Wedding Picture prices?
Janet A. Asper
and gets all his business by word of mouth. We're paying $1,030 for all
day coverage, 105 proofs in album, 24 8x10 in album, one 5x7 for each
member of weddng party. Reprints run $12.00 of 8x10, $7 for 5x7 (check
the reprint prices, they vary widely).
Our engagement sitting was $60 for 6-10 poses, two outfits, about 25
proofs and a 8x10.
The only other place I checked wanted 1500 for about the same deal, but
reprints cost about twice the price.
I only checked places that my friends had used and were happy with.
Kathy and Anthony wrote:
> What is a reasonable price for a photographer?
Andy
wedding photography. Before you start, sit down and decide exactly what you
are looking for. Then start making phone calls and talking to your friends
who have used local wedding photographers.
Price should not be the only factor you consider when shopping for a
photographer. You will be spending your wedding day with this person at
your side, so they have to be easy to get along with.
----------
In article <93558734...@fuse.lamarelectric.com>, "Kathy and Anthony"
Ericka E. Kammerer
Kathy and Anthony wrote:
>
> What is a reasonable price for a photographer?
There's no single answer to this question. Part depends on the
quality of the photographer (you can find good photographers in most
price ranges, but you're almost certainly not going to get genius
for cheap unless you find a very young and inexperienced genius).
Part depends on what you want (35mm or medium format? color or B&W
or both? how many hours? how many assistants necessary? any
advanced artistic techniques? how many portrait sessions? how
many and what sizes of prints? how many and what sizes and what
quality of albums?) Part of it depends on your geographic location.
We went very high end on the photography (I'm a huge photography
buff and love fine art photography even though I can barely take a
snapshot without cutting off heads myself). If our photographer were
still doing weddings now, I'd estimate that the package of things we
went with would probably run around $8k (eight years after we contracted
for our pictures). That's obviously very, very high. On the other hand,
what we got couldn't have been had for less. The "extras" we got for
the extra money might not be worth it for some (actually, probably most)
people, but they were for me.
So, my advice to you is to check photographers' portfolios very
well (ask to see recently completed entire albums, not just the
photographer's "best of" album which might not be representative
of what you could expect from your wedding shots). Check references,
interview well so you know something about how well you might be able
to work with this photographer. Make sure you know exactly *who*
will be photographing your wedding. After all, it doesn't really matter
what's reasonable, it matters who in your area who's available will
do what you want for a price you're willing and able to pay--and you
won't really know that without doing the legwork yourself, unfortunately.
If you want to go higher end, make sure you do a little studying about
photography as an art so you can make informed decisions about the
quality of the photographer's work--it makes no sense to pay a lot of
money unless it's clear to you that what you're getting is actually
better than what some other photographer could do for less.
Best wishes,
Ericka Kammerer
RICK5347
buff and love fine art photography even though I can barely take a
snapshot without cutting off heads myself). If our photographer were
still doing weddings now, I'd estimate that the package of things we
went with would probably run around $8k (eight years after we contracted
for our pictures). That's obviously very, very high. On the other hand,
what we got couldn't have been had for less. The "extras" we got for
the extra money might not be worth it for some (actually, probably most)
people, but they were for me.>>
Ericka,
Your post is full of very good advice. Thank you. Out of curiousity would you
elaborate on what the "extras" were that you valued?
I know from experience that many times wedding photographers are looked at as a
commodity that is full of mostly the same stuff with little differences in
quality or product. This, as you know, is not the case at all.
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
John Stallings
Here in Silicon Valley, wedding photography can range anywhere from
$500 to well in excess of $5,000. The median price for good, solid
wedding photography, of a quality which *most* people would consider
as reasonable, is somewhere in the $2,000 area. Of course, since
everything in SV seems to be more expensive than elsewhere, you'd have
to scale these down for other places.
To some extent, you do get what you pay for. To some extent. There are
always exceptions where someone's prices are out of line in
comparision with what others offer for similar results. Sometimes
these exceptions may even be in your favor -- like if you find a
newbie photographer of exceptional skill who is underpricing to
establish themselves in the market.
Also, in the higher price ranges, it's often true that each increment
in price buys you less-and-less difference in results. The old law of
diminishing returns.
The most important thing is to figure out what it is about wedding
photography that's important to you -- and then shop around. As an
example, what some folk basically want are snapshots to record the
event. For them, the $2,000 photographer would probably be a waste of
good money. Other folk may figure that friends and relatives will
capture snapshots, and that they want "works of art" from the
photographer. For these folk, the $2,000 photographer might be a false
savings.
My *personal* opinion is that most B&Gs buy more photography than they
really want -- because they think they "should". If you're willing to
consider less than "full" wedding coverage, you can substantially
reduce the cost.
I rank the areas of contribution by a professional something like
this:
1a) Ceremony: The pro makes a huge difference. The pro uses a tripod
which allows longer shutter speeds, which allows the capturing of the
ambient light. You just can't do that with a hand-held camera, and
even with a tripod, you need to know what you're doing. The pro also
knows what to shoot, when to shoot, and what angles to use.
1b) Formal Portraits: Also called "Back to the Altar" or "Return to
the Altar" shots. As with the ceremony, using a tripod and knowing how
to work with ambient light is important. So is knowing how to create
poses. So is knowing how to be sufficiently in control to keep things
moving smoothly -- so that all the pictures are done before the church
says your time is up.
(Really established pros sometimes let "lesser" photography staff
shoot everything except 1a and 1b, with the "real" pro shooting these
because of their importance.)
2) Shots before the wedding: Things like mother adjust the bride's
veil, portraits of the bride with each bridesmaid. This is similar to
2b, but the shots are not usually considered by the B&G as being as
important as the Formal Portraits. In other words, the pro can shoot
these a *lot* better, but you need to ask yourself if you care.
3) Events at the reception: Toasts, cake cutting, bouquet and garter
tossing, dance shots, candids, etc... The pro will shoot these better
than the non-pro, but the results will not *necessarily* be as
strikingly different as in 1a and 1b. In my mind, these are mostly
"professional snapshots". The big difference the pro brings is
experience (both in shooting and in knowing how to be appropriate).
This is a crude, off-the-cuff statement of my personal opinion, and I
would not dream of defending it as anything more than that. :-)
BTW, according to the Small Business Association, the number one
complaint lodged against wedding photographers is that the
photographer was a jerk on the wedding day. Do be sure that you at
least get along well with each other.
Hope this helps.
John Stallings
Stallings & Stallings
jo...@WedArt.NoSpam.com (remove the NoSpam to reply)
www.WedArt.com
Ericka E. Kammerer
RICK5347 wrote:
> Out of curiousity would you
> elaborate on what the "extras" were that you valued?
Hmmmm...let's see...
1) The biggest extra was plain old quality. The photographer we chose
was exceptionally good, both technically and artistically. She's a
master photographer, she's won many awards nationally for her work.
Plus, her style is one I very much appreciate (sort of Belle Epoch).
Her photographs have a beautiful, timeless quality that you just
don't see very often (if at all). In fact, she won some awards for
photos from our wedding. Her command of lighting is astonishing
(many of our photos used only natural light to stunning effect).
Her sense of composition is exquisite. The control of contrast
in her B&W photos and the *richness* she achieves is amazing.
I could go on and on--her work is some of the finest I've seen.
You could hang her B&W work next to any of the great B&W photographers
and not come away disappointed with her work. I'm not saying she's
as good as Ansel Adams, but she's close enough most people couldn't
tell a quality difference and there are certainly photographers
hanging in art museums who are no better than she.
2) The next biggest was time. Between pre-wedding and wedding day
photography, she spent about, um...., at least 20 hours actively
taking photos (not including travel time, set up, take down, etc.).
That's not to mention several hours of consultation before and
after the wedding for planning, print selection, album design.
3) Her skill with B&W photography. All of our portraiture (which was
a lot) was in B&W, which she does fabulously. She does her own
developing and printing of B&W, plus extras like hand coloring,
sepia toning, and various other techniques usually reserved for
fine art photographers.
4) Her attitude. She was pleasant and calm to work with. Particularly
in portraiture sessions, she created an atmosphere that was very
relaxed and romantic, which made it easy for someone like me to
be in front of the camera (not my long suit, though you'd never
know it by the resulting photos). I will confess that she was
clearly better at her art than at business, so it took a certain
kind of client (or a certain kind of client's mother ;-) to keep
her moving and on track when she tended to get lost in the details.
She did want everything perfect and we sometimes had to insist that
a whisker shy of perfect was probably ok when trying to get a decent
group shot on occasion. But all in all, it was worth riding herd
on her ;-)
All in all, I do feel wonderful that we have the photos we have.
Someday, my grandchildren will look at those photos and know that once
upon a time, Grandma was young and beautiful and in love--and if their
impressions of my appearance are more than a little rosy than would be
strictly realistic, well, I'm not going to complain ;-) I love that
our wedding portrait could hang anywhere in our house without trumpeting
that it's our wedding portrait--many people think it must be a piece of
art we bought or a photograph of an ancestor from several generations
back until we point out that it's actually *us* in the picture. Someday
when I'm sure our family is complete, I'm going to go back for a family
portrait with that same timeless quality to it. It's hard to explain--
the main thing, of course, is to capture the day of the marriage. But
with these photographs, I feel we have something that has a beauty
of its own regardless of the event that was commemorated. To have
these beautiful photos *also* be of my very own wedding is mind
boggling ;-) I know it's a great luxury to be able to have something
like this, and I am very grateful to have had the opportunity. Our
photographer was the first person we hired for the wedding (and we joked
we had to have a 2 1/2 year engagement just to save up the money for
her ;-) Actually, though, we were quite lucky to have contracted with
her just before her business got well known and moved to the high rent
district, thereby saving us lots and lots of money--yippee!
Ericka Kammerer
Karen Simmons
>
> What is a reasonable price for a photographer?
Kathy,
That's not really a question that can be answered without knowing a lot
of other information and without judging where photography ranks on your
personal scale of importance. Wedding photography can be had from $500
on the low end to upwards of $10,000 on the high end - and the entire
range in-between. And either end of that spectrum could be considered
"reasonable" depending on what you get and what you're looking for.
For example, do you want someone there all day, from the time you get
your hair done at 10 a.m. until the last guest leaves at after
midnight? Or do you just want 3 or 4 hours worth of coverage at the
ceremony and the beginning of the reception. Or do you just want a
photographer to come out for 1 hour and take formal shots? Do you want
an album with tons of candid photos? Do you just want one perfect image
to hang on your wall? Do you want black & white AND color, just color,
or just black & white. Does it matter to you if your images are
handprinted by the photographer?
See what I mean?
FWIW, in the Atlanta area, most of the photographers I know charge
~$2500 for up to 8 hours of coverage and either a full set of proofs
(anywhere from 500 to 1000 images) or an album.
If you'd give us more information on what you're looking for, we might
be able to help a little more with concrete figures.
Karen
--
----------------------------
Karen Simmons, Photographer
Atlanta, Georgia
----------------------------
Jerry Hammond
Foreve...@hotmail.com says...
> What is a reasonable price for a photographer?
>
>
>
You might receive a better answer if you provide a little more specific
idea of what you expect for your end product. Whether or not you will
want a wall portrait; will want albums for parents and or grandparents;
and what style of coverage you want for your photographic memories.
Just to give an idea of the range of prices--I have seen coverage of a
wedding done for as low as $600. This was pro'ly the lowest most scace
coverage by the photographer and didn't even include prints of any kind.
I have also seen coverage that reached close to $10,000. This included a
crew of 2 assistants, a makeup artist, clothing specialist and two other
photographers.
Now, the question is, where do you fit in in that range?
NOTE: I do not photograph weddings and thus do not have a business
interest in your answer.
Best,
Jerry
--
jer...@anv.net
WPPI(Wedding & Portrait Photographers International)
Kathy and Anthony
Jal929
It will cost us $1500 for the package. He is a really nice guy, and a little
more expensive than the others I checked into, but I loved his work when I saw
it. In addition, every time someone asks who we are using as a photographer
and I tell them, they say he is incredible, so I'm pretty confident it will all
work out. His price is a lot lower than I anticipated spending (I'm in
Buffalo, NY now, but originally from NYC, so even though it's a high price for
here, it seems like a steal to me!).
ozjelly
her wedding and he did some really cool things. I certainly intend to use
him if possible for my wedding, or if his not avail, then steal his ideas.
They paid $2000 all up and got a beatiful album (which is the thing I loved
the way they did that) and prints of the more formal photos etc etc...
But the thing I loved was in that price came his wife, who was a pretty
dammn good photographer, who wandered around taking pics all day too..
things like, up close shot of the lace in the veil, a single flower out of
the bridal boquet, the ring bearer tweaking the flowers girl nose. Things
that a photographer would of course miss if he/she was focussing on the main
event. She also kept stuff like a ribbon of one of the centrepieces, she
even took some of the flower petals and pressed them.
So when the couple got this huge album it was beatifully done, with prints
of his more traditional wedding shots and collages of stuff she had taken
and momentos... it is hard to describe, but it was so beatiful. The couple
keep the album out like a coffee table book, everyone looks through it
agaain and again. It is so cool, each time you look again there is detail
you had forgot.
They asked if they could come to the rehersal, they said that the more
people they knew and if they knew what the program was, the more comfortable
the couple would be with them all day.
It works a charm. Sort of solves the photographer seeming like a hanger oner
at times. They didn't ingratiate themselves too much, it just was really
nice.
Funnily enough the photographer said the idea came cause his wife hated not
seeing him on the weekends & anyway she wanted to come and look at the
wedding, he asked some friends of his he was photographing one day if he
could bring her and they were like fine, and she followed him round saying
"take a pic of that"..etc.. so he brought her her own camera & taught her &
bingo..
Anyway thats whats going to dictate my wedding date - when they are free!!
Kathy and Anthony wrote in message
<93558734...@fuse.lamarelectric.com>...
Jal929
>~$2500 for up to 8 hours of coverage and either a full set of proofs
>(anywhere from 500 to 1000 images) or an album.
Okay, I feel like I'm getting a great deal here! $1500 includes 8 hours of
coverage by a master photographer and his assistant, 400 proofs to keep, and an
album....
RICK5347
Thank you for your detailed response. It sounds like you had a wonderful
photograher who created heirlooms your family will treasure for generations to
come. How fortunate for you and your family.
Ron Ng
>
Why does it matter to you? Why not just take the pictures from the first
wedding and glue the face of the groom-of-the-month over the first husband's?
You'd save a lot of money.
Ron Ng Knows!
Kathy and Anthony
quite like you before, apparently you are so disappointed in your own
miserable life that you feel you must TRY to make others feel like yourself.
Do me, and everyone else a favor, go to the darkest alley in New York, and
hold up a hundred dollar bill!! (get the point) If you feel you must be an
ass (because that is what you are making yourself look like) do it somewhere
else, some people actually are here to have a meaningful conversation about
the topics in the newsgroup
Ron Ng <ronn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990826094911...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
jaime
stressed out on the phone last night, crunching numbers.
How much money would I save if I got a decent photographer for the posed
and ceremony pics only, and had those little disposable cameras at each
table for the reception instead? I priced some cameras at $6 and I'll
probably have about 25 or 30 tables, so I'm looking at $180 plus
developing for that.
I know no one will be able to give me a hard figure for exactly how much
I'll save, but any estimates?
Thanks in advance!
Jaime
John Stallings
and the posed pictures -- but you may find the disposable cameras a
little less than satisfying for the rest. The basic problem is a
*very* low count of usuable pictures. Some of the factors involved:
1) The flashes are very weak -- and guests will consistently ignore
that and will try to take pictures from too far away.
2) They are sometimes handed to small children to keep them
entertained.
3) People use them to take "goofy" pictures, like holding the camera
at arm's length to take a self-portrait.
4) People even sometimes take them home, thinking that they are
wedding favors!
5) They are notorioius for malfunctioning.
That said, there are things you can do to minimize the problem. We
always suggest to our B&Gs that they have the DJ make an announcement,
early on, to the effect that used cameras should be deposited, say, in
the box by the DJ's stand. This alerts most folk that they aren't
wedding favors! A small (polite, clever?) printed notice accompanying
each camera could discuss some of the other pitfalls.
Still -- you'll end up paying for all the cameras and for all the
developing to get what may end up being no more than a very small
handful of usuable pictures. The usuable-picture-to-overall-price
ratio can be very bad. The last analysis I heard (admittedly biased)
was that the usuable images can effectively cost as much as $20 each
-- and these are still sub-standard images. Hardly a bargain.
Because of the drawbacks, we suggest to our B&Gs that the disposable
cameras not be the sole source of pictures at the reception. A friend
or two who's handy with a 35mm SLR would go a long way toward filling
the gap -- and you'll *still* save tons of money. Ask the friends to
primarily focus (heh, a small pun!) on the "events" -- toast, first
dance, cake cutting, etc.
John Stallings
Stallings & Stallings Photography
jo...@WedArt.NoSpam.com (remove the NoSpam to reply)
www.WedArt.com
Jerry Hammond
hin...@webtv.net says...
> How much money would I save if I got a decent photographer for the posed
> and ceremony pics only, and had those little disposable cameras at each
> table for the reception instead? I priced some cameras at $6 and I'll
> probably have about 25 or 30 tables, so I'm looking at $180 plus
> developing for that.
>
>
begging for disappointment.
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>I priced some cameras at $6 and I'll
>probably have about 25 or 30 tables, so I'm looking at $180 plus
>developing for that.
Good ones run about $10 - 12 and have the higher speed films
and a better flash. At $10 X 25 tables that's $250 plus $250 for
processing = $500. Considering that you will end up with about 100
usable prints total, I don't think this is a bargain.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Spectrum Photographic Inc
Photographer http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Darkroom processes, formulas, facts and information.
Weddings,portraits,commercial and stock photography
Nathan Shafer
>
> >What is a reasonable price for a photographer?
> >
>
> Why does it matter to you? Why not just take the pictures from the first
> wedding and glue the face of the groom-of-the-month over the first husband's?
I have been castigated in the past by JMH for not responding to
Ron Ng with vigor equal to the effort I apply to her diatribes
against photographers.
Prior to this thread, I could thruthfully say that I never respond
to Ron Ng because I don't read his posts and so have no opinion on
the matter.
After today, I have a different response. I will still not, as Jeanne
would have me do, be responding to Ron's posts, for while neither Ron
nor Jeanne says anything worth taking seriously, with Ron there is
even less chance that anyone *will* take him seriously.
So it seems my efforts are not needed. Sorry Jeanne.
- Nathan
Nathan Shafer
>
> hin...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > How much money would I save if I got a decent photographer for the posed
> > and ceremony pics only, and had those little disposable cameras at each
> > probably have about 25 or 30 tables, so I'm looking at $180 plus
> > developing for that.
>
> begging for disappointment.
Well, I think that would depend on Jamie's priorities. If she wants
great shots from the reception, then yes, you are probably correct.
If, however, she doiesn't care so much about photographs from the
reception, and is willing to risk the possibility of having *no* usable
photographs from her reception in exchange for savings, then her plan
seems prudent.
- Nathan
Josie
>How much money would I save if I got a decent photographer for the posed
>and ceremony pics only, and had those little disposable cameras at each
>table for the reception instead?
I think a better solution might be to encourage your friends and
family members to bring their personal cameras and for you to
provide rolls of film. Most groups have one person who tends
to document social gatherings, and --while you don't want anyone
to feel obligated or "made to work" -- most camera-happy people
are happy to help out. Do you have any younger cousins/siblings
who might feel honored to be "Jaime's assistant photographer"
who might otherwise no feel that great about socializing with
200 peope?
You'll have a higher quality film and a better camera than
with a disposable and you'll be less likely to get those goofy
'here's cousin Sarah showing the table that she can balance
a spoon on her nose' photographs.
>probably have about 25 or 30 tables, so I'm looking at $180 plus
>developing for that.
One (small) money saver: look around before the wedding to find
the business you want to develop these. Take test shots with
the disposable cameras you are thinking about using, and then
evaluate how well the pictures turn out. (I hope you opt
for the non-disposable route.) Once you find a company that
can develop the photos with reasonable quality, look at their
pricing structure. Many places will charge a base price for
developing the roll, and then a set price per print. They will
let you look through the photos and IMMEDIATELY discard any that
are blurry, ugly or not up to your standards. Don't pay $11
per roll only to take home a set of photos for which you will
later toss half.
This means you must be willing to go through all your prints
there at the shop before you pay for them, but it can save you
quite a bit if you end up with a 50% toss rate for 25 cameras/rolls
of film. One solution would be to just be firm with yourself
that you are not in the way, that's part of the policy and
spend the time you need to go through each package when you
pick up the developed prints. Another is to only drop off
a few rolls at a time.
--
Josie
Wende A. Feller
>
> How much money would I save if I got a decent photographer for the posed
> and ceremony pics only, and had those little disposable cameras at each
> developing for that.
While looking at houses we might buy, my husband and I shot many, many
rolls of film -- nor for art, but just to have a record of what we saw.
The shots taken with a disposable camera I wanted to finish were
useless. The shots taken with his inexpensive regular 35mm camera came
out fine (okay, except when he stood in a dark room and aimed at the
window!) -- they won't win awards, but you can see what color the walls
are and where the plaster is cracked. If you want volunteer photography,
I strongly second Josie's recommendation of asking friends to bring
their regular cameras. You'll still get a mixed bag of photos,
especially if the lighting is difficult, but at least most of them will
show people rather than murky shadows.
We had volunteer coverage for our entire wedding -- which made us very
happy, but you should be prepared to accept some trade-offs if you want
to rely on amateurs (and hey, you may have incredibly talented friends
and be pleasantly surprised). Your volunteers are likely to be more
interested in photographing people than in composing good shots, and
they may have less ability to compensate for iffy lighting. And the less
experience they have, the less sense they'll have of when *the* right
moment is to capture the shot. You can still get NICE photos, a good
record of the day, without having them really be good art. It's just
that if you expect the results you see in photographers' sample albums,
you probably will be disappointed.
Wende
Kris Hildrum
jaime <hin...@webtv.net> wrote:
>I am so happy to find this list! My fiance and I spent a long time
>stressed out on the phone last night, crunching numbers.
>
>and ceremony pics only, and had those little disposable cameras at each
>table for the reception instead? I priced some cameras at $6 and I'll
>probably have about 25 or 30 tables, so I'm looking at $180 plus
>developing for that.
My husband and I got a decent photographer for the posed and
ceremony pics. He also did some reception pics. We are happy we went
with a professional for the ceremony and posed pics. He obviously
knew what he was doing, and the pictures turned out well.
His value as a reception photographer was rather limited.
I had a camera happy friend taking pictures, and her pictures are
comparable (or would have been if we'd taken more time to say
"Get pictures of so and so".)
To put this in perspective, we had an inexpensive photographer.
($750 for 4 hours, 90 proofs, all negatives, and 5 prints).
If you're not into pictures, I'd recommend the professonal
for posed shots and the ceremony, and then for the reception, see if you
can get a camera-happy friend(s) to take pictures for you.
I really don't think the disposable cameras would work well. Most
guests probably don't want to take pictures. They may want a few pictures
of their own, but then they would take them with their camera so they'd have
a copy. The guests that *do* want to take pictures are probably better off
armed with their own camera.
Kris
SuperSquid
>probably have about 25 or 30 tables, so I'm looking at $180 plus
>developing for that.
>I know no one will be able to give me a hard figure for exactly how much
>I'll save, but any estimates?
Well, I'll give you an estimate on what it will cost you to get those cameras
developed (at 30 tables). Cheap 1 hour processing of those cameras will cost
approx. (your lab may be more or less) $7 per camera (you have to remember tax
too). So, $180 for the cameras plus $210 for developing which comes to close
to $400 for the whole shebang. Here's the part that is the thing to ponder:
Are you going to be happy with the less than perfect prints these cameras
yield?
Sidney Smith
Eustis, FL
©1999
Karen Simmons
> How much money would I save if I got a decent photographer for the posed
> and ceremony pics only, and had those little disposable cameras at each
> table for the reception instead?
Jaime,
It's really hard to say. Some people get great results from the cameras
and some people get rotten results. It depends a lot on your friends
and what kind of photos they'll take as well as how careful they are to
work within the limitations of the cameras.
I'd estimate that if you used 8 cameras at ~$7 each and then paid
another ~$14 to get them developed, you're looking at - what? - around
$170? For a total of 192 photos. The percentage of good to bad photos
that you get is going to really be the determiner as to whether or not
it was money well spent.
The other issue is how much do photographers in your area charge? Is a
"decent photographer" for posed and ceremony pics going to charge you
$750 to come out for 4 hours? What if he charges $500 more to come out
for 6 hours? Would that make a huge difference to your budget? Is it
worth it to you to pay $500 to have guaranteed (relatively speaking of
course) good photos of your reception? Or do photogs in your area
charge $2500 to stay for 6 hours?
IMO, if you're not able or willing to pay for a photog to stay during
the reception, your money would be better spent to buy film for friends
and family who like to take photographs and will bring their own cameras
to the wedding. Every family has it's resident shutterbugs and you're
much more likely to get good photos from them than you are from the
disposables - for about the same amount of money when all is said and
done.
JMH
> Ron Ng wrote:
> >
> > >What is a reasonable price for a photographer?
> > >
> >
> > Why does it matter to you? Why not just take the pictures from the
> first
> > wedding and glue the face of the groom-of-the-month over the first
> husband's?
>
> I have been castigated in the past by JMH for not responding to
> Ron Ng with vigor equal to the effort I apply to her diatribes
> against photographers.
Oh, no, Nathan, diatribes against *SOME* photographers. I find the nine
photographers listed on my Professional's Corner web page
(http://www.mindspring.com/~thinds/advocate/procon.htm) to be the
exemplary examples of the consummate professional photographer on
UseNet. I actually need to add two more bringing the total to 11
photographers. It is a vocal few who behave in what previous
photographers on this newsgroup have reffered to as "assholes who give
the industry a bad name" and "who would have been fired if they had been
my employee."
You, Karen, Rick, and Squidney have engaged in a fallacious
spindoctoring of the truth for the last two years by insisting I have a
bias against all photographers. I merely have a bias against what your
more professional and mature peers derisively and embarrassingly refer
to as "assholes".
And to forestall the Fearsome Foursome from making any such claims, I
have never used the word "asshole" to describe any vendor of any
industry although my evil twin has certainly been tempted to.
>
>
> Prior to this thread, I could thruthfully say that I never respond
> to Ron Ng because I don't read his posts and so have no opinion on
> the matter.
So, you remain totally ignorant of the derogatory, sexist names he has
called various women ?
>
>
> After today, I have a different response. I will still not, as Jeanne
>
> would have me do, be responding to Ron's posts, for while neither Ron
> nor Jeanne says anything worth taking seriously, with Ron there is
> even less chance that anyone *will* take him seriously.
>
> So it seems my efforts are not needed. Sorry Jeanne.
Yes, thank you for providing yet more prima facia evidence that a vocal
minority of photographers are simply interested in defending their own
little turf of wedding photography and have absolutely no interest in
the newsgroup brides whatsoever. You few are more interested in doing a
Wedgie Wiggle over being called "ding-a-lings" and "squishy" than you
are in defending women from being called "whores" and "sluts".
JMH
> jaime wrote:
> >
> > How much money would I save if I got a decent photographer for the
> posed
> > and ceremony pics only, and had those little disposable cameras at
> each
> > table for the reception instead? I priced some cameras at $6 and
> I'll
> > probably have about 25 or 30 tables, so I'm looking at $180 plus
> > developing for that.
>
> While looking at houses we might buy, my husband and I shot many, many
>
> rolls of film -- nor for art, but just to have a record of what we
> saw.
> The shots taken with a disposable camera I wanted to finish were
> useless.
Now if only you had used a Konica disposable. Imo, they take better
pictures than the point and shoot 35 mms.
JMH
> > I priced some cameras at $6 and I'll
> >probably have about 25 or 30 tables, so I'm looking at $180 plus
> >developing for that.
>
> >I know no one will be able to give me a hard figure for exactly how
> much
> >I'll save, but any estimates?
>
> Well, I'll give you an estimate on what it will cost you to get those
> cameras
> developed (at 30 tables). Cheap 1 hour processing of those cameras
> will cost
> approx. (your lab may be more or less) $7 per camera (you have to
> remember tax
> too).
Try $3.95 per 24 exposure roll at Wal-Mart and $2.95 per roll via Clark
Color Labs mail service. Since they are disposable "proofs", little
money need be spent on developing and printing the initial proofs.
Michael Allen Gelman
> What is a reasonable price for a photographer?
Gee, do you think you got enough opinions? :)
My partner and I have complete wedding packages for $595. We feel like
that's a fair price for what we offer. I hope that helps.
http://AmourEternal.com/pricelist.htm
Sincerely,
Michael Allen Gelman
Amour Eternal Wedding Photography
Western Carolina's "accommodating" photographers
http://AmourEternal.com
Nathan Shafer
>
> > Prior to this thread, I could thruthfully say that I never respond
> > to Ron Ng because I don't read his posts and so have no opinion on
> > the matter.
>
> So, you remain totally ignorant of the derogatory, sexist names he has
> called various women ?
I had heard from third parties that he was a jerk to some brides, but
that had been the extent of my knowledge, yes. And I don't really
think it's fair to take a stand against an individual based *solely*
on hearsay.
> > After today, I have a different response. I will still not, as Jeanne
> >
> > would have me do, be responding to Ron's posts, for while neither Ron
> > nor Jeanne says anything worth taking seriously, with Ron there is
> > even less chance that anyone *will* take him seriously.
> >
> > So it seems my efforts are not needed. Sorry Jeanne.
>
> Yes, thank you for providing yet more prima facia evidence that a vocal
> minority of photographers...have absolutely no interest in
> the newsgroup brides whatsoever.
Non sequitur.
I remain uninterested in Rong Ng's hijinks because he seems to be what
is referred to as a kook - akin to an unwashed, barefoot, bearded
wildman in the street shouting about monsters and the end of the world.
No one takes him seriously, therefore he is effectively harmless.
> You few are more interested in doing a Wedgie Wiggle over being
> called "ding-a-lings" and "squishy"
To my recollection, I have never said word one about being called a
"ding-a-ling," at least not since third grade, or "squishy," except
when my wife is referring to my spare tire.
> than you
> are in defending women from being called "whores" and "sluts".
How can I defend a woman from an action I have never myself observed?
Besides, I feel certain that they have more than an adequate defender
from vile language in YOU, Jeanne. I have no doubt that you are up
to the task of smiting any and all users of vulgar language, at least
those who are using on their own behalf. Those who simply "quote"
vulgar language, repeatedly, I assume are exempt from prosecution.
- Nathan
Karen Simmons
>
> You few are more interested in doing a
> Wedgie Wiggle over being called "ding-a-lings" and "squishy"
> and "sluts".
Well I personally have never read a post by Ron calling anyone a "whore"
or a "slut". I think if I had I probably would have said something, but
then again, I don't read all of Ron's posts. Those I've read I've
either thought bitingly sarcastic and somewhat funny at times or a
little over the top.
But basically from what I've read (again admitting that I don't read all
of his posts) Ron's primary goal seems to be a pushing of his moral
standards and standards of etiquette on others with his use of the word
"VULGAR" and his comments about second marriages and children born out
of marriage. I don't think his stand is any different from Jeanne's
diatribes on the evils of homosexuality and how people shouldn't sully
her ears with foul language.
RICK5347
>> Yes, thank you for providing yet more prima facia evidence that a vocal
>> minority of photographers...have absolutely no interest in
>> the newsgroup brides whatsoever.
>
Since I am part of "a vocal minority of photographers" I would also like to
respond to her accusations. Personally, I have no knowledge or recollection of
ever reading a post from this, or any, individual in which those terms were
used.
Tony and Suzy
Karen Simmons wrote:
> JMH wrote:
> >
> > You few are more interested in doing a
> > Wedgie Wiggle over being called "ding-a-lings" and "squishy"
> > than you are in defending women from being called "whores"
> > and "sluts".
>
> Well I personally have never read a post by Ron calling anyone a "whore"
> or a "slut". I think if I had I probably would have said something, but
> then again, I don't read all of Ron's posts. Those I've read I've
> either thought bitingly sarcastic and somewhat funny at times or a
> little over the top.
>
> But basically from what I've read (again admitting that I don't read all
> of his posts) Ron's primary goal seems to be a pushing of his moral
> standards and standards of etiquette on others with his use of the word
> "VULGAR" and his comments about second marriages and children born out
> of marriage. I don't think his stand is any different from Jeanne's
> diatribes on the evils of homosexuality and how people shouldn't sully
> her ears with foul language.
>
> Karen
>
Unfortunately our little trolll called a regular a whore and other things a
while back. This did end up chasing her away. By now she's married and I
hope she's lurking here. I hope she will email me.. HINT HINT.. To let me
know how the wedding went.
Suzy
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Karen Simmons, Photographer
> Atlanta, Georgia
> ----------------------------
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am the world's greatest authority on my own opinion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of Smart
Jerry Hammond
>
>
> Karen Simmons wrote:
>
> > JMH wrote:
> > >
> > > You few are more interested in doing a
> > > Wedgie Wiggle over being called "ding-a-lings" and "squishy"
> > > than you are in defending women from being called "whores"
> > > and "sluts".
> >
> > Well I personally have never read a post by Ron calling anyone a "whore"
> > or a "slut". I think if I had I probably would have said something, but
> > then again, I don't read all of Ron's posts. Those I've read I've
> > either thought bitingly sarcastic and somewhat funny at times or a
> > little over the top.
> >
> > But basically from what I've read (again admitting that I don't read all
> > of his posts) Ron's primary goal seems to be a pushing of his moral
> > standards and standards of etiquette on others with his use of the word
> > "VULGAR" and his comments about second marriages and children born out
> > of marriage. I don't think his stand is any different from Jeanne's
> > diatribes on the evils of homosexuality and how people shouldn't sully
> > her ears with foul language.
> >
> > Karen
> >
>
> Unfortunately our little trolll called a regular a whore and other things a
> while back. This did end up chasing her away. By now she's married and I
> hope she's lurking here. I hope she will email me.. HINT HINT.. To let me
> know how the wedding went.
> Suzy
>
I had to do a double-take on this one. Are you saying Ms. Hinds called a
bride on this board a whore? Or was that Nog?
Best,
Jerry
Tony and Suzy
Jerry Hammond wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Unfortunately our little trolll called a regular a whore and other things a
> > while back. This did end up chasing her away. By now she's married and I
> > hope she's lurking here. I hope she will email me.. HINT HINT.. To let me
> > know how the wedding went.
> > Suzy
> >
> Suzy--
>
> I had to do a double-take on this one. Are you saying Ms. Hinds called a
> bride on this board a whore? Or was that Nog?
>
> Best,
> Jerry
I'm sorry I meant Nog, not JMH. He chased a couple of people away actually( I
was emailed by several people today on this.)
Suzy
SuperSquid
>Wedgie Wiggle over being called "ding-a-lings" and "squishy" than you
>are in defending women from being called "whores" and "sluts".
>
No, Jeanne. I am defending myself from being called a "ding-a-ling" and
"squishy" by you. Those women you refer to can defend themselves and demand an
apology. Just as I have been doing since you called me those childish and
uncalled for names.
Where's my apology?
Karen Simmons
> Just because you and Rosen are self-absorbed in the photography threads
> does not mean the insults never occured.
Whatever, Jeanne. I don't have to read every single post on this board
just because you think I should. Ron's behavior is completely
irrelevant to *this* thread. His name calling has nothing to do with
your obsessive, childish behavior. Please stop trying to redirect blame
and take responsibility for your own actions.
Karen
JMH
> JMH wrote:
> >
> > You few are more interested in doing a
> > Wedgie Wiggle over being called "ding-a-lings" and "squishy"
> > than you are in defending women from being called "whores"
> > and "sluts".
>
> Well I personally have never read a post by Ron calling anyone a
> "whore"
> or a "slut".
I suppose you missed this post in which he refers to Aurelia
(ara...@webtv.net) as a "call girl"
:http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=437498826&search=thread&CONTEXT=935944287.1479606298&HIT_CONTEXT=935944287.1479606298&hitnum=44
He repetitively posted that Aurelia was working as a prostitute in a
hotel when she met her future husband when he hired her but hey, don;t
take my word for it. Read it for yourself :
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=437768882&search=thread&CONTEXT=935944287.1479606298&HIT_CONTEXT=935944287.1479606298&hitnum=46.
I still have Aurelia's web page bookmarked so you can see that Ron is
quite false and merely perpetuates this slander because Aurelia filed a
complaint with his ISP about his posts.
Then there was Jackie (lovet...@aol.com) who was referred to by Ron as
marrying her fiance only because she enjoyed the anal sex he gave her.
Again, this was in retaliation for Jackie emailing a complaint to aol
abuse.
And the most recent was this spring or early summer where Ron repeatedly
called one poster here a "whore". I don't remember her name but it was
a big flame war.
Just because you and Rosen are self-absorbed in the photography threads
does not mean the insults never occured.
>
>
> But basically from what I've read (again admitting that I don't read
> all
> of his posts) Ron's primary goal seems to be a pushing of his moral
> standards and standards of etiquette on others with his use of the
> word
> "VULGAR" and his comments about second marriages and children born out
>
> of marriage. I don't think his stand is any different from Jeanne's
> diatribes on the evils of homosexuality and how people shouldn't sully
>
> her ears with foul language.
>
When you can find an example of me ever calling someone "faggot",
"queer" or any other derogatory term, then you'll have a basis for
comparison. As I recall, you have been an avid supporter of Ron in the
past thinking his comments were funny and "right on target".
Jerry Hammond
says...
> Then there was Jackie (lovet...@aol.com) who was referred to by Ron as
> marrying her fiance only because she enjoyed the anal sex he gave her.
> Again, this was in retaliation for Jackie emailing a complaint to aol
> abuse.
>
>
AOL does not forward complaints to the member. They investigate, and if
grounds are found that the complaint is valid, they warn the member in
question.
1.) A warning
2.) Temporary suspension of the account
3.) Cancellation of the account
Now, Ms. Hinds, if you really want Nog gone, why don't you take all that
info you've saved up from the some 200 posts you read a day and forward
it to AOL's abuse department and STOP cluttering photography threads with
your constant harrassment. Hmmm?
Oh, and btw, I find your use of vulgarity offensive, even if you are
quoting.
Does Mindsrping.com condone your continued use a vulgarity in a Wedding
Newsgroup? Ask, JD, I know he knows the answer.
Jerry
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>
>Does Mindsrping.com condone your continued use a vulgarity in a Wedding
>Newsgroup? Ask, JD, I know he knows the answer.
Pretty sure that one is a slam dunk. Still it did take a lot
to Eric's (King Eric, a.k.a. Lord Garth) access pulled. Amazing what
ISP's will allow you to get away with these days ! I think he's on #8
if you count AOL X 3.
And do note that he has been somewhat more docile since I
spoke with AOL last week.
Jerry Hammond
spec...@spectrumphoto.com says...
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 14:37:17 -0700, jer...@anv.net (Jerry Hammond)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Does Mindsrping.com condone your continued use a vulgarity in a Wedding
> >Newsgroup? Ask, JD, I know he knows the answer.
>
> Pretty sure that one is a slam dunk. Still it did take a lot
> to Eric's (King Eric, a.k.a. Lord Garth) access pulled. Amazing what
> ISP's will allow you to get away with these days ! I think he's on #8
> if you count AOL X 3.
>
> And do note that he has been somewhat more docile since I
> spoke with AOL last week.
>
not read anything posted by him since.
Jerry
steve mcdaniel
software! And brides, set a good example for your kids who are from
your first two husbands and are also in the wedding, wear a white dress!
Ron Ng
>software! And brides, set a good example for your kids who are from
>your first two husbands and are also in the wedding, wear a white dress!
>
It's also a lot cheaper than hiring a photographer!
Ron Ng Knows!
paul l schafer
there is that cost most folks don't think about...the processing. So in
the long run you may not be saving any money for very few fun, usable
shots. A few cameras can be alot of fun in the right hands (your
attendants, a favorite cousin, some work friends) , but I don't think
people get the results they are hoping for. Too many times I've had to
show folks how to operate the flash.
See if your photographer can provide limited Reception coverage.....if
the sequence of events allows for it, you may ge able to get some
memorable events completed within the 1- 1 1/2 hours (the cake cutting,
a toast, the bridal table, a few special family members/friends, the
Reception Hall in it's splendor). This really depends on the wedding
traditions in your area and how you have the Reception planned, but it
is something to check out.
Best wishes everyone.....
Peggy V
****************************************
SPECTRUM wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:44:23 -0400 (EDT), hin...@webtv.net (jaime)
> wrote:
>
> >I priced some cameras at $6 and I'll
> >probably have about 25 or 30 tables, so I'm looking at $180 plus
> >developing for that.
>
> Good ones run about $10 - 12 and have the higher speed films
> and a better flash. At $10 X 25 tables that's $250 plus $250 for
> processing = $500. Considering that you will end up with about 100
> usable prints total, I don't think this is a bargain.
Shaunna
with marriage.
Shaunna
It's just hard not to respond to idiotic drivel when you see it.
Karen Simmons
> Karen - read his messages in the post about "God's Way" having to do
> with marriage.
Shauna,
Thank you for the reference, but I really don't care to get drawn into
that battle. However, looking back at the thread you reference, I still
don't see that Ron has called anyone a "whore" or a "slut". Yes, he has
used the word "bastard", which I think has negative connotations, but by
strictest definition he is correct: according to Webster a "bastard" is
a child born out of wedlock or an illegitimate child.
Now please don't think I am condoning the usage or that I agree with the
pejorative nature of the name when applied to children - I do not. I
also don't happen to agree with Ron on this issue. But the fact remains
that he is using the word in it's correct dictionary usage.
Shaunna
you to the wrong one. And yes - you're right that Webster's defines
"bastard" in that way. However, our society has equated that as being a
horrendous thing, and children are labeled w/ this so negatively that I
cannot stand the word. Sorry - I find it offensive.