Art and Photography

Wedding Photographer / No-Post editing

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 10th, 2013 5:03 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 22, 2011
2442 posts
399 upvotes
Toronto
its pure psychological too, of course you will think the pictures are good if you pay alot. But honestly, I know a lot of friends into photography that can reproduce some of the pics that you see in fancy $4k profesional's pages
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 23, 2006
4662 posts
960 upvotes
Toronto
bosoxfanx1 wrote: its pure psychological too, of course you will think the pictures are good if you pay alot. But honestly, I know a lot of friends into photography that can reproduce some of the pics that you see in fancy $4k profesional's pages
I guess the keyword here is "reproduce". You're not quite Da Vinci if you copy the Mona Lisa.
Board games!!!!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 22, 2011
2442 posts
399 upvotes
Toronto
projectmoonlightcafe wrote: I guess the keyword here is "reproduce". You're not quite Da Vinci if you copy the Mona Lisa.
yet some people would buy a Mona Lisa poster ;)
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 23, 2006
4662 posts
960 upvotes
Toronto
bosoxfanx1 wrote: yet some people would buy a Mona Lisa poster ;)
I've probably shot at a dozen weddings over the past three years for our own blog and I've never considered myself a professional photographer, even though yes I can also reproduce or even have better photos than some of the so-called "professionals". However, when I work next to a real professional, I immediately can tell the difference in their composition or eye for moments....something I can never do. All I am saying is there is a price for real value, and yes you can buy a knockoff, but most of the time you can really tell the difference.
Board games!!!!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 22, 2011
2442 posts
399 upvotes
Toronto
projectmoonlightcafe wrote: I've probably shot at a dozen weddings over the past three years for our own blog and I've never considered myself a professional photographer, even though yes I can also reproduce or even have better photos than some of the so-called "professionals". However, when I work next to a real professional, I immediately can tell the difference in their composition or eye for moments....something I can never do. All I am saying is there is a price for real value, and yes you can buy a knockoff, but most of the time you can really tell the difference.
it's definitely true, the experience and skills definitely shows in the work of the pros. But the differences can be seen by you and I, but necessarily by the people paying for it. Many friends look at my pics and thinks they are not (not just being polite), but I know my pics are not as nice as the $3-4k professionals
Newbie
Jun 16, 2005
79 posts
24 upvotes
You should read my original post before being quick to judge

I never once said I thought it would be $200 bucks. Nor did I mention asking a family member or close friend. I recognize that they would not be able to enjoy the ceremony if asked to become a photographer.

I only posted to ask 1) whether it would be possible to get a photographer to send me their RAW's and if so what the going rate would be.

Your last sentence is strange - you ask a question about how I would answer, then you supply your own answer for me, and then continue to state why that answer is bad. Why not let me answer your question instead of making one up.


Astin wrote: $5. No wait, $50,000. Or $500?

I wish people would sit down and think for a bit before starting these threads. As has been hinted here, taking pictures at a wedding PROPERLY requires leg work, planning, and a mix of both involvement and detachment.

You need to know the location, the rules, and the people. You need to have some power so the bride and groom will listen to you and others will do as instructed. At the same time, you can't be PART of the wedding. You're mostly invisible, except when you have to be seen and heard.

Asking a family member means you're asking that family member to not be part of the wedding. They have to get up from their meal to get a shot of a speech, or a kiss. They can't dance because they're taking pictures of other people dancing. They're not in the crowd watching the ceremony, they're in the aisle or behind the officiant taking shots of the couple. Plus, they've got the pressure of getting the big shots - the ring, the kiss, the dance, the toss, the cake, etc.. And if they don't know their equipment, or lighting? Then you get a lot of underexposed and blurry shots that you can't fix in post.

Get real - a good photographer is investing hours of their time and years of their experience into your wedding. You can save a boring shot in post. You can't save one that's horrible. You think they're going to do that for a couple hundred bucks?

Ask for high-res TIFFs instead of the RAWs. Ask for no "special" post work (ie.- no black & white, no sepia, no high-contrast super-saturated shots, etc.). This way, if you don't like the post work that's been done, you've still got plenty of room to fix it. You can B&W and sepia and vignette and crop all you want afterwards.

Also, when you're asked "oh, who took your photos?" How would you answer? "JC Photoman took them, but I did all the work that made them look good." I imagine any pro would be thrilled with that endorsement.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 23, 2006
4662 posts
960 upvotes
Toronto
Bodhi wrote: You should read my original post before being quick to judge

I never once said I thought it would be $200 bucks. Nor did I mention asking a family member or close friend. I recognize that they would not be able to enjoy the ceremony if asked to become a photographer.

I only posted to ask 1) whether it would be possible to get a photographer to send me their RAW's and if so what the going rate would be.

Your last sentence is strange - you ask a question about how I would answer, then you supply your own answer for me, and then continue to state why that answer is bad. Why not let me answer your question instead of making one up.
LOL...I think what happened was a pile of people started throwing in numbers and by the end of it all everyone thought you wrote it..lol
Board games!!!!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 21, 2007
1204 posts
141 upvotes
Markham
nano wrote: IMO, a pro/good won't photograph a wedding and hand over the raw files for you do post produce. If you screw them up you can ruin his reputation.
This is my experience as well. Most reputable photographers won't agree to this.
Deal Addict
Feb 13, 2007
1169 posts
97 upvotes
bosoxfanx1 wrote: people will demand over 1k, but they take advantage of your fear of ruining your big day. but honestly, I know friends who shot a few weddings before and their pics are just as good as the professional 4k people..
Then suggest these friends and have them show their work. Saying "a $500 guy is just as good as a $4000 guy" isn't what I would call accurate. A $500 guy COULD BE as good, but another $500 guy could be absolute crap. A $4k guy could be crap too. It's all about the work, not the $$. Typically though, the money is an indication of the skill level, so your odds of a $4k guy being good is better than the odds of a $500 guy.
Deal Addict
Feb 10, 2007
2235 posts
93 upvotes
Toronto
bosoxfanx1 wrote: for $500 + cakes, I can have myself and my fiancé take pics the whole day.

people will demand over 1k, but they take advantage of your fear of ruining your big day. but honestly, I know friends who shot a few weddings before and their pics are just as good as the professional 4k people..
bosoxfanx1 wrote: its pure psychological too, of course you will think the pictures are good if you pay alot. But honestly, I know a lot of friends into photography that can reproduce some of the pics that you see in fancy $4k profesional's pages
bosoxfanx1 wrote: it's definitely true, the experience and skills definitely shows in the work of the pros. But the differences can be seen by you and I, but necessarily by the people paying for it. Many friends look at my pics and thinks they are not (not just being polite), but I know my pics are not as nice as the $3-4k professionals
Shoot 15-20 weddings and then report back as to how much you are willing to charge. Who knows maybe you will have a place in the industry, however personally I prefer to be paid at least min wage.... Oh wait you have to pay off the gear you bought. Oh and the time you spend with the client before and after the wedding... Oh and also insurance in case something happens to that gear you bought. Oh and also the cost of running all of the marketing material. oh crap I forgot to include all of the things involved in running a business... I take it back... I rather not PAY someone to shoot their wedding because that is what it ends up being after taking into account all of costs. Oh shoot I also forgot I have to pay Harper as well. WHOOPS!
Deal Addict
Feb 13, 2007
1169 posts
97 upvotes
Bodhi wrote: You should read my original post before being quick to judge

I never once said I thought it would be $200 bucks. Nor did I mention asking a family member or close friend. I recognize that they would not be able to enjoy the ceremony if asked to become a photographer.

I only posted to ask 1) whether it would be possible to get a photographer to send me their RAW's and if so what the going rate would be.

Your last sentence is strange - you ask a question about how I would answer, then you supply your own answer for me, and then continue to state why that answer is bad. Why not let me answer your question instead of making one up.
At this point, it's not just about your original question. It's also about the information that's been provided in response to it. Others suggested $200. Some have said $500. Others have said "just have a family member do it." These need to be discussed as well as your original question.

You said it would be like being a second shooter because there would be no editing, just float and shoot. This indicates you don't think the picture-taking is actually that important, that all the work is done in post.

I (and others) are pointing out that's not the case - that it would be nearly as expensive to have a photographer come in and hand you the files (if not more so, since they're also potentially handing over copyright ownership in your scenario of providing the cards) if you want a good photographer.

As for the last line, that's rhetorical. It's what any pro would fear, and it's what you implied your attitude would be, as a photographer who doesn't edit, and doesn't need to set up a group shot is just someone who needs to be able to "focus and use flash". Therefore, not really all that skilled.
Deal Addict
Feb 10, 2007
2235 posts
93 upvotes
Toronto
Bodhi wrote: You should read my original post before being quick to judge

I never once said I thought it would be $200 bucks. Nor did I mention asking a family member or close friend. I recognize that they would not be able to enjoy the ceremony if asked to become a photographer.

I only posted to ask 1) whether it would be possible to get a photographer to send me their RAW's and if so what the going rate would be.

Your last sentence is strange - you ask a question about how I would answer, then you supply your own answer for me, and then continue to state why that answer is bad. Why not let me answer your question instead of making one up.
Honestly just keep looking. I'm not saying you are being unrealistic because with a huge market like ours there is a vendor for you. Its just a matter of looking.... Keep at it but don't be surprised if you find someone you like and they demand a premium price. If it doesn't fit the budget move on. It'll happen just keep patient.
Newbie
Jun 16, 2005
79 posts
24 upvotes
Well if its not about my original question why make a statement regarding my original question saying "i wish people would think before starting these threads" implying I said something that I did not.
I also said it would be ALMOST like being a second shooter as there is no need to post-edit. You have to stop with the assumptions. This is no way indicates that I think picture taking is not that important. I was stating that I think that since there is no need to spend time post-editing, I should be able to get someone to do it for cheaper. I give significant weight to "picture-taking" which is why I am not asking for friends (again which you wrongly assumed). Your assumption comes from wrongly thinking I stated that I was looking to pay $200.

My attitude was as I stated that I wasn't looking for the best. But a good photographer who can focus and use flash. How is that not really all that skilled? I said I will do the editing so the photographer won't need to. NOT that he can't edit. I also stated he wouldn't need to set up group shots because I am not looking for that - Not that he CAN'T set them up.

If you are honest with yourself, and you re-read my original post and your response. I think you will realize yours was full of assumptions as opposed to truths.



Astin wrote: At this point, it's not just about your original question. It's also about the information that's been provided in response to it. Others suggested $200. Some have said $500. Others have said "just have a family member do it." These need to be discussed as well as your original question.

You said it would be like being a second shooter because there would be no editing, just float and shoot. This indicates you don't think the picture-taking is actually that important, that all the work is done in post.

I (and others) are pointing out that's not the case - that it would be nearly as expensive to have a photographer come in and hand you the files (if not more so, since they're also potentially handing over copyright ownership in your scenario of providing the cards) if you want a good photographer.

As for the last line, that's rhetorical. It's what any pro would fear, and it's what you implied your attitude would be, as a photographer who doesn't edit, and doesn't need to set up a group shot is just someone who needs to be able to "focus and use flash". Therefore, not really all that skilled.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 22, 2011
2442 posts
399 upvotes
Toronto
you should be looking to pay close to a second shooter price if you don't ask editing and want pics handed over.

there should be plenty of people wiling to do that for $200-$400 themselves.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 23, 2006
4662 posts
960 upvotes
Toronto
Like asking for a second shooter where there's no primary shooter! Heh...I guess you can find some who are willing to do it if you yourself is a reputable photographer. Otherwise it may be harder.
Board games!!!!
Deal Addict
Oct 22, 2003
2171 posts
63 upvotes
Toronto
bosoxfanx1 wrote: you should be looking to pay close to a second shooter price if you don't ask editing and want pics handed over. there should be plenty of people wiling to do that for $200-$400 themselves.
bosoxfanx1 wrote: dont get ripped off for such a simple job, I wouldnt pay more than $200 if they dont even have to edit...
bosoxfanx1 wrote: for $500 + cakes, I can have myself and my fiancé take pics the whole day.
You're telling the OP that lots of people will do it for $200 - $400. But you won't even do it for that price.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 22, 2011
2442 posts
399 upvotes
Toronto
zero_2003 wrote: You're telling the OP that lots of people will do it for $200 - $400. But you won't even do it for that price.
pls read carefully.

1. people willing to do $200-400 themselves (1 person)
2. my fiancé and I can do it for $500 (2 people)
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2003
8455 posts
2000 upvotes
mid level photography gear will run a photographer $15-20 grand to purchase. How much do you think he'll charge you given the cost of a mediocre quality setup? I wont get into video because a ***** low end bare-bones camera is 15 grand without a lens or extra battery.

$200 isnt even enough to pay a secondary shooter with little experience. A pro will be 2-3 grand a day if they havent made a name for themselves, mostr pro's wont consider handing you raw files to begin with.

If you wanna take a chance, you can hire an experienced 2nd shooter as your main, good luck finding one you can trust, and thats the only way you can roll the dice really, while keeping it cheaper.
Sr. Member
Oct 29, 2005
972 posts
55 upvotes
Did someone say FREE CAKE? Where do I sign up for this?!?!
Member
Dec 3, 2010
301 posts
51 upvotes
Waterloo
It definitely is possible and you get what you pay for. Obviously, an experienced photographer will refuse such work. Post it on Craigslist and you'll get a lot of amateurs. My friend shot a wedding for $600 with pictures edited. She was happy with it. She's not pro but her photos look pretty good. I think this pisses some photographers off but if you understand basic economics, there's no reason to be pissed.

Some photographers say it is unethical to offer services for free/cheap but that is BS. You are only worth as much as what people will pay you. If you suck, even getting the opportunity to shoot for free is a miracle! Keep in mind that photographers usually start off by doing cheap/free work for experience and practice.

You have to be careful of flakers too. Do you trust that someone getting paid $200 will come to your shoot? Perhaps you should hire 2 just in case.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)