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.
Wedding Photographer / No-Post editing
- Last Updated:
- Jan 10th, 2013 5:03 pm
Tags:
- SCORE
- bhrm
- Deal Fanatic
- Jul 13, 2009
- 5244 posts
- 3536 upvotes
- ryan_lau100
- Deal Addict
- Feb 10, 2007
- 2235 posts
- 93 upvotes
- Toronto
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.YourBuddy wrote: ↑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.
- sylpherware
- Deal Fanatic
- Jun 29, 2009
- 5392 posts
- 107 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".
However, OP needs to know that he's essentially paying for a "$500-photographer", not "$3000-photographer-minus-editing".
- Premium Dude
- Jr. Member
- Nov 25, 2005
- 142 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.
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.
- Bodhi [OP]
- Newbie
- Jun 16, 2005
- 79 posts
- 24 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.
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: ↑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".
- Bodhi [OP]
- Newbie
- Jun 16, 2005
- 79 posts
- 24 upvotes
Helpful aswell. Thanks
I guess the assumption was that my post-editing is better or equal to most photographers (the ones that i've see in the $3000 range). So I wasn't contemplating the hesitation due to me making their pictures look bad, just trying to save money
and hopefully end up with a better end-product. I see your point and my mistake.
I guess the assumption was that my post-editing is better or equal to most photographers (the ones that i've see in the $3000 range). So I wasn't contemplating the hesitation due to me making their pictures look bad, just trying to save money
and hopefully end up with a better end-product. I see your point and my mistake.
Premium Dude wrote: ↑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.
- [s2]
- Jr. Member
- Dec 21, 2006
- 171 posts
- 36 upvotes
If you find someone for a good price, please let me know, I need an extra person to take candid photos.
- lz7j
- Sr. Member
- Oct 29, 2005
- 972 posts
- 55 upvotes
OP - when is your wedding? On a non-peak date, you might find what you're looking for.
- AndyKing
- Newbie
- Aug 29, 2012
- 4 posts
- SCARBOROUGH
Lol Ryan, can't believe you're here on the forum. People who charge $100 for a wedding probably just got their new dslr as a Christmas gift and are thinking they're all professional and hotshot with their big camera and super long (55-200, 70-300, etc), scary lens. There's no insurance, no business registration, no portfolio, and no guarantee of the service or results they'll provide. Let them charge for whatever they want, there's McDonalds and there's also Harbour Sixty, both which serve beef at different prices for different needs and desires. In my opinion I'd pay a bit more for my wedding photographer, and let him or her do the post production as I would value it and I would think that I couldn't get it anywhere else.ryan_lau100 wrote: ↑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.
- ryan_lau100
- Deal Addict
- Feb 10, 2007
- 2235 posts
- 93 upvotes
- Toronto
Can I shoot your wedding =)AndyKing wrote: ↑Lol Ryan, can't believe you're here on the forum. People who charge $100 for a wedding probably just got their new dslr as a Christmas gift and are thinking they're all professional and hotshot with their big camera and super long (55-200, 70-300, etc), scary lens. There's no insurance, no business registration, no portfolio, and no guarantee of the service or results they'll provide. Let them charge for whatever they want, there's McDonalds and there's also Harbour Sixty, both which serve beef at different prices for different needs and desires. In my opinion I'd pay a bit more for my wedding photographer, and let him or her do the post production as I would value it and I would think that I couldn't get it anywhere else.
- sylpherware
- Deal Fanatic
- Jun 29, 2009
- 5392 posts
- 107 upvotes
Exactly. You don't see Harbour 60 complaining about McD driving prices down, and, vice versa, you don't see McD complaining Harbour 60 driving expectations up.
I think both markets can co-exist fine.
- bhrm
- Deal Fanatic
- Jul 13, 2009
- 5244 posts
- 3536 upvotes
OMGANDYKINGAndyKing wrote: ↑Lol Ryan, can't believe you're here on the forum. People who charge $100 for a wedding probably just got their new dslr as a Christmas gift and are thinking they're all professional and hotshot with their big camera and super long (55-200, 70-300, etc), scary lens. There's no insurance, no business registration, no portfolio, and no guarantee of the service or results they'll provide. Let them charge for whatever they want, there's McDonalds and there's also Harbour Sixty, both which serve beef at different prices for different needs and desires. In my opinion I'd pay a bit more for my wedding photographer, and let him or her do the post production as I would value it and I would think that I couldn't get it anywhere else.
my idol.
- rayt-
- Deal Addict
- Oct 22, 2007
- 1881 posts
- 71 upvotes
- GTA
- thisname
- Deal Addict
- Oct 11, 2006
- 1126 posts
- 199 upvotes
- Toronto
OP, go buy 2~3 entry level DSLR and flash (or borrow), point the flash up and put in the fary gong cup, auto mode, then just pass them around in your wedding, it may turn out good (if they r not stolen)
oh just put those cameras into a raffle draw at the end of the night and keep the cards (or the RFD way would be returning them to BB or FS)
oh just put those cameras into a raffle draw at the end of the night and keep the cards (or the RFD way would be returning them to BB or FS)
- iridium001
- Deal Addict
- Apr 11, 2011
- 1127 posts
- 53 upvotes
LoLoL QFT!AndyKing wrote: ↑Lol Ryan, can't believe you're here on the forum. People who charge $100 for a wedding probably just got their new dslr as a Christmas gift and are thinking they're all professional and hotshot with their big camera and super long (55-200, 70-300, etc), scary lens. There's no insurance, no business registration, no portfolio, and no guarantee of the service or results they'll provide. Let them charge for whatever they want, there's McDonalds and there's also Harbour Sixty, both which serve beef at different prices for different needs and desires. In my opinion I'd pay a bit more for my wedding photographer, and let him or her do the post production as I would value it and I would think that I couldn't get it anywhere else.
The same can be said about wedding planners (helping organize friends or family events do not make you a pro wedding planner), professional DJs (spinning in your room and releasing tracks on youtube does not make you a pro), make up artists (doing your own make up and your family/friends on the weekends do not make you a pro), basically anyone that does a service as a living.
Thread Information
There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)