Beating the pro

Ok...I think I've about had my fill of the snide remarks from the pro's about folks who shoot at wedding who aren't pro.

Is it REALLY that hard to believe that some of the non-pros can equal or better the hired help?

I have a friend who runs a wedding photography business. His work (and those of the shooters who work for him) are AMAZING. I went on a shoot with him and he included a couple of my shots in his presentation to the client -- didn't have my "pro gear" at the time.

Anyway -- there's NO WAY I can outshoot this guy. Not now....not for a long time. Then again, he's a high end wedding photographer -- second generation, grew up in the business and now runs it.

On the other hand -- I can CERTAINLY do better than the pro we hired 14 years ago that did OUR wedding.

All pros are not equal. And frankly, there are some rather talented shooters who just don't happen to shoot for a living.

Lee

Similar to all professions I guess

A friend of mine recently went to his cousins wedding. He was shooting the reception with his 10D, but left it at the hotel for the actual wedding so he could take video of the vows and stay out of the "pro's" way. Imagine his dismay when he discovered this "pro" was shooting the entire wedding with a small P&S Sony (really small - not even an F828 or something in that range) and his 10D was back at the hotel!

It seems shocking to me that people would screw up people's memories like that, and charge for it. The only wedding I've ever shot was a family event where they insisted I do it as they couldn't afford a pro. I hated it- I sweated the whole time in case I screwed up, even though I'd explained in advance that I really, really don't shoot people!!!!

Once again, I guess poor behaviour and good is common to all professions

--

http://forbesweb.typepad.com/photoblog/ - D70 PhotoBlog
http://forbesweb.typepad.com/photos/nikon_d70_/

MegF said:

It seems shocking to me that people would screw up people's
memories like that, and charge for it. The only wedding I've ever
shot was a family event where they insisted I do it as they
couldn't afford a pro. I hated it- I sweated the whole time in
case I screwed up, even though I'd explained in advance that I
really, really don't shoot people!!!!

Click to expand...

They were stupid enough to try go cheap on the pro and hired some guy off the streets without seeing his portofolio/credentials/references etc...

30K wedding 500 dollar photographer with a P&S fallacy

Strangely they actually hired quite an expensive chap. But in the middle of the Free State in South Africa, I guess there aren't too many people to choose from It seems his move to "digital" was rather new, and they didn't know enough about photography to ask if he would be using the same film/camera's as for his previous shoots. Even stranger, I don't believe they're too unhappy about it. Ignorance can be bliss Hopefully they won't decide they want larger than 8x10's in the future.

photosniper said:

photosniper said:

It seems shocking to me that people would screw up people's
memories like that, and charge for it. The only wedding I've ever
shot was a family event where they insisted I do it as they
couldn't afford a pro. I hated it- I sweated the whole time in
case I screwed up, even though I'd explained in advance that I
really, really don't shoot people!!!!

Click to expand...

They were stupid enough to try go cheap on the pro and hired some
guy off the streets without seeing his
portofolio/credentials/references etc...

30K wedding 500 dollar photographer with a P&S fallacy

Click to expand...

--

http://forbesweb.typepad.com/photoblog/ - D70 PhotoBlog
http://forbesweb.typepad.com/photos/nikon_d70_/

It's not hard to believe. There are people that are great at all sorts of things that choose not to do them for a living. Why should photography be any different? The only difference between a pro and an amateur is that that the pro charges people money for photographs and an amateur shoots anything he/she wants. Either one can be the better photographer. A true professional should be able to realize this and use amateur photography (as well as other pros' photography) as inspiration to become a better photographer.

First, folks, please. The plural of pro is pros, not pro's, unless you are addressing ownership. Thanks.

At some point, the "who's better" questions become quite subjective, and therefore a useless comparison. I've seen the gamut of imagery, some by which I'm moved, other were I'm moved to throw it away.

Are we talking about technical accuracy, like exposure, or creative approach?

p
--
http://www.paulmbowers.com

This post represents the personal opinion of Paul M Bowers, and every opinion,
while likely to be factual, should be independently verified. Your mileage may
vary, standard disclaimers apply. I maintain the copyright on my posts, and they
may not be republished without express permission. But seriously, folks, it's a
forum, not a big deal. And please don't feed the trolls.

MegF said:

Strangely they actually hired quite an expensive chap. But in the
middle of the Free State in South Africa, I guess there aren't too
many people to choose from It seems his move to "digital" was
rather new, and they didn't know enough about photography to ask if
he would be using the same film/camera's as for his previous
shoots. Even stranger, I don't believe they're too unhappy about
it. Ignorance can be bliss Hopefully they won't decide they
want larger than 8x10's in the future.

Click to expand...

So they hired a pro, you haven't even seen the pics or, let alone, even know which model or resolution camera he was using and here we are picking on the guy. There are some pros that can take a disposable camera and smoke a lot of amateurs and probably even many pros with it. A 3Mp camera will produce a fantastic 8x10 or better so it is not fair to assume that there was any wrong done here.

I somehow think the meaning of the thread got lost here.

--
Rod

My ministry website http://www.PtLPS.com

LeeBase said:

Ok...I think I've about had my fill of the snide remarks from the
pro's about folks who shoot at wedding who aren't pro.

Click to expand...

Who cares what you have your full of?

LeeBase said:

Is it REALLY that hard to believe that some of the non-pros can
equal or better the hired help?

Click to expand...

NO???? But 99.98% can not? If the hired help makes a living of it and has been properly trained.

LeeBase said:

I have a friend who runs a wedding photography business. His work
(and those of the shooters who work for him) are AMAZING. I went
on a shoot with him and he included a couple of my shots in his
presentation to the client -- didn't have my "pro gear" at the time.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point he is AMAZING. Your two shots were an accident ya got to do it every time like him, PERIOD, and he has the gear and experiance.

LeeBase said:

Anyway -- there's NO WAY I can outshoot this guy. Not now....not
for a long time. Then again, he's a high end wedding photographer
-- second generation, grew up in the business and now runs it.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point, what's your gripe?

LeeBase said:

On the other hand -- I can CERTAINLY do better than the pro we
hired 14 years ago that did OUR wedding.

Click to expand...

To bad you got a bad photographer and you did not know how to hire a
good one. Maybe you learned. Maybe you found a wana-be?

LeeBase said:

All pros are not equal. And frankly, there are some rather
talented shooters who just don't happen to shoot for a living.

Click to expand...

All wedding photographers are no equal, like not all lawyers, priests, doctors, thats why the long interview period most people go thruough.

There are millions and millions of great non full time photographers that are fabulous. They are just not as obnoxious as some in this forum, who think they are all knowing and understand what a full time photographer needs to go through to make a living. I believe that there is not one of them are effecting a full time photographers living, only the full time phototrapher can do that

I know quite a few part time wedding photographers who are excellent wedding photographers and spend most of their time when away from their day jobs, learning the business how to pose light and do the business of wedding photography most spend a year or two assisting before they jump in like me. These relationships were built in professional organizations, photographic seminars for weeks on end, and in my case four years of formal training in photography.

Sooo here is what I got to saY to you, hang in there, practice with the good pro you know, and lighten up. HA, HA, HA, HA I REALLY DONT CARE WHAT YOU ARE FULL OF????????? But I have a great idea of what it is!!!!!!!!

--
Let the light in! Walt
[email protected]

wgc said:

wgc said:

On the other hand -- I can CERTAINLY do better than the pro we
hired 14 years ago that did OUR wedding.

Click to expand...

To bad you got a bad photographer and you did not know how to hire a
good one. Maybe you learned. Maybe you found a wana-be?

Click to expand...

The point is -- the person was a full time "pro" and I'm sure that lots of folks on the forum here could have done a better job. Thus I don't greet with skepticism the stories folks tell of when they "out shot the pro".

Because frankly, it's not that hard to do. Rather than "most all" pros being "awesome" like my friend is -- I'd say that there's a good many of them that aren't really all that good.

So this high and might stance of "pro" is something I don't give much credence to. If they are "talented" then they are "talented" -- pro or not.

The fact that some folks do this day in and day out is not what makes them worthwhile. Only what they can produce.

Listening to some of "the pros" on this "pros" forum dis the "non pros" is reminiscent of reading a Nikon forum where nothing but Nikon gear is worthy.

Lee

LeeBase said:

LeeBase said:

LeeBase said:

On the other hand -- I can CERTAINLY do better than the pro we
hired 14 years ago that did OUR wedding.

Click to expand...

To bad you got a bad photographer and you did not know how to hire a
good one. Maybe you learned. Maybe you found a wana-be?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

All I have to do here is repeat my answer too bad you did not know how to hire a good one. For instance a certified PPA or WPPI wedding photogdrapher all that information was available to you why did you not use it????

LeeBase said:

The point is -- the person was a full time "pro" and I'm sure that
lots of folks on the forum here could have done a better job. Thus
I don't greet with skepticism the stories folks tell of when they
"out shot the pro".

Click to expand...

How many full time photographers did you interview did you choose on cost, portfolio, references? I know the answer don't have to tell me?

LeeBase said:

Because frankly, it's not that hard to do. Rather than "most all"
pros being "awesome" like my friend is -- I'd say that there's a
good many of them that aren't really all that good.

Click to expand...

How many full time wedding photographers do you REALLY REALLY KNOW NOT MANY JUST GERERALIZING. I know hundreds of full time wedding photographers and part time photographers that are very good to excellent. You know not what are talking about. All of them will beat the pants of the wanabe's in this forum hands down, because they do not know what they are doing. They have been fully trained in formal lighting, posing, and business practices. HOW ABOUT YOU????

LeeBase said:

So this high and might stance of "pro" is something I don't give
much credence to. If they are "talented" then they are "talented"
-- pro or not.

Click to expand...

I try not to mention pro in any of my posts. Because I believe there are full time wedding photographers and part time wedding photographers that are as good as each other. I do not believe that a photographer showing up at a wedding with no assistant, no aux lighting, no light meter (oh my god I am going to split a side} taking a few shots over the full time wedding photographers setup and screaming I am just is good is stupid.

LeeBase said:

The fact that some folks do this day in and day out is not what
makes them worthwhile. Only what they can produce.

Click to expand...

Not only do it every day but carry equipment for a couple of years, shoot second photographer for a few years and yes even go to phtogaphy school

JOIN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, SPEND THOUSANDS ON SEMINARS WITH REGI, MONTY, CLAY ETC Go to meetings monthly to keep up with the latest lighting, posing, wedding techiques. Bad ones do not last long and those that do not want to do the work don't last long? AND BY THE WAY IF YOU MESS UP ONE JUST ONE WEDDING YOU ARE DONE FOR GOOD.

LeeBase said:

Listening to some of "the pros" on this "pros" forum dis the "non
pros" is reminiscent of reading a Nikon forum where nothing but
Nikon gear is worthy.

Click to expand...

They are sick and tired of you even pretending to understand? Ha, Ha, Ha Ha, YOU ARE SOO FUNNY GET A LIFE JUST THINK OF WHAT YOU SAW YOUR FULL TIME PHOTOGRAPHER GO THROUGH???????????????

--
Let the light in! Walt
[email protected]

a) How much did you pay the Pro at your wedding?

b) How much was the total cost of the wedding?

Sometime ago, there were some statistics published (PPA, I think) that the average wedding coverage accounts for about 15% of the wedding cost.

I have been asked to cover "peanuts and Coke" weddings and politely declined, because the quality suffers by cutting corners to deliver a product so cheap.

You can not expect a Denis Reggie (about $20K per wedding) for a measly $1,000.

If you do the math, you'd be better-off "flipping burgers at the Golden Arches" than shooting low-end weddings. A $1,000 wedding after it is all said and done, gives you at best a $250 profit (if you can call that profit!).

Now factor:

2 hours for the pre-sales,
4 hours for the rehearsal/venue checkout,
10 hours for the wedding,
4 hours for the initial sort and proof book preparation,
2 hour for the final consultation,
8 hours for post-processing,
4 hours for the wedding book preparation.

That is 34 hours over a $250 profit give you a whopping $7.35 per hour.

For that kind of wages, you can not expect more than a high school out for gas money or retired people finding something to keep them occupied.

Any DPRer with their whizbang digital camera can definitely do better job than that = = => because they are taking time from their over $100 per hour consulting jobs to shoot weddings and have 2 good shots out of the 1,000 he took be chosen for the wedding album.

I am ready to be flamed! Bring them on!

dan

LeeBase said:

LeeBase said:

LeeBase said:

On the other hand -- I can CERTAINLY do better than the pro we
hired 14 years ago that did OUR wedding.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

wgc said:

All I have to do here is repeat my answer

Click to expand...

It wasn't sufficient the first time -- what makes you think repeating it will advance you cause now.

wgc said:

too bad you did not know
how to hire a good one. For instance a certified PPA or WPPI
wedding photogdrapher all that information was available to you why
did you not use it????

Click to expand...

What's that got to do with the issue at hand which is -- "how hard is it really to beat the pro" -- given that there are plenty of pros who aren't setting the bar that high -- and plenty of talented photographers who just don't happen to be pros.

I'm not taking on the issue of "was my photographer good" -- but the unmerrited high horse that some of the pros -- like you -- have on this forum on behalf of "pros" -- not "talented pros".

The inspiration of this thread was the many snide remarks folks like you make to those who tell of instances when they or someone they know was in a situation where the guest did better than the pro.

Is it "the norm"? I wouldn't think so. But I hardly think there's any justification in writing such things off as impossible. Not because on the whole "amateurs" are just as good as "pros" -- but because "being a pro" does not mean one is all that good.

But hey -- go ahead and repeat your non-relevant argument a third time -- maybe three times a charm.

wgc said:

How many full time photographers did you interview did you choose
on cost, portfolio, references? I know the answer don't have to
tell me?

Click to expand...

It's irrelevant. The person was a pro -- but not a very good wedding photographer. Maybe she was starting out. Maybe she is excellent today.

But that's irrelevant.

Had I had a guest at the wedding who was a passionate hobbyist, I could well believe that the photos could have turned out better.

My neice just got married last year. And there was one of those "had a digital SLR" guys who wasn't hired....but was a friend. And yes -- he did just as well as the pro.

Photography is not some ivory tower skill that you have to work as a full time job in order to be able to do. Some people are just talented. Some people work hard -- but just not as their livelihood.

I'm not making the case that "on average" or "usually" the pro is not better than the hobbyist. I just don't think talented hobbyists are so rare that the stories posted here should be derided as untrue because "God knows" ony a pro can do good work.

But hey -- maybe you can try your point a fourth time and the universe might change in such a way that it will actually be relevant.

wgc said:

How many full time wedding photographers do you REALLY REALLY KNOW

Click to expand...

How many do I have to know?

wgc said:

HOW ABOUT
YOU????

Click to expand...

Oh no -- you pulled the "I'm a better photographer than you" card. You win. Your powers of reasoning must be better as well -- cuz after all -- you've been trained in lighting.

I have no problem believing that you hang with good photographers -- I just know that there's a bell curve in photography as in any other trade.

wgc said:

wgc said:

So this high and might stance of "pro" is something I don't give
much credence to. If they are "talented" then they are "talented"
-- pro or not.

Click to expand...

I try not to mention pro in any of my posts. Because I believe
there are full time wedding photographers and part time wedding
photographers that are as good as each other. I do not believe
that a photographer showing up at a wedding with no assistant, no
aux lighting, no light meter (oh my god I am going to split a side}
taking a few shots over the full time wedding photographers setup
and screaming I am just is good is stupid.

Click to expand...

Who says that the hobbyist is going to shoot over the shoulder of the pro? The stories that have appeared on this forum today have not been about that. That's YOUR spin since you can't fathom anyone getting a good shot unless the pro and his attendants set it up for them.

wgc said:

wgc said:

The fact that some folks do this day in and day out is not what
makes them worthwhile. Only what they can produce.

Click to expand...

Not only do it every day but carry equipment for a couple of years,
shoot second photographer for a few years and yes even go to
phtogaphy school
JOIN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, SPEND THOUSANDS ON SEMINARS WITH
REGI, MONTY, CLAY ETC Go to meetings monthly to keep up with the
latest lighting, posing, wedding techiques. Bad ones do not last
long and those that do not want to do the work don't last long?
AND BY THE WAY IF YOU MESS UP ONE JUST ONE WEDDING YOU ARE DONE FOR
GOOD.

Click to expand...

It would be nice if it were true that only good photographers are working -- but there is that bell curve thing.

As for the training -- I'm all with you no that. It takes time and effort to gain skills. Lots of folks do this in a different manner than your path. Instead of professional organizations they use web forums. Instead of seminars -- they buy books. Instead of apprenticing -- they bottom feed.

wgc said:

wgc said:

Listening to some of "the pros" on this "pros" forum dis the "non
pros" is reminiscent of reading a Nikon forum where nothing but
Nikon gear is worthy.

Click to expand...

They are sick and tired of you even pretending to understand? Ha,
Ha, Ha Ha, YOU ARE SOO FUNNY GET A LIFE JUST THINK OF WHAT YOU SAW
YOUR FULL TIME PHOTOGRAPHER GO THROUGH???????????????

Click to expand...

oohhh....owww...you wound me...I shall shrink away under the glory of your radiance.

HAHAHAHAH what an idiot you are.....look...I CAN TYPE IN CAPS TOO....I guees I'm ready to turn pro.

Lee

I have no problem agreeing with your "wedding photos cost money" theory -- as "the norm". You are mistaking me as someone who's saying that good photographers are not worth a good price.

I'm not saying that -- shoot, as an aspiring wannabe -- I hope that people pay top dollar for photography.

I just also respect that some very dedicated hobbyists can also produce good work. Such that I'm not surprised that from time to time it will happen -- the type of stories that have been on here -- that some of the pros seem offended by -- and who choose to ridicule the posters.

I understand that pros with lots of experience can handle far more situations. I understand that the hobbyist who blows the wedding photos because there was a challenging lighting situation that he couldn't handle, just goes home and tries to learn more.

I understand that.

I just also understand that the lighting isn't always difficult. And that there is a bell curve in pro photography as there is in any thing else. And that occassionally the situation will be what folks have come on here to say.

They or someone they knew beat the pro. It happens. Not often enough that anyone in their right mind would choose to gamble on the hobbyist.

Lee

riokid said:

b) How much was the total cost of the wedding?

Sometime ago, there were some statistics published (PPA, I think)
that the average wedding coverage accounts for about 15% of the
wedding cost.

I have been asked to cover "peanuts and Coke" weddings and politely
declined, because the quality suffers by cutting corners to deliver
a product so cheap.

You can not expect a Denis Reggie (about $20K per wedding) for a
measly $1,000.

If you do the math, you'd be better-off "flipping burgers at the
Golden Arches" than shooting low-end weddings. A $1,000 wedding
after it is all said and done, gives you at best a $250 profit (if
you can call that profit!).

Now factor:

2 hours for the pre-sales,
4 hours for the rehearsal/venue checkout,
10 hours for the wedding,
4 hours for the initial sort and proof book preparation,
2 hour for the final consultation,
8 hours for post-processing,
4 hours for the wedding book preparation.

That is 34 hours over a $250 profit give you a whopping $7.35 per
hour.

For that kind of wages, you can not expect more than a high school
out for gas money or retired people finding something to keep them
occupied.

Any DPRer with their whizbang digital camera can definitely do
better job than that = = => because they are taking time from their
over $100 per hour consulting jobs to shoot weddings and have 2
good shots out of the 1,000 he took be chosen for the wedding album.

I am ready to be flamed! Bring them on!

dan

LeeBase said:

riokid said:

riokid said:

On the other hand -- I can CERTAINLY do better than the pro we
hired 14 years ago that did OUR wedding.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Your math is a little off, but I do agree on the time.

Survey says........ in our area an average is $40k for location,
food, drink, band, hotel, limo, photographer.

Your 15% would be $6k plus price. It is out there, but more like
$2500 to $3500 being more realistic. $1700 for a four hour
wedding with all of the features you listed below. 50% of
contracts are $2500 six hour weddings in digital. Pro costs
are close to $300 for film and gas etc. There are just a few
photographers in our area charging $6 for a wedding and
till the economy turns, they are doing al lot of $3500 weddings.
Even a $1000 three hour digital weekend wedding has $800
profit although we do not book these in advance, more like
30 day last minute calls if we are not busy otherwise or on
can arrange on another wedding rehearsal day.

Five days ceremony to processing time for $450 per day profit
at something that is other wise pretty rewarding on weekends,
not bad.

We actually did a $600 2 hour cash wedding two weeks ago. It was
on a saturday morning and over at 1:00 pm Picked up the
cash, went to a rehearsal that afternoon, shot another Sunday
wedding and ordered a new Reallyrightstuff flash bracket
on Monday.

The $600 was a nice morning in the redwoods and the lunch was
not bad either and the people were great.

Hardly peanuts.....just a nice day..... I'm back tending the garden
and watching the grapes grow.... ahhhhhhhh.....

$7.50 per hour is, what, $14k per year gross? $9k take home.

Three or four weekend weddings vs. a year of burger flipping?
Yup, get out the old abacus and start pushing those beads around
again.......

riokid said:

Sometime ago, there were some statistics published (PPA, I think)
that the average wedding coverage accounts for about 15% of the
wedding cost.
You can not expect a Denis Reggie (about $20K per wedding) for a
measly $1,000.

If you do the math, you'd be better-off "flipping burgers at the
Golden Arches" than shooting low-end weddings. A $1,000 wedding
after it is all said and done, gives you at best a $250 profit (if
you can call that profit!).

Now factor:

2 hours for the pre-sales,
4 hours for the rehearsal/venue checkout,
10 hours for the wedding,
4 hours for the initial sort and proof book preparation,
2 hour for the final consultation,
8 hours for post-processing,
4 hours for the wedding book preparation.

That is 34 hours over a $250 profit give you a whopping $7.35 per
hour.

Click to expand...

A few observations...

We have avid photographers shooting along with us every week. It does not bother us. About a month ago, we had a wedding where there was a D100, a D1H, two 10D, and two Digital Rebels. No kidding.

My observation after watching hundreds of avid shooters at work at my weddings is that some are good and some are not. Just like pros. Most do not stick with it. They shoot a little of this and a little of that and then they get distracted. Some stay involved through the whole event and no doubt produce a decent body of work. Few, if any, though, anticipate what's coming up next and where they should be positioned to best capture it.

We often work at a pretty high-end venue where there is usually another wedding going on in the other ballroom. I always drop in during dinner to see if its someone I know. Most of the time the pro has a handle on things. Often he/she does not. As you say, some pros are good and some are not.

It seems to me visiting this forum every so often that there are suprisingly few pros who really post in this forum. After all, it gets a little tedious sifting through the never ending "Help me pick a good point and shoot" to find something worthwhile.

Those who seem to react the strongest to the notion of someone "outshooting the Pro" seem to be the most vulnerable to the competition.

Eric

Hello Paul,

If you are referring to my post, then I believe I used the word properly. I said,"as well as other pros' photography." I am using the word as a plural AND as a possessive. "Photography" is the possession. The apostrophe comes after the "s" on a plural possessive.

The subject is relevant because some of the pros on this particular forum feel the need to belittle the amateurs occasionally. That is why Lee brought it up. As far as the technical/exposure/creative arguement, I think most people that appreciate looking at photographs aren't all that interested in the technical prowess of the shooter, they only care if photo is nice to look at.

Chris

Paul M Bowers said:

First, folks, please. The plural of pro is pros, not pro's, unless
you are addressing ownership. Thanks.

At some point, the "who's better" questions become quite
subjective, and therefore a useless comparison. I've seen the
gamut of imagery, some by which I'm moved, other were I'm moved to
throw it away.

Are we talking about technical accuracy, like exposure, or creative
approach?

p
--
http://www.paulmbowers.com

This post represents the personal opinion of Paul M Bowers, and
every opinion,
while likely to be factual, should be independently verified. Your
mileage may
vary, standard disclaimers apply. I maintain the copyright on my
posts, and they
may not be republished without express permission. But seriously,
folks, it's a
forum, not a big deal. And please don't feed the trolls.

Click to expand...

I definitely agree with this statement. Or at the very least insecure about their own work, even if it's good.

Chris

Eric Jarvis said:

Those who seem to react the strongest to the notion of someone
"outshooting the Pro" seem to be the most vulnerable to the
competition.

Eric

Click to expand...

although I did not see the accounting for the time for pre/post sales stuff. The pictures do not magically get put on a CD or printed out. You have to account for all the time involved to deliver the complete package and spread the cost accordingly.

I graciously decline those kinds of coverage and I used the "peanut and Coke" analogy to drive the point that a good wedding coverage is expensive. As some forum members who brag about having 2 of their pictures being included in the wedding album did not account for all the time that went into the production.

A case in point:

centralcoastmagazine said:

Even a $1000 three hour digital weekend wedding has $800
profit

Click to expand...

Did you provide any finished product at all? Maybe $.19 prints @ Costco
Did you account for equipment depreciation?
Did you account for post-processing time? at $7.50/hr?

I think I am missing a lot! I am interested to see your numbers.

centralcoastmagazine said:

Yup, get out the old abacus and start pushing those beads around
again.......

Click to expand...

Eric Jarvis said:

Those who seem to react the strongest to the notion of someone
"outshooting the Pro" seem to be the most vulnerable to the
competition.

Eric

Click to expand...

BINGO! HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD!

I mostly read forums and withhold frivolous commentary, just try and glean useful bit and pieces - mostly technical stuff. BUT this thread was too good to pass up as I recently had an experience involving a "pro" photographer ... my niece's high school graduation.

For which my wife's brother hired what appeared to be an established "pro" photographer. Looking at his rate sheet, he isn't charging "cheapo" prices. My brother-in-law is a well paid CPA and willing to pay good money for a good photographer. I guess he failed to perform "due diligence" in this case (yes I did say he was a CPA, you'd think he'd due diligence the thing to death). I believe the "pro" was recommended by a friend so he assumed the guy would produce quality work ... never assume, right.

Man o' man, did I have to hold my tongue during the photo shoot at my brother-in-law's house! If this guy was a "pro" I'll take "cousin Billy Joe Bob with a P&S" anytime!

1) Making members of the family kneel down several times in their dress clothes .... on freshly mowed green grass ... every hear of grass stains on expensive clothers dude!

2) Using rickety, faded, peeling, wooden stools for several group poses. At the prices your charging at least go to Walmart camping section and get yourself something classier!

3) Badgering the kid's mom about her unwillingness to step into a thick flower garden to position her head in the right place relative to the group. Ooh, very smart.

and on, and on... But I didn't say A word, after all I'm no "pro".

Between group shots I (with all sincerity and curiousity) inquired about his gear and mentioned a couple of pieces of gear I recently bought ... 100-400L that I'm SO happy with (I think I'll get it out and fondle it some more after this post) and a Bogen Leveling head for my new tripod (Bogen 3021PRO). Not being a "pro", my discovery of the existence of such a super handy device (ball leveling head) was akin to Einstein's finalizing the theory of relativiety. Remember folks I'm no "pro" just a simpleton amatuer.

So when I relayed my glee with my new gear the "pro's" response .... "Well I have a f2.8 70 - 200L, that 100-400L isn't all it's cracked up to be. I doubt you're going to be happy with it if you ever get serious. Leveling heads have been around forever, I guess you new to photography? You really should have bought Model ABC from company XZY, that low-end Bogen stuff is OK I guess for your purposes".

Oh I so wanted to rip him a new one. But didn't say A word. After all he is a "pro".

The story ends with NONE of the family members purchasing a single picture from the guy since all the shots were incredibly mediocre. My wife snapped pic's with our lowly Canon G2 and had more than a few really nice "keepers". She an artist type, understands composition, "mood", shadows, additive/subtractive colors blah, blah. She can turn the G2 on, what effect aperature has on depth of field, what the blinking battery light means, how to change the flash card and maybe a little bit more. Good thing she turned out to be the "Billy Joe Bob with a P&S" at this event?

riokid said:

riokid said:

Even a $1000 three hour digital weekend wedding has $800
profit

Click to expand...

Did you provide any finished product at all? Maybe $.19 prints @
Costco

Click to expand...

Stupid flame......

riokid said:

Did you account for equipment depreciation?
Did you account for post-processing time? at $7.50/hr?

Click to expand...

riokid said:

another flame or just a flicker, since I posted the day rate for processing.

Click to expand...

riokid said:

I think I am missing a lot! I am interested to see your numbers.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bit on a few general facts......

We will do a $1000 or as mentioned a $600 one. These amount to
one or two per year and only last minute situations. They are nice two
hour affairs and pay for some new toy. A friend is a minister and does
some wedding he may book a couple of months in advance since he
just does this for friends. We take care of his weddings which are
usually at the beach. These don't have all the pre-wedding meetings
and follow up you mentioned, they are profitable enough for a
afternoon job with little trouble. Our portrait session is about the
same price, so it is just like a week day job anyway.

The post says our most of our weddings are $1500 to $2500 and a
few all day $3500 per year.

We provide all media upon full payment and a referal to a very good
local digital (agfa d2) digial printer here locally. We have the mentioned
costs, 10 rolls of MF which we do develop only and send to client.

Packages range in cost and we will adjust on the higher packages
by time although a basic package is $1500, mostly because younger clients
still are looking for reasonable rates and they make good clients.

depreciation: I started thinking in terms of wedding per camera. Two large
weddings is a Mark II, etc. Not really a concern, but I take your point. One

small wedding is a 10D..... what's your point, one wedding one back up 10d.... don't
sweat the petty cash account unless you need to?

Your post was about the low end wedding vs the effort. A part time
wedding photographer (there a a bunch of great ones locally capable of
some fine quality) pro will do well to pay for equipment. Many we know
have either done wedding full time in the past or assist pros currently.

There is still good profit in even part time wedding work and those
people are professional since they are getting paid. How many full time
folks do weddings on weekdays Monday - Thrusday? Really?

So, people will charge like they want, even at your so called low prices
and the market will either let them expand or not. They will determine
if it is worth the time v.s. working at the burger joint. Their clients will
let them know if the quality is up to standards, not us.

Hope this helps...... HB