artist and you are paying for their talent. In that case there is no csuch thing as over/under paid - art is worth what you pay for it.

Frank
Jon Stern said:
As I just posted on another thread, it's hard, stressful work. And
it has to be right first time. Paying for a decent photographer is
insurance for it being done well.

That list seems totally arbitrary to me. I suspect whoever wrote it
just got married. What about the actors that get paid multiple
million dollars per movie, or "pop stars" who don't even write or
produce their own music?

Let's not even mention lawyers, or striking supermarket workers who
make $14/hr!
Click to expand...
--
To err is human, to really screw things up requires a computer.
 
I have read so many responses to this article both here and on Zuga and it amazes me how many people miss the point.

Ed Shapiro on Zuga got it right. The writter is an idiot.

It is NOT necessary to justify how much wedding photographers make or don't make. The point is this writers perception is a growing trend. I hear from clients and friends all the time - "wedding photographers make a bundle!". Well guess what, most don't.

However if the public continues to believe the wedding photography business is over priced then that is bad in the long run for real wedding photographers.

More and more smuck's are going out there selling themselves as "Wedding Photographers" and don't know the first thing about photography or business - this is the problem - these are over paid - they would be over paid at $1.00 per wedding.

Real wedding photographers are artists and are worth what ever you can afford if you like thier art - period.

Frank
Jim Van Donsel said:
Don't blame me here, I'm only the messenger, but here is a clipping
from a cbs.marketwatch.com story listing the 10 most overpaid jobs
in the US. Number 10 is "Wedding Photographer":
-jim

QUOTING:

10) Wedding photographers

Photographers typically charge $2,000 to $5,000 to shoot a wedding,
for what amounts to a one-day assignment plus initial
client-meeting and processing time. Yet many mope through the job,
bumping guests in their way without apology, with the attitude:
"I'm just doing this for the money until Time or National
Geographic calls."

They must cover equipment and film-development costs. Still, many
in major
metro areas who shoot two weddings each weekend in the
May-to-October season can pull in $75,000 to $100,000 for six
months' work.

Yet let's face it; much of their work is mediocre. Have you ever
really been wowed flipping the pages of a wedding album handed you
by recent newlyweds? Annie Leibovitz and Richard Avedon they're
not, but some charge fees as if they're in the same league.
Click to expand...
--
To err is human, to really screw things up requires a computer.
 
Gary T said:
Found the article someplace else so that I didn't have to sign into
their service:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1016490/posts
Click to expand...
I can't say how overpaid skycaps in general are, but when my girlfriend and I landed in Miami this spring to go on a cruise, we found the friendliest, fastest, most efficient skycap I could have imagined. He zipped up past one line and another, and we were through and into the waiting area in far less time than I would have imagined.

It needs to be said, though, that the writer makes the same mistake many do, by "pointing out" how high pro athlete salaries drive up the cost of tickets, when in fact they do absolutely nothing of the kind. Ticket prices are set by one thing, and one thing only: the market. Ticket prices are low for Expos and Marlins games because they have huge stadiums and a small fan base: high supply, low demand. Ticket prices for Cubs and Red Sox games are high because they had small stadiums and huge fan bases: low supply, high demand. How much the teams pay in salaries is next to irrelevant.

Mark
 
In fact, you couldn't pay me at all. I'd rather ride a garbage truck.

I'd be curious to know what the other ten over paid jobs are.

Abu Mumia

--
'He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond
the pale of any acceptable human conduct.'
  • Apocalypse Now
 
http://www.ppa.com/public/articles/details.cfm?id=923

http://www.ppa.com/public/articles/details.cfm?id=922

If one demands a professional level of competence from a person in any occupation, it is necessary for that person be paid enough to earn a living by doing the work full-time.

In the business world, there is an old saying: "excess profits breed competition." For any given community, I speculate that 50% of the photographers who shoot weddings for pay have been in business for less than one year. And each year, 50% of the photographers who shoot weddings for pay must quit and get a regular job in hopes of paying off the debts they have accrued while shooting weddings.

Why do so many people endeavor to become pro wedding photographers? Because they have no clue about the costs of doing business. For example, in my own case, I would never have guessed that the county property tax on my business property would be 4 times higher than the property tax on my 3,200 sq ft home in town. But I digress. Most people go broke as wedding photographers simply because the prices they charge are not high enough. In due course, most will learn that they could be making more money by flipping burgers at McDonalds. Personally, I am currently charging $3,000 per wedding - and I still don't feel I am making a worthwhile profit. My local MCDonalds restaurants pay $7.85 per hour to start - which is something I keep very close tabs on.

Gene Windell
 
What gear are you using Gene ? I only ask out of intrest.

If you buy yourself a 10D, a 24-70L, and a 135 f2 L for portraits, a decent tripod, a 550ex flash, a couple of 1 gigi CF cards and maybe a little portable hotlight and backdrop thats about $4500 total

YOu shoot 2 weddings of which you make $3000 and you cover the cost of all the proofs even as 8x10's and the cost of renting a tux each time etc your still should be breaking even after 2 of those weddings.

I myself already own all of such gear which i aquired as a personal hobby. So for me, when someone pays me to photography an event its all seen as profit. I have never gotten $3000 or near that figure

I just simply dont see how a photographer cant make ends meet making evne half that figure. yes you may need to work another job if things are slow, but with your case for example, at $3k each time, you can go out and shoot once a month and make $30k doing just that. Thats more than most people are making out of college.

I certainly dont mean to judge you but would just be intrested in seeing your perspective and your impressions of the business as a whole.

http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
 
Hey Paul,

Well, your reply didn't mention anything about post or not-post processing, only that an 8x10 is a rip at $40. It doesn't really matter if they were developed at Wal-Mart... by the way, Wal-Mart uses the same equipment as almost all online developers do, but at much less expensive prices... it's the end result that matters. If a photographer requires no post processing and does great work, it should be charged the same as the photographer that needs post processing to get their results.

Bottom line: If the work sucks, $40 print is too much, if the work is exceptional, $40/8x10 is dirt cheap (regardless of how much it costs).
Paul S. R. said:
I just think that $40.00 for a print that I KNOW they printed at
Walmart/Sam's club is a bit much! How do I know this? I happened to
see a photographer that was at a wedding I attended picking up the
prints. Not much of a "pro" if you ask me.

$40.00 for an 8X10 is a fair price "IF" there was some serious post
processing done, but not if it is straight from the camera. If it's
a straight shot, then a 400% + markup is not quite right.

The photographer I had at my wedding had 5 weddings to shoot that
weekend, and he was booked 8 months out. I would say that $4250.00
a weekend (average) was pretty good. And he didn't have to worry
about getting film developed or prints done. Once the wedding was
done, so was he. I would say that the headache part is what he was
removing from his part! He recommend a great lab that we then went
to.

For a 16X24 portrait, there would most likely be some post
processing being done. $150.00 is a reasonable price in that case.

I just have a problem with some of the "pro's" charging for there
"professional" services and not delivering "pro" level service or
goods.

Paul S. R.
Shutter. said:
Paul S. R. said:
After the wedding comes the SERIOUSLY inflated pricing for prints,
I have seen 8X10's quoted for $40.00!!!! You can get the same
print at a "pro" processing house for less than $10.00, or
Walmart/Sam's for less than $3.00.
Click to expand...
This is practice for ANY photography, not just weddings. It's also
the way it should be. Hours are spent before/after the wedding
preparing and processing. The buyer isn't just paying for the time
shooting, but also for the skills and abilities of the
photographer. How much do you think is appropriate to charge for
an 8x10? I actually think $40 is pretty reasonable. Portrait
photographers often charge over $150 for a 16x24!

$850??? A photographer is supposed to make a living on $850 a
weekend?

I agree that many are overpaid for what they produce, but for a
good professional photographer... how much is too much?

Jim
--
Jim Fuglestad
Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase.
-Percy W. Harris
Our existence is determined by the truths we tell.
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Jim Fuglestad

Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase. -Percy W. Harris
Our existence is determined by the truths we tell.
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
 
It's naive to think that the cost of shooting a wedding is the time spent on the wedding and the cost of equipment. There are few businesses where the price you pay is equal to the cost of the equipment being used and the actual time spent on the assignment. If you subscribe to such logic, then the most you should pay for a music CD should be 21 cents assuming the cost of a CD is 20 cents and the cost of the singer's time is a few hours divided by several million. Should a major league baseball player be paid by the cost of his bat and uniform plus the few minutes spent at bat? Bottom line is, if $3000 is overpaying for a wedding, then there will be no $3000 wedding photographers. The market has a way of equalizing itself.
The Big Bad said:
What gear are you using Gene ? I only ask out of intrest.

If you buy yourself a 10D, a 24-70L, and a 135 f2 L for portraits,
a decent tripod, a 550ex flash, a couple of 1 gigi CF cards and
maybe a little portable hotlight and backdrop thats about $4500
total
Click to expand...
Take those numbers and double it because no professional wedding photographer worth his fee is going to shoot with just one camera or flash. To that, add several 1 GB cards and at least 2 offline storage devices.
The Big Bad said:
YOu shoot 2 weddings of which you make $3000 and you cover the cost
of all the proofs even as 8x10's and the cost of renting a tux each
time etc your still should be breaking even after 2 of those
weddings.
Click to expand...
There are few wedding photographers making 50% margin but let's assume he is. So that's $1,500 after the cost of goods sold to cover time, gas, studio lease, electricity, business insurance, health insurance, taxes & permits, accounting fees, capital cost of computers, marketing cost, vehicle cost & insurance, etc. So let's say you are left with 800 profits. 800x10 weddings=8000 year. You're better off flipping burgers.
The Big Bad said:
I myself already own all of such gear which i aquired as a personal
hobby. So for me, when someone pays me to photography an event its
all seen as profit. I have never gotten $3000 or near that figure
Click to expand...
You are simply subsidizing the true cost to shoot that event with your day job.
The Big Bad said:
I just simply dont see how a photographer cant make ends meet
making evne half that figure. yes you may need to work another job
if things are slow, but with your case for example, at $3k each
time, you can go out and shoot once a month and make $30k doing
just that. Thats more than most people are making out of college.
Click to expand...
This scenario would be true if clients magically line up and book their own weddings without any marketing. You simply show up at their wedding, shoot it and download the images. The images magically edit themselves and print and arrange themselves into a presentable wedding album. Then the images jump into a web gallery with no intervention by the photographer. Of course, every client prepays 100% and there are no tax consequences to this income. In this world, there are no accidents so there is no need for insurance of any kind. Ideally, the photographer never gets sick so there is no need for health insurance. Don't forget to send the limo to pick up the photographer to and from the wedding. In this scenario, the photographer has no car, nor does he have a need for one.
The Big Bad said:
I certainly dont mean to judge you but would just be intrested in
seeing your perspective and your impressions of the business as a
whole.

http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
Click to expand...
--
http://www.PatYuen.com
 
first off are you going to go to the wedding with just one camera? As an amateur you can, and if it breaks more than likely they will understand....as a pro they won't.......THIS IS A WEDDING you can't do it over, everything has to work, and things do go wrong. You need two bodies minimum...three is safer......probably four lenses as a minimum, just to overlap and cover the possibilities of any failure. Now for strobes....at least 3 probably 4 on site. Power packs, spare batteries etc.. When I fly for a job I carry three bodies, a minimum of five lenses, and seven strobes. I own ten bodies of various vintages, but all would work in a pinch. I had a shutter go "crunch" in Detroit one weekend, and heard the same exact agonizing sound in San Francisco from another body the next weekend......but I still had spares to shoot with while both bodies were in the shop.

As a pro you need insurance...not just for liability and theft, but also against failure to perform....you think doctors are the only ones who might get sued over their performance on the job?

Sure you can do the whole wedding with one camera, and one lens....I had to once when I was asked at the wedding if I could shoot it......but if you are a pro you need the backup, and the depth to always be able to do the job.

I ran into a pro on a flight who told me all about how she was cleaning up because her prices were so much more reasonable than the competition in her area....they were shooting with a single S1....I think probably one zoom lens....no ext. flashes, and no insurance.....

They might even be able to take good pictures, though it sounded as if they didn't have the foggiest idea about dynamic range, or flash synch, so I doubt it.....but the scariest thing was their lack of business planning, and their lack of backup and insurance.

As was mentioned by an earlier poster....many start short lived careers in photography, and more importantly....the statistic that I remember when I started 28 years ago was that 90-95% of "professsional" photographers made less than $10,000 per year in photography..I have always assumed that that was gross, not net. So do you want a photographer who shoots that little doing your wedding?

What separates the pro from the gifted amateur is that the pro can deliver 24/7 and the amateur gets is right some or most of the time......I have been a pro for 27-28 years earning my entire income from photography. Most of my career has been a struggle to survive, and suffice it to say that I have earned over $100,000 (gross) in more than one of those years. The economy is down now, and last year was not good. My net is about 33% of my gross, and .....that McDonalds job looks quite attractive at times.....as well as one of the grocery clerk jobs....

What?? they have to contribute to their health insurance? I pay $850 per month out of my pocket for Kaiser..(family of three)...add up the house, utilities, auto expenses, and I have to make $3000-4000 per month just to make expenses....and I have to save for retirement....as my employer doesn't have a retirement plan that I don't fund 100%.

Now about that POSH lifestyle I can afford on that envisioned $100,000 per year??? Do the math.

Traditionally markup in portrait/wedding photography has been 700% (reprint pricing), and I think it is entirely justified.

--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
 
Not all wedding photographers provide the same product and level of service. I operate a full-time portrait studio, in addition to doing wedding photography. I average about 50 man-hours consumed in the production of one wedding. For example, I have a makeup artist on staff who does the bride's makeup for the engagement photo session, the studio pre-bridal portrait session, and makeup at the bride's home on the wedding day.

I have to pay sales tax at the end of every month, that's 12 times per year. I have to pay estimated Federal Income Tax quarterly, plus the year-end tax return - so that's 5 times. The same is required for state income tax - that's 5 more times. In addition, I have to pay county property tax twice each year - so that's 2 more times. All totalled, I fill out and submit tax forms 24 times per year. Sounds like fun, right?
The Big Bad said:
What gear are you using Gene ? I only ask out of intrest.
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant. Last year, my gross sales were a little over $100,000. My business expenses were a little over $80,000. The money I spent on equipment purchases and maintenance, which was a lot, was still only a drop in the bucket.

I know that if I didn't have to pay any taxes, I could cut my prices in half and still earn the same amount of profit. I'm convinced that a wedding photographer who operates "off the books" and out of the trunk of his car, and charges $600 for a CD full of wedding images, can make more money than I do.
The Big Bad said:
I myself already own all of such gear which i aquired as a personal
hobby. So for me, when someone pays me to photography an event its
all seen as profit. I have never gotten $3000 or near that figure.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't. Anyone who owns a camera can photograph a wedding, and claim to be a wedding photographer. But getting someone to agree to pay you $3,000 for doing it is an entirely different matter. When you reach that point, if you ever do, you'll probably be just like me - working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and envying the guys who work at McDonalds. I set a new record this year - 43 straight days in a row without a day off. For all that I figure my actual, spendable pay is about $8.00 an hour. Next year, my prices are going up.

Gene Windell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top