Art and Photography

Wedding Photographer / No-Post editing

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 10th, 2013 5:03 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
Feb 13, 2007
1144 posts
85 upvotes
Bodhi wrote:
Jan 2nd, 2013 3:52 pm
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
2202 posts
75 upvotes
Toronto
Bodhi wrote:
Jan 2nd, 2013 3:52 pm
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.
[OP]
Newbie
Jun 16, 2005
66 posts
8 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:
Jan 2nd, 2013 4:09 pm
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
2441 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
3886 posts
360 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.
Let's Get You Married™
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 22, 2003
2126 posts
52 upvotes
Toronto
bosoxfanx1 wrote:
Jan 2nd, 2013 4:33 pm
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:
Jan 1st, 2013 11:00 pm
dont get ripped off for such a simple job, I wouldnt pay more than $200 if they dont even have to edit...
bosoxfanx1 wrote:
Jan 2nd, 2013 2:27 pm
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.
Sai Kit Chu Photography
Toronto Wedding Photographer
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 22, 2011
2441 posts
399 upvotes
Toronto
zero_2003 wrote:
Jan 2nd, 2013 5:30 pm
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
5535 posts
247 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
963 posts
38 upvotes
Did someone say FREE CAKE? Where do I sign up for this?!?!
Member
Dec 3, 2010
301 posts
49 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.
Deal Addict
Jul 13, 2009
2068 posts
274 upvotes
Reminds me of the wedding photog who had groupons for $140 weddings. Was tempted to buy one and use him to carry bags, drive car, fetch coffees.
Deal Addict
Feb 10, 2007
2202 posts
75 upvotes
Toronto
YourBuddy wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2013 6:57 pm
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.
Totally agree. The market will dictate. I have no issue with people who charge $100 to shoot a wedding because those clients aren't my target market. Issues arise when there is miscommunication between the vendor and client in regard to expectations.... If both parties know what they are getting into and are ok with it go right ahead. As others said just be careful because the term "professional" goes beyond a photographers ability to shoot. Can they run a business and provide a service and everything surrounding the shooting. Awesome photographers aren't necessarily awesome with their business practice.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 29, 2009
5385 posts
102 upvotes
With so many people buying DSLR's, hoping to fulfill their "photographer" dreams, I'm sure OP can find someone to do that job for around $500 (+/- cake).

However, OP needs to know that he's essentially paying for a "$500-photographer", not "$3000-photographer-minus-editing".
AcidBomber wrote:
Jan 19th, 2012 8:09 pm
Warning to all (trolls) - next person to post any flamebaits (religious, sexist, racial, etc) gets an automatic ban.
Jr. Member
Nov 25, 2005
141 posts
11 upvotes
Honestly, I only give away RAW files if I'm doing catalog work and the company has it's own art department, or if I need to outsource the work due to time constraints and then it goes to a trusted retoucher.

Weddings are tricky business. They are very heavily based on referrals. If a photographer gives you his RAW files, and you make them look like crap, or simply make public images that would never see the light of day, it could completely destroy the reputation of a pro. Not to mention he runs the risk of having legal issues because you "claim" the work you received is nowhere near on par with the work displayed in his portfolio. It's just a bad idea.

Sure, you are paying for retouching, but make no mistake about it, the actual shooting portion is very technical and can be a total pain in the ***** . There is a lot more to it then pointing a lens and a flash. And that expertise needs to be compensated. Not to mention the extra level of gear required, or the higher chance of something being broken. There are risks that the photographer is taking upon himself when going into a wedding situation. You are paying the photographer to handle those risks, and come out successful. That is what makes him a pro.

When I shoot a wedding, I usually have about $25,000 worth of equipment on hand. If a drunk guest smashes my $1500 lens, I have a back up. But if I shot the wedding for $500....I'm just a little out of pocket. So you see, there is a reason the pro photographers charge the rates they do. With or without editing.

Now if you really don't want to pay much for your wedding photography, why not have your guests do it. Half of them will bring a camera, and half of those camera's will be RAW capable. Just have your uncles and friends send you the RAW files from their camera's, and you can edit that in post by yourself. You can even supply them with the USB sticks. :)
[OP]
Newbie
Jun 16, 2005
66 posts
8 upvotes
Good advice - sums it up nice - thanks

Actually thanks everyone for their comments - they were all insightful

If you guys are interested i'll let you know what happens and how the pictures turn out.
sylpherware wrote:
Jan 4th, 2013 5:15 pm
With so many people buying DSLR's, hoping to fulfill their "photographer" dreams, I'm sure OP can find someone to do that job for around $500 (+/- cake).

However, OP needs to know that he's essentially paying for a "$500-photographer", not "$3000-photographer-minus-editing".
× < >

Top