DSLRUsers.com

As some of you may know, I cut my teeth on wedding photography, I've shot more weddings then I care to remember but my last wedding was over 20 years ago.
Now it would seem that I may be in need of a wedding photographer in 12 -18 months so I thought I would have a quick google to see what's the current trend.
I'm not going to comment on the cost, usually you get what you pay for, but one thing that strikes me is how most photographers that I've seen have different packages based on the number of hours they work. I find this strange as in my day your job finished when the reception finished for which you charged a certain amount and then the cost of the photos would be on top of that, depending on the number you purchased.
It seems that nowadays you can pick a package that starts at the bride's house and finishes anywhere during the day, from the end of the church or after the speeches or anywhere in between.
I would like to hear from any current wedding photographers in this forum, How do you charge?

Hi Phillp,

Your observations are correct. As my business model,as a photographer / videographer is not fully funded by weddings I have been able to be of the wedding industry rather than being in the wedding industry. We sell / market ourselves as the people (Katie and I ) who provide the services for the event. We are the people you trust with your special day.

Therefore we sell our time rather than the pick the package approach. This way I feel the client gets a far better deal. We are usually at the wedding from dawn to the time they leave, typically a 17 ~ 18hr day for us. So the traditional (in some cases) additional revenue streams from prints, albums and the like is not part of our main business. Are we missing out on additional income possibly but I feel we are positioning ourselves not selling packages.

Now in saying this by not having off the shelf packages and customising the uote for each assignment it causes lots of issues with the brides. Why? They are so conditioned to what's your packges. I have even lost assignments where I have been reffered and recommended as someone elses pack gave 12hrs coverage and I only offered 10. However I was only asked for 10 hours ggrrrrr. Packages, packages packages, Gold, Silver, ect ect seems to be the way it's sold. Then all the fine print of do you get a CD and if so what is the file size. How many edited images and on we go.

A good resouce I have found is several pod casts being the Pro photographer show and Camera Dojo which discuss wedding photography mainly. You can find these feeds on itunes.

So back to your question. For now we charge like this. Travel Kms + Time + Materials = Sell. We can vary the value we put on travel and our time to meet what we feel the client will pay or what we want to charge. This year (and in the past week) we have registered www.hudcommweddings.com and have paid for a Word Press site. Our task over the next 2~3 weeks and I should says Kates as it's her project is to Hudcommise the site. How in targeting more weddings I feel we will be drawn into the must have a package to offer world.

If you drop me an E-mail to hudcomm@optushome.com.au last year Kate put together a selection of wedding photographers and videographers (granted all Melbourne based) so I could look at what they where selling (packages). I'm happy to E-mail that to you. Well there's my rub on the wedding package industry and look forward to reading others.

Mark

A lot of couple nowadays are looking for cheap wedding photo services. I've seen some ridiculously cheap priced wedding packages out there, in the range of less than $800 for a whole day service. It appears to be that with more affordable good quality dslr, the more of this ridiculous priced packages will be emerging on the market from people who have little to none experience in wedding, portrait or even knowledge about photographs. You get what you paid for...

Like what Hudo said, I also do packages on top of hour of requests, plus print sale packages. Work out how much it costs me with print, petrol and hiring fees, add a margin on top.

I have many times asked by couples, "Can you lower your package if you are required to do x amount of hours?". People seems think about 'paid by the hour' basis for any services they hire, I think...

You wouldn't ask a mechanic to just dismantle an engine and only re assemble it half way.
You wouldn't ask an electrician to wire up a house but not put the powerpoints and lights.
You wouldn't ask a painter to only paint half the room.
Why would you ask a photographer to do half the job?

Hi,

Reminds me a litte of the general trade based industries. No offence to any traddies but I have heard them referred to as CUBBIES. Cashed up Bogens In other words prepared to work for wages without any consideration to their true, fully absorbed hourly operating costs. Capital upgrades, insurance and other general operating costs are not considered.

In discussing this tread with Katie (my partner) she reminded me of a couple of Brides where we didn't get the gig and she feels it was because we didn't come prepared with the "package" sheets. As we offer both video and photography we also watch with interest what will be offered with regards to video. Photographers (not that we have seen any) offering video and using a D90 or the like to deliver. We strongly believe for weddings they are two very different disaplines.

Mark

phillipb wrote:You wouldn't ask a mechanic to just dismantle an engine and only re assemble it half way.
You wouldn't ask an electrician to wire up a house but not put the powerpoints and lights.
You wouldn't ask a painter to only paint half the room.
Why would you ask a photographer to do half the job?

Well, we need to remember that IBM one produced half an operating system.

Hudo wrote:We strongly believe for weddings they are two very different disaplines.

While this is true, that should not preclude a videographer from shooting with something like a D90 or a 5D2; compared with many camcorders, either of those may produce far superior results (in the hands of a good operator) because of the optical characteristics and interactions between the glass and the large sensor sizes.

Hudo wrote:If you drop me an E-mail to hudcomm@optushome.com.au last year Kate put together a selection of wedding photographers and videographers (granted all Melbourne based) so I could look at what they where selling (packages). I'm happy to E-mail that to you.

Mark, if there is nothing that is commercial/in-confidence within that, I think that it's beneficial for all interested members here if that were posted within a thread, rather than emailed to specific members. That's the whole purpose of the forum, after all. If it needs to be set up as a hosted document or link to provide more general access, please let me know, and if you do need to keep the more closely held, then no worries.

Hi Gary,

I'll E-mail you the document and you an see value if may have to all. It is various (at random but a good cross section) wedding suppliers of video and photography to the Melbourne market place, their packages with street prices. Not commercially sensative all available on the net and your welcome too it.

As for videographers using a DLSR good luck to them (and I say this in good faith). I see a DLSR with video as another tool of the trade. What ever gets the results then more power to you. I personally feel and it's a supported trend coming out of the various podcasts in the USA that once a wedding photographer starts to play with video they are experiencing some of the following that's taking some of the buzz out of the air.

1. New PC power required to handle HD video.
2. Greater storage space required (up to 40GB per 1hr of footage).
3. The learning of new applications such as Final Cut Pro or Premier Pro
4. Many, many hours needed for post production.
5. Having to consider audio as well as visual
6. Various limiations with a DSLR for video work

While a photographer is in a good position to swap sides and visa versa there are difference that I feel has been over looked a little in the early buzz of the video in a DSLR camera realm (in relation to the wedding industry specifically). There will be a place for it but it won't replace a videographer as much as a videographer hasn't replaced a photographer using the photo mode function many video camera's have. Not suggesting you saying that I just wanted to say it....

Mark

Hudo wrote:I'll E-mail you the document and you an see value if may have to all. It is various (at random but a good cross section) wedding suppliers of video and photography to the Melbourne market place, their packages with street prices. Not commercially sensative all available on the net and your welcome too it.

Thanks, Mark.

once a wedding photographer starts to play with video they are experiencing some of the following that's taking some of the buzz out of the air.

1. New PC power required to handle HD video.
2. Greater storage space required (up to 40GB per 1hr of footage).
3. The learning of new applications such as Final Cut Pro or Premier Pro
4. Many, many hours needed for post production.
5. Having to consider audio as well as visual
6. Various limiations with a DSLR for video work

A couple of observations. I do not see too many photographers using the D90 or 5D2 to shoot video. Rather, I can see videographers adopting these cameras as less expensive options (than the $20K plus commercial video cameras, plus the cost of their glass. For sub $10K, they can have a good body with a selection of good glass. That is a massive saving in capital expenditure.

I don't see any of the itemised points that you mention as being major issues. Yes, they are all true and need to be considered. But they will all come to pass into this realm at some point. It's merely a matter of timing; many video houses will already be there too, and thus for them these will be a non-issue.

But we are drifting off topic.

Gary,

Yes a little off topic but I think still relevant for anyone re-entering the Wedding industry. I have not shot video with a DSLR (as in for a wedding) but see them being not practical for the pace of a wedding and cosidering you usually shoot on your you may have an assistant as a second shoot for B role.

I'm dribbling as I have just finshed a 7 hour fashion shoot and been posting between outfit changes. I think any one genuinly wanting to get into video or photography in the wedding industry who has the passion and the business accument will find the best tools that suit them.

Better go and cook Katie dinner..........

Mark

phillipb wrote:You wouldn't ask a mechanic to just dismantle an engine and only re assemble it half way.
You wouldn't ask an electrician to wire up a house but not put the powerpoints and lights.
You wouldn't ask a painter to only paint half the room.
Why would you ask a photographer to do half the job?

I agree with your point here. In my experience there is a small portion of the wedding market that pushes for reduced coverage (e.g only want coverage for 3hrs) and thus pushes for a cheaper deal because you are spending less time shooting. Some photographers head in the hourly direction for this or other reasons, but I could think of nothing worse as the photographer - to be watching the time and then having to approach someone at the end of the time to ask if they would like to pay more to keep me around (especially if there are typical wedding shots not yet covered)

We don't design our pricing on an hourly approach. When it comes to coverage we only have two options:
Standard Coverage - which begins when the bride begins getting ready and finishes approx 30min into the reception
Premium Coverage - where the only difference from above is that we stay for full reception and do a slideshow of some images from the day at the reception. We have packaged our most popular options into 3 packages but we have everything we offer available a-la-carte for anyone who wants to modify or create their own experience. Our pricing handout (I have it in PDF if you want it) has packages on one side then services and products itemised on the other side if you want to build your own.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

I have been photographing weddings for just over 20 years and have seen the changes. When I operated in Sydney it was all day or nothing. When I moved to Brisbane it was "we don't want you at the reception" it sounded good to me, I was working less hours and getting the same money. In the 15 years & about 400 weddings since hitting Brisbane, I have done probably 4 full reception weddings.

Over the last 10 years there has been a major shift away from the traditional for me and I now do packages based on time. Whenever I speak to brides I don't tell them what I cover, I ask them what they want covered and more & more are requesting shorter coverages hence my different packages. I have altered them over the years, dropped some and introduced some, all based on feedback from the brides.

Even though I have gone to time based packages, it still amazes me that I continue to get blown out of the water on price and this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. You have cameras easier to use & cheaper, more people now think they can pick up a camera & they are a wedding photographer & some couples are still driven by the mighty dollar.

One benefit that has come out of this (a pretty important one for me) is that I have more time to spend with my family, work is not everything & I do not miss the late nights. I used to stress about not winning all the weddings I quoted but not any more, life is too short to worry about things like that. I still love doing weddings, meeting the people and going to great locations.

For anyone else following this thread who may be considering Wedding Photography as an income stream, there is a very good book:

"Digital Wedding Photography. Capturing Beautiful Memories" by Glen Johnson. ISBN-10: 0-471-79017-6

It's not the sort of book that tells you what shots, nor does it explain techniques in depth, but focuses more upon the business model side of things, workflow, style, location shooting etc. It's also very good food for thought for anyone else thinking of charging for their time behind the lens.