Professional Photography Darned Expensive!
Sandy
the background doesn't totally obscure the question.
A professional photographer friend from college had planned to
photograph our wedding this summer in exchange for travel and lodging.
Unfortunately, something has come up and he can't do it.
So now, rather late, I am looking for a photographer. The several
places I've looked into charge about $1000 for two hours, not
including prints. The rule of thumb that I see on photographers'
websites is to spend 10% of the total spent on the wedding. I assume
that this is kind of the high end, since it's the photographers who
are saying this. 10% for me would be about $500. So you can see that
spending a minimum of $1000 is way out of proportion to the amount we
are spending on other things. It makes me nervous to spend that much
money!
I studied photography in high school and appreciate good journalism
and art photography. I always assumed that I would have my wedding
photographed. I've noticed that wedding photographers send the photos
out for developing, which surprises me since the interesting part of
it for me is the effects I could produce in the darkroom. I suppose
that hiring a professional is not the same as hiring an artist.
Perhaps photography should go in the same "too expensive" category as
other things that I like, but can't have, such as a couture dress,
custom designed rings to fit oddly sized stones, and artistic floral
displays? Maybe it's silly to spend a lot of money on a photographer
whose main virtue is that s/he is technically competent? I kind of
feel like if I don't have someone I really like, maybe I should just
bag the whole professional thing...rather than feel bad about the
expense for something I don't like much.
What have other people in similar situations done? Has anyone here
just relied on reprints from relatives' snapshots? Is there some
middle ground that would give me a few reliably technically good, but
not artistic, photos but not cost so much?
Again, sorry this is so long.
Sandy
KK
> What have other people in similar situations done? Has anyone here just
> relied on reprints from relatives' snapshots? Is there some middle
> ground that would give me a few reliably technically good, but not
> artistic, photos but not cost so much?
We were going to rely on relatives for pictures, since we were in the same
situation as you--photography just seemed so expensive and so
not-our-taste. My mom made us talk to a local professional photographer,
and he actually agreed to come photograph the wedding (ceremony and posed
shots following) for $100. Since we were married at a local historical
site, the photog wanted to build his profile with shots of the location
and that's why he did it so cheaply.
For what it's worth, this company had a package in which you could get
something like 12 or 24 posed shots, at the location of your choice, for
$100. He travelled 30 miles out of his way and threw in shots of the
ceremony and as many posed shots as we wanted because he enjoyed the
location.
Anyway, my point is that you should definitely look around. Ask local
companies what they charge. But, frankly, I think most of our relatives
could have taken pictures as well as this guy--he was professional and
competent, but the pictures didn't have any real depth or composition. It
is nice to have them, though. (We kept an album of prints but never
ordered more than one or two larger size photos.)
Hope this helps!
-KK
Tom
"Sandy" <muscu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a58233df.02060...@posting.google.com...
> Apologies in advance for this poorly focused (!) message, I hope that
> the background doesn't totally obscure the question.
>
> A professional photographer friend from college had planned to
> photograph our wedding this summer in exchange for travel and lodging.
> Unfortunately, something has come up and he can't do it.
>
> So now, rather late, I am looking for a photographer. The several
> places I've looked into charge about $1000 for two hours, not
> including prints.
This is on the upper end of the cost chain for that limited amount of time.
In this area, $1000.00 would buy you the full day (considered here to be 6
to 8 hours) and free proofs. Everything else you would buy individually
(Grooms book, Parents albums, etc.) and it would require you to commit to a
basic album, usually with a minimum number of pages (typically a minimum of
20 pages) containing either 8x8, 8x10 or 10x10 prints (depending upon the
format the photographer uses). The enlargements for the album would be in
the range of $20.00 to $30.00 each.
Again, all this is local stuff. Prices vary EXTREMELY depending upon your
location.
>The rule of thumb that I see on photographers'
> websites is to spend 10% of the total spent on the wedding. I assume
> that this is kind of the high end, since it's the photographers who
> are saying this. 10% for me would be about $500.
This is a manageable number and if you do some looking, I believe you can
find someone for this. It all depends upon the "package" you want. You
just need to sit down and talk this out with a pro and see what develops.
>So you can see that
> spending a minimum of $1000 is way out of proportion to the amount we
> are spending on other things. It makes me nervous to spend that much
> money!
How nervous would it make you to think that 30 years from now you will be
looking back and wishing you had decent pictures of one of the most
important days in your life?
> I studied photography in high school and appreciate good journalism
> and art photography.
...and therefore now think "anybody can shoot a wedding", right? Please
look at the work of a competent pro before deciding what to do. A wedding
shoot brings to the table a whole host of difficulties that are not
immediately apparent to unknowledgeable photo hobbiests.
>I always assumed that I would have my wedding
> photographed.
Most brides do. :)
>I've noticed that wedding photographers send the photos
> out for developing, which surprises me since the interesting part of
> it for me is the effects I could produce in the darkroom.
That is correct. You are buying the photographers time and skill with his
equipment. Lab work turning out technically correct prints, providing they
have the right stuff to work WITH, is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
>I suppose that hiring a professional is not the same as hiring an artist.
An artist at what? Do you want your wedding photographed or painted?
Saying people like Tommy Colbert, Mark Spencer or Heidi Mauracher are not
artists is disengenious.
> Perhaps photography should go in the same "too expensive" category as
> other things that I like, but can't have, such as a couture dress,
> custom designed rings to fit oddly sized stones, and artistic floral
> displays?
Perhaps. There are some things I cannot afford either. :)
The point is, how much is it a part of your big day to know you will have a
photographic record of it for all your years to come? When the thing is
done, how much of a lingering memory will you have of, say, the food served?
The band? The DJ? The table decorations?
>Maybe it's silly to spend a lot of money on a photographer
> whose main virtue is that s/he is technically competent?
If technical competence is all you want, hire a high school student, give
him/her a point-and-shoot autofocus cheapo camera with flash and you will
guarantee technical perfection. All the shots will be properly exposed.
All can be printed.
There is a difference between 'technical competence' and good photography.
The course you took in school should have taught you that or you were just
occuping space in class.
>I kind of
> feel like if I don't have someone I really like, maybe I should just
> bag the whole professional thing...rather than feel bad about the
> expense for something I don't like much.
I don't think you have really researched this. Unless you are in a VERY
remote location, you should have dozens of choices of photographers and
studios, and at different price levels too.
> What have other people in similar situations done?
They have hired a pro.
>Has anyone here
> just relied on reprints from relatives' snapshots?
Yep. Been there, seen that. Many times. Good old Uncle Bob. He always
takes such GOOD pictures of his cat and butterflies and stuff... just let
him shoot the wedding.
"Uncle Bob" is the main reason why I have been asked to "recreate" weddings
and take photos and portraits after the fact. Talk about expensive? You
*really* cannot afford that on your budget.
Then you are stuck, from now on, with pictures that are non-representitive
of one of the biggest days in your life. Do you REALLY want to stare at
"Uncle Bob's" photos with everyone chopped off at the knees from now on?
>Is there some
> middle ground that would give me a few reliably technically good, but
> not artistic, photos but not cost so much?
Sandy, you keep asking the same thing. Why in the world would you want
'artless', yet 'technically correct' photographs of your wedding?
Tom
James Messick
thinking "$500 would be nice". It turns out that my wishful thinking was a
little low. The cheapest photographer I've interviewed so far (with the best
pictures) starts around $900, but this does include a package with lots of
pictures. It seems that the prices increase with the size of the prints, and
the album. Personally, I'd rather pay a flat fee for his time and receive
the prints at cost, instead of deciding how much profit I want to give him,
and how big do I want the pictures to be.
That said, it is our wedding, and if we end up with bad pictures then I know
we'll be regretting it for a long time.
I've been keeping a spreadsheet of what the wedding is costing. It looks
like the major expenses for the wedding, in order, will be the two-week
honeymoon, closely followed by catering, engagement ring, photography,
bride's gown, and flowers. This is not including the storage building that I
will be getting soon, if my credit holds out!
pennyring
student photographers. The department head would likely recommend their prize
pupil, you would likely not have to pay much, you would still get some artistry
for much less money, and it would be a portfolio building experience for the
student.
~Amber
~Amber
"I'm just glad to be here, happy to be alive." --Traveling Wilburys
James Messick
gamble. Not to criticize the idea, but I think a lot of what you get with an
professional is the experience to pose people, knowing what shots to take,
and moving and taking photos unobtrusively during the ceremony (one hopes).
Still, it's a wonderful idea for saving money on photos.
"pennyring" <penn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020605161129...@mb-mn.aol.com...
Maggie Lawrence
DH is a wedding photographer. If you were to locate a photographer willing to
provide you with the photos at "cost", my guess is that his creation fee or as
you refer for his time would be sufficiently high enough to guarantee roughly
the same profit as his packages. Because that fee has to be high enough to pay
the studio overhead and provide some profit as well.
As for photographers, you might consider interviewing some who do this part-time
( there are many news photographers and others who wedding photography as a
sideline) or someone who has a studio in their home. Both these types will have
lower overhead and you may be able to save money that way.
We operate our studio from our home and as a parttime business--yet we are busy
enough to hire a second photographer regularly and we do about 30 weddings a
year between DH and the other photog.
Hope this helps.
maggie
Sandy
Thanks for your detailed response, Tom. I am trying to clear up some
things that seem to have been confusing.
>
> > I studied photography in high school and appreciate good journalism
> > and art photography.
>
> ...and therefore now think "anybody can shoot a wedding", right? Please
> look at the work of a competent pro before deciding what to do. A wedding
> shoot brings to the table a whole host of difficulties that are not
> immediately apparent to unknowledgeable photo hobbiests.
>
I'm so sorry, that didn't come across the way I intended. I am trying
to say that I care about photography as an art form, not just as a
recording device. I don't really understand how that indicates to you
that I think "anybody can shoot a wedding"?
>
> >I've noticed that wedding photographers send the photos
> > out for developing, which surprises me since the interesting part of
> > it for me is the effects I could produce in the darkroom.
>
> That is correct. You are buying the photographers time and skill with his
> equipment. Lab work turning out technically correct prints, providing they
> have the right stuff to work WITH, is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
It looks like you have some experience here. I have never sent stuff
to a really good lab. I assume that they will crop to your mark-up.
Will they burn in or dodge areas that would be improved by it? Will
they test different hardnesses of papers to see what would look best
with each print?
>
> >I suppose that hiring a professional is not the same as hiring an artist.
>
> An artist at what? Do you want your wedding photographed or painted?
I've wondered if you can get one of those people who make sketches in
courtrooms to do a wedding....
But yes, I do think that photography is a fine art.
> The point is, how much is it a part of your big day to know you will have a
> photographic record of it for all your years to come? When the thing is
> done, how much of a lingering memory will you have of, say, the food served?
> The band? The DJ? The table decorations?
Well, the only one of those things that we will have is food... I
hope I don't have lingering memories of a DJ :).
>
> >Maybe it's silly to spend a lot of money on a photographer
> > whose main virtue is that s/he is technically competent?
>
> If technical competence is all you want, hire a high school student, give
> him/her a point-and-shoot autofocus cheapo camera with flash and you will
> guarantee technical perfection. All the shots will be properly exposed.
> All can be printed.
>
> There is a difference between 'technical competence' and good photography.
> The course you took in school should have taught you that or you were just
> occuping space in class.
Again, I'm afraid that I didn't make myself clear. I believe that we
are using a different scale. I see a big difference between a poorly
composed, badly lit, snapshot and what I consider a technically
competent photograph. I don't think that technical competence is
likely with the scenerio that you mentioned. When I say "artistic
photography" what I mean is probably what you would call "pretentious
and sophomoric photography". I like IR photography, solarization, red
filters to improve the look of the sky, and really nerdy things like
slightly too large film carriers in the enlarger to show that you
haven't cropped.
>
> >I kind of
> > feel like if I don't have someone I really like, maybe I should just
> > bag the whole professional thing...rather than feel bad about the
> > expense for something I don't like much.
>
> I don't think you have really researched this. Unless you are in a VERY
> remote location, you should have dozens of choices of photographers and
> studios, and at different price levels too.
>
>
I hope you are right, as I haven't found the less expensive ones.
> >Is there some
> > middle ground that would give me a few reliably technically good, but
> > not artistic, photos but not cost so much?
>
> Sandy, you keep asking the same thing. Why in the world would you want
> 'artless', yet 'technically correct' photographs of your wedding?
Because it would serve the pedestrian purpose of having a visual
record of some parts of the wedding. Group photos would be hauled out
to show the kids "this is what your great aunt Broomhilde looked like,
and yes, everyone wore funny eyeglasses in those days..." But I want
these photos to not have trees sticking out of people's heads, not to
have the date printed on the front, and certainly not to include the
photographer's thumb.
Sandy
Sandy
>
> For what it's worth, this company had a package in which you could get
> something like 12 or 24 posed shots, at the location of your choice, for
> $100. He travelled 30 miles out of his way and threw in shots of the
> ceremony and as many posed shots as we wanted because he enjoyed the
> location.
>
wow, sounds like you got a great deal!
> Anyway, my point is that you should definitely look around. Ask local
> companies what they charge. But, frankly, I think most of our relatives
> could have taken pictures as well as this guy--he was professional and
> competent, but the pictures didn't have any real depth or composition. It
> is nice to have them, though. (We kept an album of prints but never
> ordered more than one or two larger size photos.)
>
> Hope this helps!
Yes, it gives me more hope! thanks!
Sandy
Tom
"Sandy" <muscu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a58233df.02060...@posting.google.com...
> "Tom" <seas...@removethis.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<1QsL8.49052$2m.15...@typhoon1.se.ipsvc.net>...
> > "Sandy" <muscu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:a58233df.02060...@posting.google.com...
>
> Thanks for your detailed response, Tom. I am trying to clear up some
> things that seem to have been confusing.
<SNIP High School Stuff>
> > >I've noticed that wedding photographers send the photos
> > > out for developing, which surprises me since the interesting part of
> > > it for me is the effects I could produce in the darkroom.
> >
> > That is correct. You are buying the photographers time and skill with
his
> > equipment. Lab work turning out technically correct prints, providing
they
> > have the right stuff to work WITH, is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
>
> It looks like you have some experience here. I have never sent stuff
> to a really good lab. I assume that they will crop to your mark-up.
> Will they burn in or dodge areas that would be improved by it? Will
> they test different hardnesses of papers to see what would look best
> with each print?
They crop exactly to line, fill, burn, open and correct (can even 'open the
eyes' of Dear Old Aunt Broomhilde if she blinked) and what is MOST
important of all, color balance the output so that the enlargements look
like they were done not only on the same planet but on the same day.
And they will do this until they get it right before the client ever sees
the 'proofs'. (Which are not 'proofs' anymore. They are full blown prints,
which in my case were 5x5's, that are given to the client after the final
bill is paid).
The color balance issue, by the way, is the "dead giveaway" to an amature
photographers wedding album. Color balance is all over the place. Looks
like vacation snapshots done at Wal Mart.
Now, when you start talking 'hardnessess' of paper you are leading off into
black and white prints, not color. Do you want your wedding shot in black
and white? This is not a loaded question. More and more couples want their
wedding done either wholly or in part with black and white materials. This
look has really come back in style. Believe it or not, this (mixing B&W and
color) is now a *premium* service and you will pay more, maybe a lot more,
to have this done. Taken to extreme, this peaks out at around $3500.00 for
a platinium print package of 8x8's and 8x10's on archieval matt (good for,
say, 200+ years).
> > The point is, how much is it a part of your big day to know you will
have a
> > photographic record of it for all your years to come? When the thing is
> > done, how much of a lingering memory will you have of, say, the food
served?
> > The band? The DJ? The table decorations?
>
> Well, the only one of those things that we will have is food... I
> hope I don't have lingering memories of a DJ :).
OK, I give up. Since what I was alluding to seems to be literally
translated, here's hoping you remember the sandwiches 30 years from now.
Freeze one so you can take it out and have a look at it with your grandkids
some day. :)
Good luck in your search. I still believe you can find a descent
photographer in the price range you describe. There won't be any
hand-tooled leather albums with 40 10x10's turning up for that price, but
you should be able to get something you won't be ashamed to show off down
the road.
Tom
CJMorgan59
>What have other people in similar situations done? Has anyone here
>just relied on reprints from relatives' snapshots? Is there some
>middle ground that would give me a few reliably technically good, but
>not artistic, photos but not cost so much?
>
>Again, sorry this is so long.
Some of my first wedding photography jobs came about when I was still in
photography school -- folks would put up a notice on the bulletin board in our
building (i.e. where the school's photography department was).
So, if you get yourself a second or third year photography student, you'll
probably get someone who has some technical competence, someone who has some
artistic enthusiasm, and someone who won't cost you an arm and a leg.
So don't rule out this middle ground idea.
CJ
Jenrose
volunteered to do the wedding for expenses, but if she hadn't, there's
another photographer I know who only charges by the roll of film...$50 per
roll (24 shots), but we pay for developing and the film.
If neither of those had worked, I have several friends who have good "eyes"
for photography, and I would have asked them.
No way in heck could I dream of spending $1000 on pictures.
I'm a graphic designer, so I'm not worried about blowups and albums. If I
want 'em, I'll scan 'em. If I want darkroom effects, that's what PhotoShop
is for.
If you're going to rely on amateurs, make sure you have a lot of cameras
available and good lighting. And have at least one good camera there, in the
hands of someone you can direct to "get shots of this, or that".
For $1000, I'd buy a really, really nice digital camera...lol.
Jen
"Sandy" <muscu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a58233df.02060...@posting.google.com...
Jenrose
doesn't focus, so to speak, primarily on weddings. What area of the country
are you in? I know a fair number photographers who are very artistic--if you
happen to be in their areas, I might be able to put you in touch. Most of
the photographers I'm thinking of *are* your kind of photographer, though
some are more or less nerdy in the darkroom. Most of my darkroom work is
done digitally anymore, so most of them prefer to send me stuff developed
"standard".
Perhaps what you really want is someone who will shoot the film and then let
you develop it yourself? It takes a gutsy photographer to let go of control
that way, and you have to be confident in your own darkroom skills. It's
frustrating when you know exactly what you want, but as the star of the
show, you can't do it yourself!
Jen
ww Bracken
">
> I'm a graphic designer,
Great good for you for being a graphic designer. It is really creative work
working for an in house trade rag.
>so I'm not worried about blowups and albums. If I
> want 'em, I'll scan 'em. If I want darkroom effects, that's what PhotoShop
> is for.
No wonder photog's with a Nikon D-1 plus lenses and a back up have to charge
so much up front.
Ericka Kammerer
> So now, rather late, I am looking for a photographer. The several
> places I've looked into charge about $1000 for two hours, not
> including prints. The rule of thumb that I see on photographers'
> websites is to spend 10% of the total spent on the wedding. I assume
> that this is kind of the high end, since it's the photographers who
> are saying this. 10% for me would be about $500. So you can see that
> spending a minimum of $1000 is way out of proportion to the amount we
> are spending on other things. It makes me nervous to spend that much
> money!
It's often surprising to people how much decent photography
costs, but if you start thinking about the business costs, by the
time you've added them all up you see that this is not out of line.
It's incredibly easy to spend a lot more than $1k on wedding
photography without even getting to really high end photographers.
That doesn't help much when your budget is tight, I know. At least
you've got enough of a background that you should be able to
evaluate your photographers better than the average person with
little knowledge about photographic technique.
> I studied photography in high school and appreciate good journalism
> and art photography. I always assumed that I would have my wedding
> photographed. I've noticed that wedding photographers send the photos
> out for developing, which surprises me since the interesting part of
> it for me is the effects I could produce in the darkroom. I suppose
> that hiring a professional is not the same as hiring an artist.
Absolutely. Well, actually, doing a good job of basic
wedding photography *is* an art. But you are correct that if
you want a darkroom wizard, you're going to have to hire
a certain kind of photographer. They exist, but they tend to
be significantly more expensive.
> Perhaps photography should go in the same "too expensive" category as
> other things that I like, but can't have, such as a couture dress,
> custom designed rings to fit oddly sized stones, and artistic floral
> displays? Maybe it's silly to spend a lot of money on a photographer
> whose main virtue is that s/he is technically competent? I kind of
> feel like if I don't have someone I really like, maybe I should just
> bag the whole professional thing...rather than feel bad about the
> expense for something I don't like much.
Only you can tell what's important to you and what isn't.
Some people feel that it's important to spend money on the photography
because it's one of the few things that lasts beyond the day. On
the other hand, some people see it as a luxury that can be dispensed
with, as even without the photography you'll still be married at
the end of the day and your guest can still have had a wonderful
time.
> What have other people in similar situations done? Has anyone here
> just relied on reprints from relatives' snapshots? Is there some
> middle ground that would give me a few reliably technically good, but
> not artistic, photos but not cost so much?
First, start out by realizing that photography is not
just a black and white do it or don't do it decision. Think
about the different parts of the package and prioritize what's
important to you: a good wedding portrait of the two of you?
a good family portrait? a record of the day's events? a
record of all your guests? Obviously, all those things are
nice, but which are really important to you? If it's the
portrait, then maybe you just hire a portrait photographer
and do a sitting. If it's the event, then maybe you hire
a photography student or a less expensive photographer who
might shoot 35mm or digital and just give you the negatives
or digital copies and let you handle any printing when you're
up to it. If you want something artsy, maybe you take a risk
on a photo student. There is risk in all these options, but
less than relying on guest snapshots, particularly if you
want some kind of record of the day. Relying on guest
snapshots means that you're at the mercy of whatever people
want to take pictures of, which means you'll get spotty
coverage. On the other hand, if that's not a problem, then
maybe that's a possible solution for you. Whatever the case,
you just have to start by prioritizing your wants. Then,
start calling around to see who might be able to accommodate
your highest priorities.
Good luck,
Ericka
James Messick
his home. He has many packages, so I'm sure we'll be able to come up with
one that we can live with. Thanks for the advice.
James
"Maggie Lawrence" <mlaw...@acesag.auburn.edu> wrote in message
news:3CFE6E6E...@acesag.auburn.edu...
Joe Pucillo
> Perhaps what you really want is someone who will shoot the
> film and then let you develop it yourself? It takes a gutsy
> photographer to let go of control that way [...]
WRONG! If you're paying a photographer to produce images for you, make
sure that they produce images. If you take the film from the photog and
have it processed yourself, and those films are blank, you've opened a can
of worms which would, in most cases, release the photog from any liability,
since the photog could argue that YOU did something wrong.
Never, ever, enter into a situation like that.
Since the quality, effort, packages and prices of professional and semi-pro
photographers can differ to the extreme, your best bet would be to solicit
the recommendations of others in the area who have recently used
photographers' services. If you don't know anyone personally, you might
check the local "planning and etiquette" message boards on theknot.com. Or
check yahoo for local wedding planning mailing lists.
Even though the internet is the largest repository of false information
ever devised, it can be the best source of local information and
recommendations from others in your same situation.
Good luck!
--
Joe Pucillo
Baltimore, Maryland USA
To reply by email, please remove the .xx from the address.
Joe Pucillo
> I'm in the same boat. Having no experience with hiring a photographer
> I was thinking "$500 would be nice". It turns out that my wishful
> thinking was a little low. The cheapest photographer I've interviewed
Stay within your means. If $500 is what you have budgeted for photography,
there's no reason why you can't have good photography for that amount. It
just may require a little creativity.
For example, you can arrange a studio sitting with most of the best
photographers for $200 or thereabouts (depending on where you are.)
Instead of paying for a photographer to shoot your wedding on location, use
the studio to get some nice portraits. You might rather have one *great*
wall portrait for about $300 than a bulging proof book that you'd be
embarrassed to show your friends.
Use the money you save to get 'table' cameras for guests to play with.
Pepper your guest list with good amateur shooters, and provide them with
good portrait films (Fuji NPH or Kodak Portra) and use a
> That said, it is our wedding, and if we end up with bad pictures
> then I know we'll be regretting it for a long time.
Confucius says:
"Joy of low price have short life...Misery of poor work live forever"
JH
Sandy wrote:
> The rule of thumb that I see on photographers'
> websites is to spend 10% of the total spent on the wedding.
Just as fallacious as the dumb "Engagement ring should cost two months
salary".
> I assume
> that this is kind of the high end, since it's the photographers who
> are saying this.
It's marketing hype. It worked for DeBeers.
> 10% for me would be about $500. <snip>Perhaps photography should go in
> the same "too expensive" category as
> other things that I like, but can't have, such as a couture dress,
> custom designed rings to fit oddly sized stones, and artistic floral
> displays?
In your great-grandmother's day, wedding photos consisted of two, maybe
three posed formal shots, i.e. one of the bride, one of the wedding party,
and one of the couple, taken at the local photography studio in their
wedding day finery. In the 1950's , wedding photography was still limited
to the number of shots taken. My mother, for example, had an album of 10
or 12 8X10 B&W photos of various aspects from the day. Yet today, it is
expected that brides buying a wedding photography package will pay well
over a thousand dollars for hundreds of proofs which will be arranged in
an album holding dozens, if not hundreds, of photos.
There is nothing wrong with having 20th century tastes in the 21th
century. Scale back your expectations and go with fewer photos of higher
quality and a smaller album. One of the nicest wedding albums I've ever
seen recently consisted of 12 color B&W's of a candlelight wedding and
reception. It was much more dramatic than my own album of 120 4X7 photos
which I paid just under $400 16 years ago. People married, lived happily
together and had fond memories of their weddings for eons without
photography and I suspect you can probably marry, live happily and have
fond memories too with a few well chosen 8X10's that won't exceed your
budget.
James Messick
"JH" <bas...@thinds.com> wrote in message
news:3D00B26D...@thinds.com...
>
>
> Sandy wrote:
>
> > The rule of thumb that I see on photographers'
> > websites is to spend 10% of the total spent on the wedding.
>
> Just as fallacious as the dumb "Engagement ring should cost two months
> salary".
Not to mentione "the average wedding costs $30,000".
Glo
pictures of her grandson with the camera on her table at my son's
wedding.
My uncle took the bulk of the pictures for my son's wedding. I took
several rolls myself - including two rolls of black and white. The
favorite pictures were two I took - one of my daughter in law sitting
by herself on the steps to the alter (candid) and another of her and
my son (posed).
The pictures were great.
We made a list of what and who we wanted - and they were great.
They were on a very limited budget and this worked for them.
I also agree with the idea of a couple of portraits done at the studio
if you want to be guaranteed a couple of great photographs.
Glo
Rob
went to a wedding show in boston and picked up cards from several
photographers. there was one guy whos work my fiance absolutely loved but
we had a hard time understanding his english so procrastinated in calling
him. everyone else was ludicrously expensive, and as we have a pro
photographer in the wedding party, we just wanted the negatives and he was
going to take care of developing them all and doing the prints.
It seems most of the photographers we spoke with have some high and mighty
attitude of "this is MY work, these are MY negatives, and if you want any
copies, you will pay whatever I feel like charging you for MY art". BS.
It's our wedding, we are hiring someone to take the pictures, that's it. We
want someone skilled to show up, take pictures, hand over the negatives, if
they wants copies for a portfolio, they get them from us, we don't talk to
them again.
Well, we called the last guy and he had ZERO problem with this, his
portfolio and references are frankly unbelievable, and (let me pull up the
contract here) for $630 (including tax) he is giving us three hours, the
negatives, 40 4"x5" prints, two 8"x10", one 11"x14" and an 11"x11" album.
We didn't even ask for or WANT any development done. He also really wanted
us to come to his studio to view further work, and seemed disappointed when
we didn't take him up on it (he was located near the wedding locale but no
where near our residence). While obvously the wedding hasn't happened yet,
we feel very comfortable with this photographer and are floored by his
pricing and generosity compared to everyone else in his business. I was
going to say email me if you were in MA and wanted his info, but for sake of
future deja.com newsgroup searchers (and to avoid posting my email address
where a spambot will pick it up), his website is
http://www.herrerastudios.com/ There is no content there now but there's
enough information to contact him.
"Sandy" <muscu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a58233df.02060...@posting.google.com...
Melissa
more than a few wedding photos. They are family heirlooms.
I wouldn't want to go broke over the pictures. But I say spend what
you can afford and hire the best photogrpaher you can that matches
your style, taste and budget.
This was the one item we splurged on. We are getting alot of pictures.
We had our photographer for the full day and he snapped pictures as
things unfolded. I suspect we'll get over 300 proofs. We pick them up
on Monday!!!!
I think *hope* it will be money well spent. I really have no doubts
that we will be happy with them.
If at all possible, I would avoid hiring a student photographer,
friend, friends uncle who *likes* to take pictures as a hobby etc. I
am not saying these people can't provide you with nice pictures. But
there is no guarantee and it's a risk. If you are ok with the
possibilty of being dissappointed with them - then go ahead. But, you
need to be prepared. I have seen disappointment in friends and family
when they didn't hire a professional or didn't put alot of time into
finding a photographer that suited their needs. Good luck and all the
best with your plans.
aMAZon
Melissa wrote:
And then there's the professional hired at a wedding for the friend
of the family. I don't know what happened, but it seemed his
equipment failed. He had NO pictures from the day.
My husband, then just a young kid, was doing black and white
photography as a hobby. He had the *only* pictures the Happy
Couple had of their day.
There are no *guarantees* of anything in life.
--
aMAZon
zesz...@worldnet.att.net
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
RICK5347
of the family. I don't know what happened, but it seemed his
equipment failed. He had NO pictures from the day. >>
aMAZon,
That is very unfortunate and lucky that your husband (as a young kid) was there
to provide some photos. Any true professional wedding photographer knows that
carrying backup equipment is VERY important. Sadly though, anyone can buy a
camera and declare themselves a wedding photographer and this is why couples
should ask for references and interview the photographer as to his experience
and backup equipment.
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
Mel C
However, I do believe there is more of a risk in NOT hiring a professional.
"aMAZon" <zesz...@NOSPAMworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D01F2C...@NOSPAMworldnet.att.net...
bill
Just remember the golden rull YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR pay cheap you will
always get cheap. thats the bottom line
In article <a58233df.02060...@posting.google.com>,
muscu...@yahoo.com (Sandy) wrote:
>Apologies in advance for this poorly focused (!) message, I hope that
>the background doesn't totally obscure the question.
>
>A professional photographer friend from college had planned to
>photograph our wedding this summer in exchange for travel and lodging.
> Unfortunately, something has come up and he can't do it.
>
>So now, rather late, I am looking for a photographer. The several
>places I've looked into charge about $1000 for two hours, not
>including prints. The rule of thumb that I see on photographers'
>websites is to spend 10% of the total spent on the wedding. I assume
>that this is kind of the high end, since it's the photographers who
>are saying this. 10% for me would be about $500. So you can see that
>spending a minimum of $1000 is way out of proportion to the amount we
>are spending on other things. It makes me nervous to spend that much
>money!
>
>I studied photography in high school and appreciate good journalism
>and art photography. I always assumed that I would have my wedding
>photographed. I've noticed that wedding photographers send the photos
>out for developing, which surprises me since the interesting part of
>it for me is the effects I could produce in the darkroom. I suppose
>that hiring a professional is not the same as hiring an artist.
>
>Perhaps photography should go in the same "too expensive" category as
>other things that I like, but can't have, such as a couture dress,
>custom designed rings to fit oddly sized stones, and artistic floral
>displays? Maybe it's silly to spend a lot of money on a photographer
>whose main virtue is that s/he is technically competent? I kind of
>feel like if I don't have someone I really like, maybe I should just
>bag the whole professional thing...rather than feel bad about the
>expense for something I don't like much.
>
>What have other people in similar situations done? Has anyone here
>just relied on reprints from relatives' snapshots? Is there some
>middle ground that would give me a few reliably technically good, but
>not artistic, photos but not cost so much?
>
bill
get a photographer to leave his office for less than 1800.00 and thats using
just a 35mm camera. average price here is about 2500.00. most of the
photographers I work with average about 3500.00 per wedding count your
blessings cuz I getting 2000. just for video
00...@ne.com
remember the golden rule YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR 500 to 1000 you
people must be from hooterville. In ny ,nj
you cant even get a photographer to get in his car for less than
1800.00 . the average price here is 2500.00 most of the
photographers i work with get around 3500.00 for a wedding. I do
video and i am charging 2000.00 and i about 500 lower than most.
Count your blessings cuz.
ww Bracken
"aMAZon" <zesz...@NOSPAMworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D01F2C...@NOSPAMworldnet.att.net...
>
>
You could also walk out the front door and get struck by lighting
>
JH
00...@ne.com wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2002 10:32:10 -0700, muscu...@yahoo.com (Sandy) wrote:
>
> remember the golden rule YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR 500 to 1000 you
> people must be from hooterville. In ny ,nj
> you cant even get a photographer to get in his car for less than
> 1800.00 . the average price here is 2500.00 most of the
> photographers i work with get around 3500.00 for a wedding. I do
> video and i am charging 2000.00 and i about 500 lower than most.
> Count your blessings cuz.
With pricegouging like that, a destination wedding begins to sound far more
practical and economical.
Cathy Kearns
Interesting you bring that up. In Hawaii, where most weddings are
destination
weddings, the photography is much less expensive. I think it has something
to do with supply and demand, as many wedding photographers seem
to retire over there, so there is alot of competition. Also, since the
wedding
couple doesn't live nearby, it is standard to include in the package prints
of all pictures, and the negatives, so the happy couple can get reprints
however they want.
Cathy
RICK5347
more
> practical and economical.
Interesting you bring that up. In Hawaii, where most weddings are
destination
weddings, the photography is much less expensive. >>
Wedding photography for destination weddings is much different and more limited
than standardized wedding photography. So trying to compare the two by using
the example of destination wedding photography to imply that other wedding
photographers are "pricegouging" is extremely unfair, agendized and misleading.
With a destination wedding the couple rarely meets the photographer until
shortly before the wedding ceremony and the limited amount of photography is
part of the wedding package provided by the resort hotel. Since the couple are
not locals the photographer does not provide any post production service like
albums in his limited package. The photographer shows up, stays for an hour or
so, shoots a limited number of posed photos at the various scenic photo spots
at the resort and then leaves. A day or so later he delivers the proof prints
(and occasionaly the negatives) in a proof book with a reprint order form for
later use. These photographers often have multiple weddings on that day,
often at the same resort. I have professional photography friends in Hawaii
who do photography for destination wedding couples and I have also been hired
to cover a Hawaiian wedding when my couple wanted a more extensive photography
coverage and albums. Comparing destination wedding phtoography to more
conventional full service wedding phtoography is like comparing apples to
oranges and complaining that the apples are more expensive.
Sandy
>
> remember the golden rule YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR 500 to 1000 you
> people must be from hooterville. In ny ,nj
> you cant even get a photographer to get in his car for less than
> 1800.00 . the average price here is 2500.00 most of the
> photographers i work with get around 3500.00 for a wedding. I do
> video and i am charging 2000.00 and i about 500 lower than most.
> Count your blessings cuz.
Not from Hooterville (that's near Podunk, isn't it?), but I am An
Impoverished Graduate Student (TM), which may be similar. I've found
ways to live within my means for everyday stuff, but wedding stuff is
outside of my normal experience, which is why I asked for advice here.
Thanks to all of you who have responded!
FH is leaning towards buying film for about 3 people who will already
be there who enjoy photography and just seeing what happens. I have
thought about the issue that several people have mentioned, of how I
would feel in the future if I skimp on photography now. I think that
it's more likely that I would regret having spent the money when hard
times come, than I would regret having bad photos.
Sandy
Rob
locale with more reasonable prices and STILL save money. there's no WAY i'd
ever
pay a photographer that kind of money, thats just obscene. maybe national
enquirer would consider it if they got topless photos of anna kournikova,
but the average person should be outraged with quotes like that. the rule
is SHOP around, and use the net. thanks to the internet, everything is more
competitive these days.
"JH" <bas...@thinds.com> wrote in message
news:3D03503B...@thinds.com...
>
>
Ericka Kammerer
> hell with pricegouging like that, i'd fly someone in first class from a
> locale with more reasonable prices and STILL save money. there's no WAY i'd
> ever
> pay a photographer that kind of money, thats just obscene. maybe national
> enquirer would consider it if they got topless photos of anna kournikova,
> but the average person should be outraged with quotes like that. the rule
> is SHOP around, and use the net. thanks to the internet, everything is more
> competitive these days.
Oh, puhleeze. If you shop around, you will find that some
photographers are overpriced relative to their skill and the products
and services they offer. On the other hand, you will also find that
certain skills, services, and products simply aren't to be had on
the cheap. That doesn't mean that everyone *needs* those skills,
products, or services, but if you want them, you're going to pay
for them--even to the tune of several thousand dollars. Why would
photographers be any different from any other vendor? You can have
a less expensive caterer/menu or a more expensive caterer/menu, but
unless you're a poor shopper, you're going to get more from the
expensive one. It just boils down to what you want, what you're
willing to spend for it, and what the market is like in your area.
Take care,
Ericka
James Messick
"Ericka Kammerer" <e...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3D04B79D...@comcast.net...
Maybe, but it always pays to shop around. The caterer we went with was only
$6.50/person including the cake and 3 extra food items. This will be a late
afternoon wedding with heavy h'or deuves, not a sit down dinner. This also
includes the plates and cups (nice, disposable ones). The other caterer we
considered started at about $14/person with the same food that our caterer
would provide for $5/head. We'll also get more personalized service from the
very-experienced caterer we went with. She has 20 years experience but works
out of her home and doesn't spend money on advertising like the 'name'
caterer. The only other charge for her will be $200 for four servers. I
think our caterer is one of the best deals we've found.
The photographer we selected won't be cheap, I'm guesstimating it will be
about $1600. He was one of the cheaper ones, but I selected him because his
photos looked the best.
Tom
> Rob wrote:
>
> > hell with pricegouging like that, i'd fly someone in first class from a
> > locale with more reasonable prices and STILL save money. there's no WAY
i'd
> > ever
> > pay a photographer that kind of money, thats just obscene. maybe
national
> > enquirer would consider it if they got topless photos of anna
kournikova,
> > but the average person should be outraged with quotes like that. the
rule
> > is SHOP around, and use the net. thanks to the internet, everything is
more
> > competitive these days.
As to the moronic 'hootervill' (sic) posting from NJ, that speaks for
itself, however...
I have some late breaking news for you Rob, perhaps YOU would not be able to
afford talent at that price level, but *plenty* of people can.
The above post is like having a tantrum because you can only afford a Yugo
and anyone could buy a dozen Yugos for the price of a Mercedes Benz. If
Yugos are what you want, go for it. If you can not only appreciate, but
also afford, the quality of a Mercedes, then a Mercedes it will be.
Generally, what is out of our reach financially (no matter the base level we
are starting from) is always considered 'obscene' and 'pricegouging' (sic).
:)
Then there is just luck. My son's best friend is getting married in July.
I have been retired for a while now, but will shoot that wedding as my gift
to the couple. I have known the groom since he was 6 years old.
They do not know it (and could not POSSIBLY afford it), but they will have a
$3500.00 wedding shoot. I hope years from now, they will appreciate having
the albums we are going to provide them. I say "years from now" because the
REAL appreciation of good wedding photography does not take place
immediately. Reminiscing is something we do later in life, not when we are
just starting out. Generally, at a wedding shoot the subjects are too young
to know what is really important in life anyway. :)
Tom
in...@internet-real-estate.com
<R...@nospam.com> wrote:
> .......... there's no WAY i'd
> ever pay a photographer that kind of money, thats just obscene.....
>
Why is it .... the only time we ever see pricing discussions like this is
for photos?
These same people do not think twice about spending hundreds (or more) on
a few bucks worth of flour and sugar (cake). ("...obscene")
Hundreds if not thousands, for a few bucks worth of material (dress).
("...obscene")
Hundreds (or more) for some guy to stand around slapping CDs in a player
(disc jockey). ("...obscene")
Usually thousands for food, that most guest will complain behind your back
about the rubber chicken and how the fruit wasn't fresh enough.
("...obscene")
The cake is a good example. You are paying for the baker's "technical"
expertise to bake layers that are perfectly proportioned and taste great.
.... and for the baker's "artistic talent" in making it a beautiful cake.
Otherwise you would just grab a sheet cake from the local grocery that
morning. That same technical and artistic talent is what you are paying
for in a photographer.
Bottom line in my view ..... if you're budget concious enough to be buying
your cake from Wal Mart, and your dress from a thrift store .... then by
all means do the same with your photos/video. But if you're quality
conscious enough to be blowing thousands on a cake (that will last 30
minutes) .... it seems you would want that kind of quality across the
board with all your vendors? Especially the vendor who will make a
creative visual record of that dress before it's locked up forever in a
box .... or of the cake/food .... that will never be seen again.
Etc., etc. .......
Just my humble opinions that probably reflect no one else's views around
here. I just find it so strange that I never see anyone rant on and on
about other pricing. Bakers keep raisng their rates and everyone
blissfully writes out a check without a second thought. No consistency
here. :)
Edward
Joe Pucillo
> Just remember the golden rull YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR
> pay cheap you will always get cheap. thats the bottom line
So, in other words, your parents thought they were getting a 'deal'
on your education, 'eh?
Ericka Kammerer
> Maybe, but it always pays to shop around.
Absolutely. I'm not suggesting that one shouldn't. It
is absolutely imperative to shop around. I am just saying that
even if one is paying $1000 or $2000 or even $5000+ for photography,
it does *not* necessarily constitute price gouging. There are some
things you can't get for less. If those things are important to
you, you will either pay a lot for them, or you will do without.
If you want to serve lobster and caviar at your wedding reception,
you will either pay more money than average or you will have
really bad lobster and caviar. In addition, if you live somewhere
that rents are high and supplies are harder to come by, you will
also pay more than someone who lives where costs are lower. If
you want a photographer who has a lot of experience and skill and
reliability, you'll pay more than for someone who is less
experienced, skilled, or reliable. Sure, as a consumer you need
to know the market and check out each potential service provider
carefully. But this notion that you should be able to get
fabulous photography on the cheap is ludicrous. Sometimes you'll
get lucky, either getting a great photographer before his or
her reputation is made or living somewhere that costs and prices
are lower, or maybe you can trim the package down to something
less expensive. But if you sat down and figured out the photographer's
costs for shooting a wedding, including the equipment, rent, time,
assistant, film, processing, prints, albums, transportation, other
overhead costs, etc. etc. etc., $1k doesn't go all that far. And
it's not just wedding photography. Have you seen what commercial
photographers charge?
I understand that the costs are *surprising*. Most
people haven't dealt with photography beyond having the occasional
portrait done--and even then, a lot of people are used to
getting photos done at Sears or some similar outfit. But they
expect a lot more from their wedding photographer, and that
comes at a price.
Best wishes,
Ericka
aMAZon
Tom wrote:
> Then there is just luck. My son's best friend is getting married in July.
> I have been retired for a while now, but will shoot that wedding as my gift
> to the couple. I have known the groom since he was 6 years old.
>
> They do not know it (and could not POSSIBLY afford it), but they will have a
> $3500.00 wedding shoot. I hope years from now, they will appreciate having
> the albums we are going to provide them. I say "years from now" because the
> REAL appreciation of good wedding photography does not take place
> immediately. Reminiscing is something we do later in life, not when we are
> just starting out. Generally, at a wedding shoot the subjects are too young
> to know what is really important in life anyway. :)
Snort!
We have discussed this under the question of "who really ever watches
their wedding videos, anyway?"
My husband and I will be watching ours again, on our anniversary.
We also will have dinner with the family, and re-light our unity
candle. Our daughter thinks you have to have a candle to blow
out for a celebration, so that's what we do. And then we watch
the video, repeating our vows to each other, incorporating the
word "still". As in "I take you as my husband, still. I will
love you and honor you all the days of my life."
Tom
> We have discussed this under the question of "who really ever watches
> their wedding videos, anyway?"
>
> My husband and I will be watching ours again, on our anniversary.
> We also will have dinner with the family, and re-light our unity
> candle. Our daughter thinks you have to have a candle to blow
> out for a celebration, so that's what we do. And then we watch
> the video, repeating our vows to each other, incorporating the
> word "still". As in "I take you as my husband, still. I will
> love you and honor you all the days of my life."
>
> --
> aMAZon
> zesz...@worldnet.att.net
> "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
>
If your video is, indeed, on 'video tape', I MOST STRONGLY recommend you
take it to a conversion service and have it burned to DVD-CD.
People do not realize just how short-lived magnetic media actually is.
I hope you have, and enjoy, your video recording for years to come and that
your daughter will enjoy it after you are gone. Video tape, however, won't
last that long.
Tom
Joe Pucillo
> FH is leaning towards buying film for about 3 people who will already
> be there who enjoy photography and just seeing what happens. I have
> thought about the issue that several people have mentioned, of how I
> would feel in the future if I skimp on photography now. I think that
> it's more likely that I would regret having spent the money when hard
> times come, than I would regret having bad photos.
And there's a very good chance that they'll be everything you want!
There's also a chance that they'll suck, but them's the breaks. :-)
The only suggestion that I would have, if this even applies to you,
is assign -one- person to photograph your 'formals', i.e., the shots
of you and your family after the ceremony.
If you wish to have these shots taken, they'll turn out much better
if everyone in the photo is looking at the same camera. :-)
Good luck!
RICK5347
Thank you for your voice of reason (below) in his thread. Very well said and
very true.
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Cathy Kearns
their associated costs, to those of traditional weddings.
I must admit, I had a destination wedding to try and
cut down on the rigamarole that weddings have turned
into. Here we take a ceremony to join two people
in matrimony, and turn it into a combined photo shoot,
video shoot, and super upscale party fancier than any
we would have in normal life. Many folks are not up
for that, and a destination wedding is one way to scale
back. I'm sorry if that means your services are not
needed in that case, but really, where did I say you
were "pricegouging." Your services revolve around
couples that want tons of art worthy pictures, I'm sure
you can find plenty of clientele without insisting that
this type of service is the norm.
Cathy
"RICK5347" <rick...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020609133853...@mb-fc.aol.com...
RICK5347
their associated costs, to those of traditional weddings.
I must admit, I had a destination wedding to try and
cut down on the rigamarole that weddings have turned
into. >>
That, of course, is an option for anyone. I would probably do the same myself.
<<Here we take a ceremony to join two people
in matrimony, and turn it into a combined photo shoot,
video shoot, and super upscale party fancier than any
we would have in normal life. Many folks are not up
for that, and a destination wedding is one way to scale
back.>>
But of course a destination wedding has it's own set of high costs for travel
and lodging for example. I am not condoning nor am I criticizing the decisions
anyone makes about their wedding plans. A wedding should be a very special
event in one's life and different people define "special" in different ways.
<<I'm sorry if that means your services are not
needed in that case, but really, where did I say you
were "pricegouging." Your services revolve around
couples that want tons of art worthy pictures, I'm sure
you can find plenty of clientele without insisting that
this type of service is the norm.>>
Cathy,
Your comments were not what I was responding to. It was the other person who
used the term "pricegouging" not you. I took no offense to anything you said
and I apologize if you took offense to my response. Also thank you for your
kind words on my work.
The rest of my response was only to try and explain the difference in these
distinct types of wedding photography so other readers would not be confused
when planning their own weddings.
ww Bracken
"Joe Pucillo" <ne...@joephoto.8m.com.xx> wrote in message
news:MPG.176edec7a...@news.earthlink.net...
And Joey are you not the photographer that has nothing better to do then to
respond to usenet post? IMHO your frequency of opinions and the amount of
time you have to devote to them makes me wonder about any opinion you'd
have.
tom
of tv shows shot in the 60, & 70 can still be found running on TV.
And theise shows were using old tape tehnolige compaired to todays tape.
laugh in
Bewitched
Munsters
Beverely hillbilleys
American band stand
Green achers
Batman
Lawrence welk
How many more can you think of ? All of the shows wers shot on video tape
In article <qy7N8.55928$2m.17...@typhoon1.se.ipsvc.net>, "Tom"
Tom
"tom" <0...@me.net> wrote in message
news:NgmN8.9565$Ku3.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Why do people think that video tape wont last ???????/ Think about it
videos
> of tv shows shot in the 60, & 70 can still be found running on TV.
> And theise shows were using old tape tehnolige compaired to todays tape.
> laugh in
> Bewitched
> Munsters
> Beverely hillbilleys
> American band stand
> Green achers
> Batman
> Lawrence welk
> How many more can you think of ? All of the shows wers shot on video tape
This is one of the problems with USENET, and I would offer the following
paraphrase (I cannot remember the verbatim quote) from one of the founders
of the 'net:
"The internet is a great place. You can garner information on a tremendous
variety of subjects. You can converse with a master diesel mechanic and
find out how to repair truck engines or with a neurosurgeon on the repair of
human brains. However, one of the biggest drawbacks of the internet is that
you are MUCH more likely to hear a truck mechanic giving advice on brain
surgery and a doctor spouting off about truck engines."
Video tape did not come into widespread use until the mid-60s. It was
discovered almost immediately just how fragile this media actually was. ALL
professionals re-master valuable video recordings every 5 years. There is a
loss of quality each time as the original masters fail, but most data loss
is overcome by advances in mastering computer technology that will mask most
data loss.
Unless you have at your disposal a fully equipped professional video
mastering setup I will tell you one more time. Video Tape has a LIMITED
lifespan. Typically 10 to 15 years, at most, unless stored under archival
conditions.
Just in case you STILL want to believe the idiotic "Beverly Hillbillies"
post above, here is a quote from an industry paper on the subject:
"Many of us have been concerned...(re:) the relatively short life span of
videotape. Some optimistic estimates say 20 to 25 years. More conservative
estimates say 15 years under ideal conditions -- maybe as little as 7 to 10
years for normal everyday use and storage.
The controversy began several years ago when the Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers (IEEE) participated in a study cited in The Sciences
magazine. The report was picked up by the nation's wire services and soon
became a popular item of interest in many local and national publications.
Despite its recent popularity, it is an old story to video professionals and
tape and camcorder manufacturers. Many video professionals routinely make
copies of valuable masters every five years or so, and tape manufacturers
have privately conceded that videotape is a temporary, perishable medium.
Tape fragility has been the subject of several reports and manuals published
by the American Society of Cinematographers.
Many experts feel the real culprit is the binder, or glue, that holds the
millions of metal oxide particles to the tape base (usually made of
polyester).
Humidity is a natural enemy. It attacks the binder, causing the oxide bits
to flake off. The result is video dropouts which manifest themselves in many
ways, including "specks", "spots", "trash", "snow", and "video noise". The
situation never gets any better -- it always gets worse.
What most people don't realize is that this is a problem for all magnetic
media -- audio tapes, cassettes, floppy disks, even for computer digital
information stored on magnetic media."
Well, there are always people that will not believe ANYTHING they are told
and there are people that will believe EVERYTHING they are told. Both types
are stupid.
Do the intelligent thing... Research carefully and make your choice wisely
before committing to a video-only record of your wedding. For those of you
that have only video, I will repeat... if that material is important to you,
HAVE IT BURNED TO DVD-CD.
It is then immune from further *data* degeneration, although the DVD's
themselves have a finite life (MUCH longer than tape). The good news,
however, is that all further *copies* of the DVD will retain the original
quality, copy after copy after copy. Burn a couple of spares for the safe
deposit box and the parents and you will not have to worry about
catastrophic (house burns down) loss either.
Please educate yourself on the processes available to retain the memories
you are paying so much to capture.
Tom
ww Bracken
different
"tom" <0...@me.net> wrote in message
news:NgmN8.9565$Ku3.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
JH
in...@internet-real-estate.com wrote:
> In article <hAVM8.67667$KD3.2...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>, "Rob"
> <R...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > .......... there's no WAY i'd
> > ever pay a photographer that kind of money, thats just obscene.....
> >
>
> Why is it .... the only time we ever see pricing discussions like this is
> for photos?
>
You haven't been paying attention?
> (cake). ("...obscene")
>
> (dress).
> ("...obscene")
>
> (disc jockey). ("...obscene")
>
> Usually thousands for food,
> ("...obscene")
Google.com archives has hundreds of posts by me on saving money on all of the
above mentioned items , not to mention my web pages on DIY catering, cake
cutting, etc that have been online for six+ years and visited by hundreds
daily.
> Bottom line in my view ..... if you're budget concious enough to be buying
> your cake from Wal Mart, and your dress from a thrift store .... then by
> all means do the same with your photos/video. But if you're quality
> conscious enough to be blowing thousands on a cake (that will last 30
> minutes) .... it seems you would want that kind of quality across the
> board with all your vendors?
No. People have different priorities for what they believe is important.
Culturally and from an etiquette standpoint, it is still considered bad form
to spend an extraordinary amount of money on selfish things (like dozens of
photos of you in a wedding dress) and be cheap with your guests.
> Especially the vendor who will make a
> creative visual record of that dress before it's locked up forever in a
> box .... or of the cake/food .... that will never be seen again.
>
People have been marrying for thousands of years , entertaining their guests
with feasts and enjoying many years of wedded contentment, yet somehow doing
it all without the benefit of lasting visual records.
> I just find it so strange that I never see anyone rant on and on
> about other pricing. Bakers keep raisng their rates and everyone
> blissfully writes out a check without a second thought. No consistency
> here. :)
It's undoubtably because there are no caterers, bakers, or seamtresses posting
to this newsgroup the marketing hype that if someone doesn't pay mega bucks
for the very best, their wedding is screwed and their memories in danger.
Further, I have never seen the few cake bakers we have had on this newsgroup
EVER refer to someone in the pejorative for choosing to DIY or finding more
inexpensive alternatives. In fact, remember Priscilla? She always helped
people with recipes, ways to buy a cake to get the biggest bang for the buck
and tips for DIYers.
JH
Tom wrote:
>
> I have some late breaking news for you Rob, perhaps YOU would not be able to
> afford talent at that price level, but *plenty* of people can.
I have some late breaking news for you, Tom. Plenty of people cannot afford
weddings "at that price level" so they do it on consumer debt. US labor
statistics puts the bridal business at 32 BILLION dollars a year in the US alone
while consumer indebtedness is at an all time high of 1.58 trillion dollars.
What percentage of your clients pay by credit card and how many pay by cash?
>
>
> The above post is like having a tantrum because you can only afford a Yugo
> and anyone could buy a dozen Yugos for the price of a Mercedes Benz. If
> Yugos are what you want, go for it. If you can not only appreciate, but
> also afford, the quality of a Mercedes, then a Mercedes it will be.
I prefered to spend my money in a "Mercedes" of a house and in the longevity of
my marriage. I think I got the better investment considering that my real
estate investments appreciate in value while my wedding photos simply sit in an
album in the cabinet. From a free market/economic perspective, wedding photos
are a serious depreciating expenditure the minute you "drive them off the lot"
after picking them up from the studio since it would be impossible to find a
willing buyer for what you just paid thousands for.
>
>
> Generally, what is out of our reach financially (no matter the base level we
> are starting from) is always considered 'obscene' and 'pricegouging' (sic).
> :)
>
Fortunately, bridal consumers are getting more savvy and are not willing to be
guilt manipulated into buying higher priced wedding services. :-)
> I say "years from now" because the
> REAL appreciation of good wedding photography does not take place
> immediately. Reminiscing is something we do later in life, not when we are
> just starting out.
Funny you should say that because DH and I were reminiscing about our wedding
and honeymoon last night all without the benefit of any wedding photos. We've
been married over 16 years so I think I do qualify as being somewhat farther
along in life. People have been fondly reminiscing about their wedding days for
hundreds, no thousands, of years all without the benefit of any appreciation of
wedding photography. And I prefer to appreciate my marriage and DH than sit
"appreciating" wedding photography decades later.
RICK5347
before committing to a video-only record of your wedding. For those of you
that have only video, I will repeat... if that material is important to you,
HAVE IT BURNED TO DVD-CD. >>
On a side note I have always felt that a video of a wedding would benefit if
one could selectively view specific scenes. To do this now with a tape
requires that you fast forward/rewind until you locate that scene. This adds
further deterioration to your video. I would add that many videographers now
offer the option of a DVD-CD with scenes indexed just like a commercial movie
on DVD. If I was purchasing a video of my wedding I would certainly want the
benefits of a DVD presentation.
RICK5347
> <R...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > .......... there's no WAY i'd
> > ever pay a photographer that kind of money, thats just obscene.....
> >
>
> Why is it .... the only time we ever see pricing discussions like this is
> for photos?
>
You haven't been paying attention?
> (cake). ("...obscene")
>
> (dress).
> ("...obscene")
>
> (disc jockey). ("...obscene")
>
> Usually thousands for food,
> ("...obscene")
Google.com archives has hundreds of posts by me on saving money on all of the
above mentioned items , not to mention my web pages on DIY catering, cake
cutting, etc that have been online for six+ years and visited by hundreds
daily.
>>
Google.com archives also has many hundreds of posts by you critical of
professional wedding photography. Your attacks aimed at wedding photographers
and wedding photography in general are, IMO, legendary on alt.wedding.
Therefore, IMO, any comments you would make on wedding photography should be
placed in that agendized context and valued accordingly.
RICK5347
> REAL appreciation of good wedding photography does not take place
> immediately. Reminiscing is something we do later in life, not when we are
> just starting out.
Funny you should say that because DH and I were reminiscing about our wedding
and honeymoon last night all without the benefit of any wedding photos. We've
been married over 16 years so I think I do qualify as being somewhat farther
along in life. People have been fondly reminiscing about their wedding days
for
hundreds, no thousands, of years all without the benefit of any appreciation of
wedding photography. And I prefer to appreciate my marriage and DH than sit
"appreciating" wedding photography decades later. >>
Jeanne,
You have posted here many times about YOUR wedding photography and now you seem
to imply that you have no wedding photos? If I may ask, which is it?
aMAZon
RICK5347 wrote:
Could it be that they have the photos, but were just
reminiscing about that day without looking at them?
We do that on occasion, the same way we recount to
our beloved offspring the day of her birth.
Tom
>
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> >
> > I have some late breaking news for you Rob, perhaps YOU would not be
able to
> > afford talent at that price level, but *plenty* of people can.
>
> I have some late breaking news for you, Tom. Plenty of people cannot
afford
> weddings "at that price level" so they do it on consumer debt. US labor
> statistics puts the bridal business at 32 BILLION dollars a year in the US
alone
> while consumer indebtedness is at an all time high of 1.58 trillion
dollars.
> What percentage of your clients pay by credit card and how many pay by
cash?
Ah, I see... now we are discussing your political adgenda instead of wedding
photography.
I wondered what sort of axe you had to grind here.
Anyway, to specifically answer your question, almost ALL my clients from
years past paid by check. 90% of recent clients paid by check. About 3%
paid by a payment plan we had established to allow the cost to be spread
over a period of time (usually some months) before the wedding. The rest
paid by credit card. Surprised?
> > The above post is like having a tantrum because you can only afford a
Yugo
> > and anyone could buy a dozen Yugos for the price of a Mercedes Benz. If
> > Yugos are what you want, go for it. If you can not only appreciate, but
> > also afford, the quality of a Mercedes, then a Mercedes it will be.
>
> I prefered to spend my money in a "Mercedes" of a house and in the
longevity of
> my marriage.
You spent MONEY to guarantee the "longevity" of your marrige? Wow! How
much did you pay your significant other? What is the going rate for paying
a spouse in your area? You just sit in a house and look around and say
"well, we're here." This contributes to the longevity of your marrige?
>From a free market/economic perspective, wedding photos
> are a serious depreciating expenditure the minute you "drive them off the
lot"
> after picking them up from the studio since it would be impossible to find
a
> willing buyer for what you just paid thousands for.
Wrong again. I know PLENTY of people that would happily pay to have their
wedding photographs replaced if destroyed. As a matter of fact, I have,
over the years, done many reprints of albums or individual photographs whose
originals were destroyed by unfortunate accidents.
And this value increases with each generation. You may be sitting around in
your "Mercedes" house paying your spouse whatever it takes to keep them
around, but some day your kids might have liked looking at your wedding
album after you and whoever you hired as a spouse pass away.
We reconstructed, digitized and restored damaged photographs as part of our
business. I still do that. I cannot tell you how often we were presented
with photographs of grandparents, great aunts/uncles, parents, etc. that had
been damaged over the years and they were valued enough for the owners to
pay the recovery fees necessary to bring those photos back from the 'dead'.
When hurricane Andrew visited Florida, many albums were a total loss,
including those of one of my clients. At that time, I was retaining the
negatives of wedding shoots. I had the album reprinted for the couple that
lost theirs. They were "willing buyers", although the cost was modest (just
the lab prices of the reprints, no more) they would have paid much more. As
a matter of fact, they would have been perfectly happy to pay a very great
deal of money to replace those photographs, so the "market value" to them
was high. They were, indeed, "willing buyers". Also, please note that
every "willing buyer" is not taken advantage of by every seller. Seems to
be another concept you have problems with.
> > Generally, what is out of our reach financially (no matter the base
level we
> > are starting from) is always considered 'obscene' and 'pricegouging'
(sic).
> > :)
> >
>
> Fortunately, bridal consumers are getting more savvy and are not willing
to be
> guilt manipulated into buying higher priced wedding services. :-)
Fortunately, most brides are savvy enough to know good wedding photography
is something they will enjoy for years to come. Fortunately, there are
photographers available with a wide range of packages to suit different
budgets... but I forgot... we are now back to the national debt or whatever
your political adgenda was...
> People have been fondly reminiscing about their wedding days for
> hundreds, no thousands, of years all without the benefit of any
appreciation of
> wedding photography.
Yeah, right. People have also been doing without competent medical care
"for hundreds, no thousands, of years without the benefit of any
appreciation of" knowledgeable doctors. How many do that today when other
alternatives are available?
Anyway, how do you know some of those cave paintings were not wedding shots?
If I remember correctly, Monte Zuker was probably around back then... :)
>And I prefer to appreciate my marriage and DH than sit
> "appreciating" wedding photography decades later.
How noble. It will come as a shock to you I am sure, but LOTS of couples
manage both things just fine.
Tom
JH
Tom wrote:
> "JH" <bas...@thinds.com> wrote in message
> news:3D06171B...@thinds.com...
> >
> >
> > Tom wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I have some late breaking news for you Rob, perhaps YOU would not be
> able to
> > > afford talent at that price level, but *plenty* of people can.
> >
> > I have some late breaking news for you, Tom. Plenty of people cannot
> afford
> > weddings "at that price level" so they do it on consumer debt. US labor
> > statistics puts the bridal business at 32 BILLION dollars a year in the US
> alone
> > while consumer indebtedness is at an all time high of 1.58 trillion
> dollars.
> > What percentage of your clients pay by credit card and how many pay by
> cash?
>
> Ah, I see... now we are discussing your political adgenda instead of wedding
> photography.
>
Oh, I hadn't thought this was a discussion divided along political lines. Am I
the fiscal conservative and you the bleeding heart "throw money at it" liberal?
> > > The above post is like having a tantrum because you can only afford a
> Yugo
> > > and anyone could buy a dozen Yugos for the price of a Mercedes Benz. If
> > > Yugos are what you want, go for it. If you can not only appreciate, but
> > > also afford, the quality of a Mercedes, then a Mercedes it will be.
> >
> > I prefered to spend my money in a "Mercedes" of a house and in the
> longevity of
> > my marriage.
>
> You spent MONEY to guarantee the "longevity" of your marrige? Wow!
Sure! It's called "pre-marital counseling". My priority was on a successful
marriage, not a successful one day wedding event.
>
> >From a free market/economic perspective, wedding photos
> > are a serious depreciating expenditure the minute you "drive them off the
> lot"
> > after picking them up from the studio since it would be impossible to find
> a
> > willing buyer for what you just paid thousands for.
>
> Wrong again. I know PLENTY of people that would happily pay to have their
> wedding photographs replaced if destroyed. As a matter of fact, I have,
> over the years, done many reprints of albums or individual photographs whose
> originals were destroyed by unfortunate accidents.
A commodity is only worth what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller and it
can be certain that no one else will pay $3500 for another person's wedding
photos. So, in essence, the wedding consumer willingly pays a premium price for
something that is basically unsaleable and has no market value once in their
possession. Oh, it may have sentimental value to the purchaser but it does not
generate income, it does not appreciate in monetary value and has limited or no
resale value. People who prefer to divert their spending to less expensive
options are not residents of "Hooverville" nor should be denigrated as Yugo
driving skinflints by photographers intent on guilt manipulatiing even the small
fraction of the market who does not want their services a all.
>
>
> > People have been fondly reminiscing about their wedding days for
> > hundreds, no thousands, of years all without the benefit of any
> appreciation of
> > wedding photography.
>
> Yeah, right. People have also been doing without competent medical care
> "for hundreds, no thousands, of years without the benefit of any
> appreciation of" knowledgeable doctors. How many do that today when other
> alternatives are available?
>
It would be exceedingly silly to put wedding photography on par with healthcare
but you made the analogy, not me. Try as you might, you can't make wedding
photography into a vital necessity that will determine the success and longevity
of a marriage. Doing without it or scaling back to an album of a dozen 8X10's
will not kill anyone nor I suspect, cause permanent debilitating handicaps
despite the marketing hype by photographers that you *will* be beating your
breast in remorse years later and your children will hate your guts for
depriving them of wedding photos of their parents.
>
> Anyway, how do you know some of those cave paintings were not wedding shots?
LOL! If that were true, obviously feeding your guests lots of wildbeast was of
prime importance. And running around naked.
>
> If I remember correctly, Monte Zuker was probably around back then... :)
>
If he's the one who coordinated an all male education "retreat" for
photographers sans women, he IS a caveman.
JH
RICK5347 wrote:
> Google.com archives has hundreds of posts by me on saving money on all of the
> above mentioned items , not to mention my web pages on DIY catering, cake
> cutting, etc that have been online for six+ years and visited by hundreds
> daily.
> >>
>
> Google.com archives also has many hundreds of posts by you critical of
> professional wedding photography. Your attacks aimed at wedding photographers
> and wedding photography in general are, IMO, legendary on alt.wedding.
> Therefore, IMO, any comments you would make on wedding photography should be
> placed in that agendized context and valued accordingly.
>
It's true. I just have this thing about photographers who do not wear the
official alt.wedding lobster release socks. You don't have a pair, Mr. Rosen,
and aren't likely to anytime soon or the foreseeable next millenium.
Jenrose
help from family and friends, of course), that I eternally grateful to those
who go the extra mile to help people like me have a beautiful day without
breaking the bank.
Jen
"RICK5347" <rick...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020611114319...@mb-ba.aol.com...
Joe Pucillo
> Could it be that they have the photos, but were just
> reminiscing about that day without looking at them?
> We do that on occasion, the same way we recount to
> our beloved offspring the day of her birth.
Are you saying that you didn't hire a photographer to chronicle that
blessed event?????
For SHAME! :-)
Rob
i work with (attorneys, consulting, medical professionals) just come out and
wham you with this unjustified figure. i say unjustified because it is
never broken down. i pay professionals and businesses by time and
materials. now, i am the customer here and i know what i want, and i want
what i want, and im going to pay a person to do what i want. in my
particular instance, i want to pay a professional photographer for his time
on an hourly basis, plus his expenses, like any other business. i'm going
to be super generous here and use $200/hr as an example (about the same as
what the top harvard shrinks i work with charge or a little less than 1/2 of
what the top boston attorneys i work with charge, and more than most of the
technical consultants i work with charge). i am PAYING for his expertise, I
want him to come to my wedding, spend 3 hours taking pictures and hand over
the film. generally one doesnt pay for travel as its part of doing business
and a tax write off, but i'll throw in an hour of travel too. this comes to
$800 plus the cost of the film. lets say fuji nps 160, nph 400 or nhg
II.... they can be had for $3-4 a roll at 36 shots per roll over the net, im
going to put down $10 per roll anyway, even though I expect someone I'm
paying $200/hr to to be savvy enough to look around for good bargains on
their equipment and supplies (just like any good consumer would do,
including shopping for a photographer). lets say 10 rolls of film at $10
for 360 shots, we have a total of $900 that should get us great shots. ive
paid for your film, ive paid for your time, at this point if i choose, you
should be handing me the film and walking off.
i can then if i so choose take the film to a development specialist, or
again, keep on the photographer, still at time and materials to develop my
photos. if i want them displayed and arranged that is yet an additional
service that i should again pay time and materials for.
now............ being a good businessman, there is no justification i can
see in this scenario how a photographer can just tell me "ill do your
wedding, development and album display and arrangement of X pics for $4000".
comments have been made that "while you may not be able to afford a $5000
photographer, many people can." perhaps they can, if i choose to, i can as
well, however the reason i have many of the nice toys i do is because im
careful about how i spend my money. i research everything, and i make
informed decisions. as i mentioned in another post, for our wedding
photographer, i shopped around and in doing so i found an absolutely amazing
photographer for VERY reasonable prices (far less than $200/hr), we were
going to do the development ourselves (pro photographer in the wedding
party, PS if anyone in the CT/RI/southern MA area is looking for an
excellent photographer for FAR less than the absurd $5000 rates, feel free
to email michael AT mmscans DOT com directly) but he insisted on doing that
as well, and is then handing over the film to us along with an album and
several prints. yes, i have not see his work for OUR wedding yet, there is
always the chance that something could go wrong or that "we get what we pay
for", but i did my homework and both of us are MORE than comfortable with
the situation we've entered into. the amount of $$$ you spend does not
guarantee you a thing, other than you've paid someone a lot of money.
i also am rather amused by the fact that if the word "wedding" is mentioned
when hiring for any service (cake, limo, photography, function hall,
florist, caterer, etc) that mysteriously the price of everything seems to
suddenly increase dramatically. it takes no more effort to provide a limo
service for a wedding party than it does for a group of businessmen in town
(and generally even less). anyone who tries that with me is NOT getting my
business as there is always a competitor who understands how to treat
customers and isn't out for the quick buck and price gouge. it also gives
me insight into the business practices of the service provider. i trust
someone who is fair and honest up front to take care of me if there is any
problem far more than the guy who wants to price gouge me.
i'm glad these photographers can get the money they are asking for. i cant
blame them as this is again a business, i'd do the same thing. thankfully,
the internet has become a big equalizer and opened the doors to far more
competitors of every business type and prices are quickly being driven down.
take that money while you can still get it, this isnt the RIAA where every
business involved has entered into an agreement to artifically keep prices
high.
"Ericka Kammerer" <e...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3D050258...@comcast.net...
Joe Pucillo
> Yeah, right. People have also been doing without competent
> medical care "for hundreds, no thousands, of years without
> the benefit of any appreciation of" knowledgeable doctors.
> How many do that today when other alternatives are available?
Wow. What a GREAT idea!!! If I can convince prospective clients that they
might die without adequate photographic care, I can shame and scare them
into anything!
Maybe I'll start writing prescriptions for reprints...
in...@internet-real-estate.com
<R...@nospam.com> wrote:
>..... i am PAYING for his expertise, I
> want him to come to my wedding, spend 3 hours taking pictures and hand over
> the film.
>
>
Sure, if that is truly all that a couple wanted .... I could do it for less.
But most want the full package of services and you are leaving out all the
"many" hours that are spent before and after the "day". It's not just the
"3" or more hours that day. When she first calls, I may spend 30 minutes
to an hour with the bride on the phone. Then she sets up an appointment to
come see everything .... and I usually spend 1-2 hours there showing both
photo and video samples and answering questions. Then she calls back a few
days later (after seeing others in town and is narrowing choices) to set
up another appt. for "mom" to come see it all. So the 1-2 hour appt is
repeated. They leave and she calls back later to sign "you're the one"
and she sets up another appt to drop by and pay the deposit and go over
details a little more. (There's another hour.)
Four to seven hours on three to four different days (or look at it as
nearly one full working day) .... just to get the contract signed.
Then comes formal sittings in studio or out.
Then is wedding day (the short easy part)
Then after there are the times dealing with lab.
Sending negs for reprints, Making albums, meeting w/ family. etc. etc.
My average is 40 hours per wedding.
Edward
RICK5347
>
If he's the one who coordinated an all male education "retreat" for
photographers sans women, he IS a caveman.
>>
Yes he's the man that planned that retreat. But the real issue is the
conditions imposed by the tour guide who is organizing it and not as you imply.
The retreat was originally open to everyone but the tour guide and the
conditions requested by the female photographers were at odds with each other.
No toilet facilities for one, group tents and more. I do not agree with the
"men only" position and I have taught many wilderness photographic workshops
where both sexes were present. I also do not agree with your implication here.
It never ceases to amaze me how much minitua you seem to gather from your time
on the internet and how "focused" your interest seems to be on issues related
to professional wedding photography and photographers.
Rob
about incorporating the charges for meeting with them (i feel that is a cost
of doing business, and you're basically asking them to subsidize the time
you've lost sitting with people who ultimately did not end up using you as a
photographer), the other points you make are perfectly valid and should be
charged for. time is money, and a great deal of time is a great deal of
money.
i know that i would certainly feel much better about spending a lot of money
on a photographer if when i spoke with one i received a response similar to
the one you just gave (with perhaps a bit more detail) rather than "five
grand!!! ill give you a photo album and some prints, if you want extra
prints at any time, they're my negativates and i'll charge you accordingly".
i'm sure not all photographers are like this, but it seems most of the ones
we met with are, and they feel absolutely justified in this attitude and
don't feel the need to explain why they are so expensive other than "because
thats what i charge". probably a case of a few bad apples spoiling the
whole bunch, but the photographer posting in this thread from NJ certainly
isn't helping matters. perhaps i'm not the average customer, the
photographer we ultimately ended up choosing had a booth at a wedding show,
we basically took up 5 minutes of his time after looking thru his
portfolios. it took about 15 minutes to discuss the terms, fax the contract
and send it back. then we just wanted him to show up, take pics, and hand
us the film. all the photographers i spoke with prior to this guy
practically laughed in my face. "we dont provide that sort of service".
uh........ ok, but thats what i want and i dont want to pay for something i
dont want (another example, double the hourly limo rate because its for a
wedding and they provide a bottle of cheap champagne and a red carpet).
ultimately the guy we did go with that i mention about told us he can
provide that sort of service, he will charge us for that sort of service
($630!!!) but he insisted on developing the film, and providing us with an
album along with a small number of prints, some 3x5, some 6x8 an 8x10 and a
10x14 (if i recall the sizes correctly, my other post has them correctly).
i dont know if we will USE these things as my bride's brother will be taking
the film and doing his own album, but THIS is the sort of guy that i want to
do business with. takes pride in his work (very talented work at that), has
great references, is flexible, doesn't have a prima donna attitude, and
works at frankly a far cheaper rate than i would ever expect. he is going
to get a HUGE bonus from us as i am assuming everything will go off without
a hitch. frankly he could have charged us far more than he did, and he
still would have sold us just on his capibility, attitude and flexibility.
<in...@internet-real-estate.com> wrote in message
news:info-11060...@192.168.1.100...
in...@internet-real-estate.com
<R...@nospam.com> wrote:
> i appreciate you breaking that down a bit. while i dont necessarily agree
> about incorporating the charges for meeting with them (i feel that is a cost
> of doing business,
>
???? If every business did not charge for the "cost of doing business" ...
well .... they would all go out of business. :)
Included in every shoot I do has to be enough to NOT just pay me a wage
and pay for film .... but also has to be enough on top of that to pay for
advertising, rent, postage, taxes, utilities, etc., etc.
This is true for all vendors, not just photographers.
Look at many limo services. Cars just sitting on the lot Monday - Thurs,
and then having to charge enough on the weekend to pay the week's bills.
Most photographers are not quite that bad though as they stay busy during
the week as well. Otherwise we "would" have to increase rates. :)
>
>time is money, and a great deal of time is a great deal of
> money.
>
Exactly. Too many think the photographer is charging that much just for 3
or 4 hours work on the big day. They do not see all the "behind the
scenes" hours sometimes months before and months after.
>..... perhaps i'm not the average customer, the
> photographer we ultimately ended up choosing had a booth at a wedding show,
> we basically took up 5 minutes of his time after looking thru his
> portfolios. it took about 15 minutes to discuss the terms, fax the contract
> and send it back. then we just wanted him to show up, take pics, and hand
> us the film.
Yes, if that's all you wanted, I could have done that for a low price. But
as you said "perhaps i'm not the average customer". Most of mine do not
make up their mind that easy and run 3 appointments to get to the contract
stage.
>...but he insisted on developing the film, and providing us with an
> album along with a small number of prints, some 3x5, some 6x8 an 8x10...
>
One of the things that many do not realize is that about 80% of my work,
both photos and videos, comes from referrals. Not trade shows or yellow
pages. It is from people seeing completed albums of their friends and
family members. And photographers know that good presentation can make a
good print look good ... and bad presentation, as in one of those sticky
plastic page albums with tattered corners and pages falling out, can
really detract from even the best photos. I stopped using those plastic
page proof albums years ago for that reason. MOB would still be carrying
that around years later showing it to everyone (pages falling out, etc.,).
It was not a good representation of my work. My past wedding albums that
are floating around out there ... are my best my best advertising. So yes,
my packages do include albums. Nice ones that will keep looking good for
many years.
Of course I've had a few that trashed the expensive album so they could
make one of those scrapbook things with all the little glued on cardboard
shapes. But I shudder to think what they will look like 30 years from now.
In the end .... to each his own.
Edward
Ericka Kammerer
> perhaps i'm not the average customer, the
> photographer we ultimately ended up choosing had a booth at a wedding show,
> we basically took up 5 minutes of his time after looking thru his
> portfolios. it took about 15 minutes to discuss the terms, fax the contract
> and send it back. then we just wanted him to show up, take pics, and hand
> us the film. all the photographers i spoke with prior to this guy
> practically laughed in my face. "we dont provide that sort of service".
> uh........ ok, but thats what i want and i dont want to pay for something i
> dont want (another example, double the hourly limo rate because its for a
> wedding and they provide a bottle of cheap champagne and a red carpet).
>
> ultimately the guy we did go with that i mention about told us he can
> provide that sort of service, he will charge us for that sort of service
> ($630!!!) but he insisted on developing the film, and providing us with an
> album along with a small number of prints, some 3x5, some 6x8 an 8x10 and a
> 10x14 (if i recall the sizes correctly, my other post has them correctly).
> i dont know if we will USE these things as my bride's brother will be taking
> the film and doing his own album, but THIS is the sort of guy that i want to
> do business with. takes pride in his work (very talented work at that), has
> great references, is flexible, doesn't have a prima donna attitude, and
> works at frankly a far cheaper rate than i would ever expect. he is going
> to get a HUGE bonus from us as i am assuming everything will go off without
> a hitch. frankly he could have charged us far more than he did, and he
> still would have sold us just on his capibility, attitude and flexibility.
But let's think about this for a few minutes. I agree that
there's utterly no excuse for being rude. However, if you're a
photographer who specializes in weddings, you're going to do most
of your shooting on weekends. The revenue you generate from those
weekend shoots has to cover the (wedding related) work you do the
rest of the week. What's your motivation as a businessperson to do
a shoot that will take up just as much time, but generate fewer
billable hours of work? Furthermore, given that most wedding
photographers (at least the good ones) get a lot of their business
by word of mouth, what's their motivation to let someone else control
the quality of their product by giving up control of the developing and
printing process?
I'm glad that you found someone who would provide the
service you're looking for, and I'm glad that there are photographers
who offer that service for people whose budget (or interests) won't
stretch further than that. There's nothing morally superior about
having great photos. It's just something that's nice for those who
enjoy that sort of thing. But ultimately, as with any other business,
people are going to do what helps their business be successful.
Providing the sort of service you were looking for may work for a
photographer who is new, or does mostly other sorts of photography
during the week, or is targeting precisely customers like yourself.
But photographers who target other markets aren't necessarily just
greedy or mean (though again, there's no excuse for them being
rude).
Most people who work with customers can tell you all
sorts of stories about how customers are unreasonable or how
they have all sorts of unrealistic expectations. That's not
surprising, given that customers are often contracting with
someone to do something precisely because they don't have the
expertise to do it themselves. But that's no excuse for
*customers* to devalue the products and services that
business people provide either.
Oh, and while I certainly understand why it's a lot easier
to accept the price as reasonable if the costs are all broken out
for you, I'll bet that doesn't work all that well in practice.
I rather suspect that if photographers did that, they'd get
no end of hassle with customers wanting to manage every little
category (so, if we skip this meeting with you, will you shave
$100 off the price...). Most photographers I've seen had information
that described all of what their services included, but I think
breaking it down item by item with prices would be an invitation
to disaster. Customers would want to take this and that out of
the package to drive the price down and could easily end up
making it impossible for the photographer to do the quality
work they contracted with him or her for in the first place (if
you don't have time to talk to the customers about what they
want, how do you deliver it?!).
Best wishes,
Ericka
Ericka Kammerer
> aMAZon wrote...
>>Could it be that they have the photos, but were just
>>reminiscing about that day without looking at them?
>>We do that on occasion, the same way we recount to
>>our beloved offspring the day of her birth.
>>
>
> Are you saying that you didn't hire a photographer to chronicle that
> blessed event?????
>
> For SHAME! :-)
You do realize, don't you, that birth photography
is gaining in popularity?
Best wishes,
Ericka
in...@internet-real-estate.com
>
> Oh, and while I certainly understand why it's a lot easier
> to accept the price as reasonable if the costs are all broken out
> for you, I'll bet that doesn't work all that well in practice.
> I rather suspect that if photographers did that, they'd get
> no end of hassle with customers wanting to manage every little
> category
>
Lets try this with another vendor and see how it looks when written out:
Wedding Cake
$ 5.00 Flour
$ 3.00 Sugar
$ 1.00 Eggs
$ 2.00 Assorted spices, etc.
$ 10.00 Cost of doing business (rent, etc.)
$ 400.00 Labor/Creative
--------
$ 421.00 (plus tax)
Hmmmmmm. You're right, someone would say I get get flour cheaper somewhere
else. Surely they would not argue the creative fee. :)
Edward
Joe Pucillo
> Joe Pucillo wrote:
> > Are you saying that you didn't hire a photographer to
> > chronicle that blessed event?????
> You do realize, don't you, that birth photography
> is gaining in popularity?
Well, so is owning SUVs in order to intimidate people by tailgating them on
the beltway.
So is stealing from your company to "save money" on your wedding
invitations.
So is suburbanites moving out to rural areas in droves, then complaining
that the schools are too crowded.
It doesn't mean that I like any of those ideas. :-)
Of course, I probably wouldn't be the best one to hire for such 'events.'
Prior to my eldest femchild being born, I would blubber like a baby
whenever I'd watch one of those childbirth films. The kid'd be born and
I'd just bawl. When it was finally my turn at bat, I was so focused....
"Boy or Girl...Boy or Girl...Boy or Girl..."
Both kids were born with no tears from me at all, but I was the first in
the room to 'call it' - "It's a girl!" "It's a boy!" I'm sure anyone
who'd make the mistake of hiring me to photograph their kid's birth would
wonder, "why all the genital shots?" <rotfl>
JH
in...@internet-real-estate.com wrote:
You forgot to state how many servings this hypothetical cake is to serve. If
$421.00 pays for 200 servings (or a little more than $2/person), this is a
great bargain. You can't buy a McFlurry from McDonalds for that price. But
if it is 25 servings for $421.00, well, someone got screwed.
Jenrose
of my favorite parts of my job is the birth photographs we work with on a
daily basis. In fact, my wedding will be photographed by one of our
magazine's best photographers, Patti Ramos. She's got one of the best eyes
for capturing emotion and beauty I've ever seen, she makes everyone look
radiant, and I've seen her photograph an event (a conference)--she's
amazing. It's like she's barely in the room, yet she can get within a few
feet of what she's photographing without getting in the way. She has a quiet
stillness about the way she moves when she's got a camera in her hands which
makes her almost invisible unless you are watching for her.
She did a few posed shots of me once at a conference and they are the best
pictures I've had done in years.
Delightful!
Jen
"Ericka Kammerer" <e...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3D06A2D4...@comcast.net...
Jenrose
different from watching your own child be born. You spend the time looking
for the beauty in a very messy process--but it's usually pretty easy to find
beauty in birth.
Then again, I suspect that photographing a wedding is much the same--finding
beauty in a messy process!
Jen
"Joe Pucillo" <ne...@joephoto.8m.com.xx> wrote in message
news:01c211b3$d78793c0$6068f7a5@home...
Jenrose
pastry tubes/nozzles (I bought her the deluxe set for graduation because
she's going to cooking school in the fall), $10 for more cake pans, possibly
more--we already have several in the appropriate sizes. Probably $20 worth
of chocolate, $10 worth of cream and $10 worth of butter if you want a cake
with actual flavor. $15 for the liqueur for the white cake.
Plus she's putting in a lot of advance time candying lilacs...
A good tasting wedding cake with artistic decorations takes several days of
intensive labor to create. If you're going to go with a flavorless cake, why
bother hiring a professional to spackle it? If you're going to hire a
professional, shouldn't it have some quality ingredients as well?
My sister is cooking out of Rose Levy Berenbaum's Cake bible. I've budgeted
$100 for ingredients alone.
I figure a cake such as she will create (yes, she's made some absolutely
stunning cakes in the past, as has my mother, who is helping her, including
a 5-layer aniversary cake with marsipan roses) would be extraordinarily
expensive to "hire" done. We're talking 10 hours of backbreaking grunt work
and 10 hours of intensive creative work, minimum, probably more since she's
making two of them. Not to mention the time she'll take to make sure I won't
react to the ingredients (I have allergies), etc.
Jen
<in...@internet-real-estate.com> wrote in message
news:info-11060...@192.168.1.100...
RICK5347
is gaining in popularity?
>>
As is pregnancy portraits. I have a photographer friend who specializes.
That's all she does.
Niki
I personally am not enticed by birth or the whole "baby"
phenomenon" and do not find aything beautifull about it!
Niki,
"Jenrose" <jen...@nospamefn.org> wrote in message
news:ae6jqp$gbs$1...@news.efn.org...
James Messick
Doctors all take the CYA oath, as well as the hypocritic one.
"Jenrose" <jen...@nospamefn.org> wrote in message
news:ae6jqp$gbs$1...@news.efn.org...
Ericka Kammerer
> I guess there will be no market for birth-videography in the near future.
> Doctors all take the CYA oath, as well as the hypocritic one.
True, and some hospitals have rules against videotaping
the birth, but believe it or not, a surprising number of hospitals
and doctors allow it. And, of course, hospitals are not the only
places women give birth, and doctors are not the only professionals
who attend births. There's quite a lot of birth videotaping going
on as well, though I suspect little of it is professional (some of
the birth photography is professional, though).
Best wishes,
Ericka
JH
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
And right on the heels of that trend will be the burgeoning scourge of
Momzillas..those obsessed women with beach ball stomachs who insist every
aspect of their birthing experience be perfect lest it portends an ominous
sart to the child's life. Little girls will start dreaming of their first
birthing experience and what decor they want the room, what music to be
played, the hairstyle that looks best plastered down with the "glow" of
sweat. If nurses thought screaming moms in pain was bad, just wait for
Momzilla who screams that her birthing photography is being ruined by her
sudden need for c-section.
JH
Joe Pucillo wrote:
>
>
> It doesn't mean that I like any of those ideas. :-)
>
> Of course, I probably wouldn't be the best one to hire for such 'events.'
> Prior to my eldest femchild being born, I would blubber like a baby
> whenever I'd watch one of those childbirth films. The kid'd be born and
> I'd just bawl. When it was finally my turn at bat, I was so focused....
> "Boy or Girl...Boy or Girl...Boy or Girl..."
>
> Both kids were born with no tears from me at all, but I was the first in
> the room to 'call it' - "It's a girl!" "It's a boy!" I'm sure anyone
> who'd make the mistake of hiring me to photograph their kid's birth would
> wonder, "why all the genital shots?" <rotfl>
>
> --
My DH took a great photo of my second c-section wherein Child #2's face was
framed perfectly in my c-section incision while the doctor's suctioned
Child#2's nose out. Kid did not look happy at all and took his revenge on the
doctor by peeing straight across the doctor's chest upon delivery. Then there
was a friend of mine whose husband took rather close up shots of her
delivery. A little bit too intimaate and graphic for my tastes.
JH
Jenrose wrote:
> A good tasting wedding cake with artistic decorations takes several days of
> intensive labor to create. If you're going to go with a flavorless cake, why
> bother hiring a professional to spackle it? If you're going to hire a
> professional, shouldn't it have some quality ingredients as well?
>
> My sister is cooking out of Rose Levy Berenbaum's Cake bible. I've budgeted
> $100 for ingredients alone.
>
I don't make wedding cakes but I design, construct and decorate gingerbread
buildings. The following gif is a gingerbread church I did for a wedding
several years ago. It was created as the main centerpiece to the buffet table
and was lit from within with melted "stained glass" candy windows. Surrounded
by pine roping and lit from within for the evening reception, it was quite
lovely. http://www.thinds.com/jmh/gingerbhouse.gif That structure is about
15inches tall at the steeple to give you an idea of size yet it cost me $60 in
materials to create and at least 25 hours of work. If I were pricing it
factoring in a "creation fee" so that my talent is duly compensated, my
business expenses reimbursed and I make an income worthy of sustaining me, I
should have charged about $1000.00 for that gingerbread creation since it was a
custom design. However, the market won't bear a $750-1200.00 gingerbread house
which is why one rarely sees them.
Here's a link you might find useful, btw:
Joe Pucillo
> If nurses thought screaming moms in pain was bad, just wait
> for Momzilla who screams that her birthing photography is
> being ruined by her sudden need for c-section.
Well, obviously that doesn't stop *some* people... <rolls eyes>
in...@internet-real-estate.com
>......There's quite a lot of birth videotaping going
> on as well, though I suspect little of it is professional (some of
> the birth photography is professional, though).
>
>
In most cases ... how "can" it be professional, unless it's a "scheduled"
c-section or induced delivery? Otherwise you would have to book out
several days in a row of the photographers time so that he would be
available at a moments notice.
"Excuse me, bride and groom, but I've got to get out of here .... there's
a baby on the way". :)
Edward
Ericka Kammerer
People who do it specialize in birth photography, perhaps
supplementing with other photo jobs that can accommodate the necessarily
crazy schedules involved. Midwives and doctors manage to get there--
why not photographers?
Best wishes,
Ericka
in...@internet-real-estate.com
> People who do it specialize in birth photography, perhaps
> supplementing with other photo jobs that can accommodate the necessarily
> crazy schedules involved.
Well that was my point. It would have to be a specialist that lived in a
large enough metro type area to support it. A small to mid size town would
not support it.
>...doctors manage to get there--
> why not photographers?
>
Oh they "do" get there ... but they "do" put off other "customers". You've
obviously never sat in an OB's waiting room for a few hours waiting for
him/she to get back from a delivery next door at the hospital. The office
staff will keep 'em stacked up 'til the doc gets back. :)
Edward
Jenrose
for it aren't the parents, but educational outfits ranging from InJoy videos
to "A Baby Story" on TLC.
And many parents love having a video of their child's birth. The kids like
it too, oddly enough, down the road.
Jen
"James Messick" <con...@jamesmessick.com> wrote in message
news:S0IN8.92088$6v2.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Niki
now im going to have nightmares about birthing.!
Niki,
"JH" <bas...@thinds.com> wrote in message
news:3D075EEF...@thinds.com...
Ericka Kammerer
> In article <3D0792F7...@comcast.net>, e...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>> People who do it specialize in birth photography, perhaps
>>supplementing with other photo jobs that can accommodate the necessarily
>>crazy schedules involved.
>>
>
> Well that was my point. It would have to be a specialist that lived in a
> large enough metro type area to support it. A small to mid size town would
> not support it.
Of course. There are lots of services available to people
in areas with populations large enough to support them that are
not available to other people.
>>...doctors manage to get there--
>>why not photographers?
>
> Oh they "do" get there ... but they "do" put off other "customers". You've
> obviously never sat in an OB's waiting room for a few hours waiting for
> him/she to get back from a delivery next door at the hospital. The office
> staff will keep 'em stacked up 'til the doc gets back. :)
Um, seeing as I've given birth twice, I am quite
familiar with the process. I did, however, choose to work with
midwives who came to me, rather than hanging around in a
doctor's office waiting.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Rob
every cake sold. regardless of what the ingredients cost, the
part that is expensive is time. the ingredients are a few bucks, but how
long does it take to decorate a wedding cake? i have no idea
but judging from some of the cakes ive seen while looking for ours, it looks
like it could take a VERY long time. again we saved money
here by tearing a picture out of a magazine and taking it to alden merrell,
a very large dessert company who also has a store in their
dessert factory. we knew they made great tasting cakes, and were told they
could duplicate most cakes if provided with a picture.
we paid to have them make a mini wedding cake for my fiance's birthday to
make sure they were as good as they claimed and were
very impressed. cake cost for three tiers (12/10/8) for us is less than
$300, the cake tastes fantastic, looks great, and once
again we saved a ton by shopping around. (we were quoted $600 and up for
the same cake from "wedding cake specialists").
"Jenrose" <jen...@nospamefn.org> wrote in message
news:ae6knp$gq7$1...@news.efn.org...
Knightmaer35
obviously never sat in an OB's waiting room for a few hours waiting for him/she
to get back from a delivery next door at the hospital. The office staff will
keep 'em stacked up 'til the doc gets back. :)
>
>
>Edward
I WOULD be a little creeped out that an "Edward" would have so much experience
with OB waiting rooms if I hadn't noticed the strikng similarities between"
Edward" and a certain female wedding photographer from Georgia. Is it possible
that even though she now has her own little kingdom to hide out in and play
censor to her heart's content she just can't go cold turkey on THIS newsgroup?
Naw, surely she wouldn't be hiding behind her real estate hubby? Couldn't be.
Even though the rant about cake's is identical to the example the
aforementioned photographer has FREQUENTLY used in the past. Other posts have
had a suspiciously similartone and style as well.
I'm sure I MUST be mistaken as said photographer has also frequently condemned
those who post anonymously or with screen names not backed by real names.
And I am also sure that she will soon answer the question as to exactly what
happened with that wedding couple who had to resort to asking for help from a
local Atlanta area TV station. Don't have all the facts but apparently the
paragon of professional ethics might not have delivered what was promised this
couple and instead charged their credit card to the tune of around $700 AFTER
they thought all monies were paid. Fortunately with the help of the TV consumer
watchdog types the couple was able to recover their money and take possesion of
their negatives. But how does such a thing happen and how does it get so far?
And why is the photographer avoiding the issue rather than attempting to clear
her name? I believe understanding how such communication issues occur can be
helpful to all in learning ways to avoid them in the future.
Oh yes, if you want to understand more about the business of professional
photography as referenced by this thread, I have found this new forum hosted
by Karen Simmons who "used" to be quite active here. Having insight into how
professionals operate might greatly help engaged couples in their research for
quality wedding photography. Photographers regularly visit wedding groups and
sites to research client issues and potential clients really should be doing
the same in photographer's groups.
in...@internet-real-estate.com
knight...@aol.com (Knightmaer35) wrote:
> >Oh they "do" get there ... but they "do" put off other "customers". You've
> obviously never sat in an OB's waiting room for a few hours waiting for
him/she
> to get back from a delivery next door at the hospital. The office staff will
> keep 'em stacked up 'til the doc gets back. :)
> >
> >
> >Edward
>
> I WOULD be a little creeped out that an "Edward" would have so much experience
> with OB waiting rooms....
>
Sorry to burst your misconception .... but I'm simply the father of
"five". Yes, I've sat with my wife many a time in the OB waiting room. I'm
a photo/video guy and spend time here seeing what brides have to say about
photography and video. Its been helpful. I also develop web sites, and use
one of them as my email address here, so not to be accused of spamming my
photography business. :)
Been a nice group to visit, ever since I kill-filed a couple (JH in particular).
Edward
Ron Ng
>clear
>her name?
If you are trying to smear someone else's name like Edwards......
Ron Ng Knows!
kyoto
Who is this photographer? I'm getting married in Atlanta and I want to be
sure to avoid this one.
in...@internet-real-estate.com
> > Edward" and a certain female wedding photographer from Georgia.
>
I pity any female photog in Georgia that bears any resemblance to me. :)
But I don't guess that is the similarity you were speaking of ....
Edward
(Roll Tide .... never lived in Bull Dog country)
RICK5347
<< I WOULD be a little creeped out that an "Edward" would have so much
experience
with OB waiting rooms if I hadn't noticed the strikng similarities between"
Edward" and a certain female wedding photographer from Georgia. >>
And the similarity is what? I have spoken to Edward on the phone and I can
assure everyone that he is not the person implied. Pretty pathetic effort to
stir up some trouble.
Here we have a new "anonymous coward" without an AOL profile AND no posting
history AT ALL according to google suddenly popping up here making all sorts of
accusations without providing a single piece of hard evidence to support them.
Ya gotta love all those free AOL CDs and ya gotta love the jerks on Usenet!
Furthermore, quite frankly, to have all this information (presuming it is true)
on someone else is well, kind'a creepy.
<< I'm sure I MUST be mistaken as said photographer has also frequently
condemned
those who post anonymously or with screen names not backed by real names.
>>
You ARE mistaken but you knew that before you posted. Since you seem to
criticize the GA photographer's position on this how about giving us all YOUR
real name and some information on yourself? Or are you just too cowardly to
stand up and identify yourself?
I do know for a fact that a certain alt.wedding participant with a long history
of harassing this certain GA photographer, Edward and other photographers does
also have a long history of posting under many aliases. IMO, a better
possibility perhaps is that this same agendized individual just wants to get in
another "dig" on a longstanding enemy since the person has left this newsgroup
and her name is not really active here. Since the poster has lumped together
BOTH Edward and the GA photographer "he' has effectively taken a cheap shot at
two of "his" most outspoken opponents in one post! Excellent work for someone
with such an agenda. Notice how the poster also takes numerous jabs at
professional wedding photography and suggests that something nefarious is going
on at that other newsgroups.
<< Photographers regularly visit wedding groups and
sites to research client issues and potential clients really should be doing
the same in photographer's groups. >>
Contrary to the implications in this post, as a professional wedding
photographer I have no problem with that whatsoever and I would encourage it.
In fact, on AOL there is a very active wedding photography forum and I would
encourage anyone to visit there, ask questions and participate. If you want a
link please email me and I will be happy to provide one. You can also access
the board through Netscape but I don't have that information. I cannot speak
of the GA photographer's specific group because I am not involved and have
never visited there.
I will cut off the predictable responses now by a few here by also stating that
I am not in any way supporting this GA photographer pro or con. I have no
information as to the status of her or these business issues as I have not
spoken to her for a very long time.
JH
Knightmaer35 wrote:
> >Oh they "do" get there ... but they "do" put off other "customers". You've
> obviously never sat in an OB's waiting room for a few hours waiting for him/she
> to get back from a delivery next door at the hospital. The office staff will
> keep 'em stacked up 'til the doc gets back. :)
> >
> >
> >Edward
>
> I WOULD be a little creeped out that an "Edward" would have so much experience
> with OB waiting rooms if I hadn't noticed the strikng similarities between"
> Edward" and a certain female wedding photographer from Georgia. Is it possible
> that even though she now has her own little kingdom to hide out in and play
> censor to her heart's content she just can't go cold turkey on THIS newsgroup?
> Naw, surely she wouldn't be hiding behind her real estate hubby? Couldn't be.
> Even though the rant about cake's is identical to the example the
> aforementioned photographer has FREQUENTLY used in the past. Other posts have
> had a suspiciously similartone and style as well.
Edward Kent is not Karen Simmons. A fact I am sure he is most grateful of. And
you must be a photographer because the only posters to ever decipher posting
identities using the "striking similarities", "style" and "tone" as their criteria
without any regard for actual post header data have been a small number of either
ignorant or deliberately stubborn alt.wedding photographers.
>
> And I am also sure that she will soon answer the question as to exactly what
> happened with that wedding couple who had to resort to asking for help from a
> local Atlanta area TV station.
I'd rather have her answer why she lied on alt.wedding about being Kevin Tallant's
photographer and put the man and his wife through over 2 1/2 years of hell trying
to get their wedding photos.
Charlotte M.
> aMAZon wrote...
>
> > Could it be that they have the photos, but were just
> > reminiscing about that day without looking at them?
> > We do that on occasion, the same way we recount to
> > our beloved offspring the day of her birth.
>
> blessed event?????
>
<delurking for a moment>
PRECISELY what I was thinking!
Charlotte
--
Maternity Photographer and Doula
Visit www.birth.bc.ca and connect with other parents from around BC.
Charlotte M.
news:info-12060...@192.168.1.100...
> In article <3D0753CA...@comcast.net>, e...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >......There's quite a lot of birth videotaping going
> > on as well, though I suspect little of it is professional (some of
> > the birth photography is professional, though).
> >
> >
>
> In most cases ... how "can" it be professional, unless it's a "scheduled"
> c-section or induced delivery? Otherwise you would have to book out
> several days in a row of the photographers time so that he would be
> available at a moments notice.
Nope. I just take on a limited number of clients in a month. I book pretty
much the same way doctors and midwives book, and I have never yet had to fly
between two clients.
BTW, it's "SHE" not "HE" thank you very much.
> "Excuse me, bride and groom, but I've got to get out of here .... there's
> a baby on the way". :)
Simple, I don't do weddings.
I do, however, quite enjoy lurking here.