Do you make a living as a wedding photographer?
DD
regarding choosing wedding photography as a vocation. If you could take
a moment to answer these questions, I would be most appreciative of your
input.
1. Where do you see yourself on the socio-economic scale regarding your
income? i.e. well above average, above average, average, below average,
well below average.
2. Do you do it full time as your only source of income or purely as a
part-time supplement to existing income? If you are doing it full time,
do you only do weddings? If not, what percentage of your income do
weddings provide?
3. How many weddings do you do annually?
4. How long did it take to establish yourself in the market? What
marketing techniques did you use? i.e. if advertising, where did you
advertise?
5. Do you find it a rewarding profession? In other words, do you feel
you could have done something else instead of doing weddings?
6. What do you base your pricing on?
7. Do you find it very competitive to remain active in this field?
8. What size market are you working in? i.e. Do you have to travel
extensively to get commissions or are you in a big enough centre to
remain locally based?
9. What kind of output do you provide your customers? i.e. do you simply
provide prints or do you also compile their albums in addition to other
offerings, such as CD ROMs, video, etc.
10. What format equipment have you chosen and why?
Thanks.
--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer
Randall Ainsworth
<ro...@empirerods.com> wrote:
> 1. Where do you see yourself on the socio-economic scale regarding your
> income? i.e. well above average, above average, average, below average,
> well below average.
You can do OK if you charge enough and are good enough at it.
> 2. Do you do it full time as your only source of income or purely as a
> part-time supplement to existing income? If you are doing it full time,
> do you only do weddings? If not, what percentage of your income do
> weddings provide?
Used to do it as part of other studio photography.
> 3. How many weddings do you do annually?
Used to do 1-2 per month. I didn't want to do more than that...too easy
to get burned out.
> 4. How long did it take to establish yourself in the market? What
> marketing techniques did you use? i.e. if advertising, where did you
> advertise?
I never advertised, never did bridal fairs, etc. I just got enough from
people walking in the door.
> 5. Do you find it a rewarding profession? In other words, do you feel
> you could have done something else instead of doing weddings?
After a while you get tired of going to other people's parties on
Saturday nights.
> 6. What do you base your pricing on?
My superb ability and the local market.
> 7. Do you find it very competitive to remain active in this field?
Not really.
> 8. What size market are you working in? i.e. Do you have to travel
> extensively to get commissions or are you in a big enough centre to
> remain locally based?
Small community of about 30K. Did most weddings locally, but sometimes
traveled 20-30 miles.
> 9. What kind of output do you provide your customers? i.e. do you simply
> provide prints or do you also compile their albums in addition to other
> offerings, such as CD ROMs, video, etc.
Didn't do them in the digital age. Provided prints/albums. Today I
would provide the same end product.
> 10. What format equipment have you chosen and why?
Used to use two Hasselblads, 2-light setup. Today would still use 2
lights, but the 10D or something similar should be sufficient if you
have good technique.
BigPix
"DD" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dfe3b418...@news.mweb.co.za...
> I'm interested in hearing from people around the world on their thoughts
> regarding choosing wedding photography as a vocation. If you could take
> a moment to answer these questions, I would be most appreciative of your
> input.
>
You can't be serious, Dallas.
Do you really expect anyone to tell you this sort of information about their
business?
For every 100 people with cameras who call themselves "Wedding
Photographers" there are about 8 who actually are. Of those 8, maybe 2,
actually make their living doing it without needing to have their spouse go
to work to support them or have their "real" business fund the pretend one.
How many "Wedding Photographers" do you know who have a barn full of props
for when the weather turns fowl or the ceremony is overrun by gate crashers?
For that matter, how many do you know with a wedding garden where they can
control the lighting for beautiful portraits? Maybe a private jetty for
those sunset shots over water? hmm? Money Dallas, it separates those who do
from those who want. You only get it by charging prices that look like an
exercise in algebra!
There would be no other business in the world where so many participants
have so few qualifications and credit card balances that look like serial
numbers to fund the purchase of the next flavour of the month camera and
still try to claim they are somehow "Professional Photographers". When I
obtained my qualifications, I served an apprenticeship for 7 years and got a
piece of paper in 1962 proclaiming I was a "tradesman Photographer". I also
got fired because I then qualified for full pay rates. I stole my ex boss's
booking diary and proceeded to undercut him on price for the next 2 years.
Then I sold my camera to pay the rent because I just learnt the first lesson
of business. - It's not about getting work, it's about money and getting
paid.
The only thing that has changed is the wannabes who think just because they
have a DSLR and some other wannabe printed them a diploma, they can undercut
real Professionals prices. It's not until they get the first letter of
demand on their cards, they realize if you don't charge enough to make a
(seemingly) obscene profit, you won't make enough to replace you camera at
50,000 clicks of using it like a machine gun in the stupid belief you'll get
at least some good pictures if you shoot a couple of thousand!
Most of my brides reserve all their spending money for one portrait and a
hand made album. They rely on the proofs for the rest of their memories. I
haven't seen too many "bright young Photographers" who have grasped the
concept that the first reason for being in business is to make money, much
less be willing to plan and have the ability to create that one portrait
which sells for twice the price of the whole wedding.
If you are good enough at managing people, if your efforts to date have all
been photographing people and you don't drink or smoke (oh yeah-- That's the
curly one) then maybe you might have a snowflake's hope in hell of getting
into that 8% who make a living at it. You are too pre occupied with other
things to get into the 2% who are successful at it. Why don't you see about
getting a concession in a shopping centre to take kids pics? It's a lot
easier.
punishs...@nospam.com
only_...@the.group says...
And I thought the music business was a rip. After reading this I now
think I'm lucky to be in the music biz and not trying to take pics for a
living. :)
Jeremy Nixon
> I'm interested in hearing from people around the world on their thoughts
> regarding choosing wedding photography as a vocation. If you could take
> a moment to answer these questions, I would be most appreciative of your
> input.
I did weddings while in college, which might count as some experience; I
was working for someone else, though, so I have none with the actual business
of things. I didn't do any selling or anything, I just went where they sent
me.
> 1. Where do you see yourself on the socio-economic scale regarding your
> income? i.e. well above average, above average, average, below average,
> well below average.
One big reason I abandoned photography in general as a profession is because
you can make more money for less work doing just about anything else.
I can afford to do the photography I want because I'm not a professional
photographer.
(This is discounting those few superstars, of course.)
> 2. Do you do it full time as your only source of income or purely as a
> part-time supplement to existing income? If you are doing it full time,
> do you only do weddings? If not, what percentage of your income do
> weddings provide?
>
> 3. How many weddings do you do annually?
I did 2 weddings per week -- one on Friday night, one sometime Saturday.
It was enough money for a college kid to make ends meet. Of course, the
big difference is that I was guaranteed to get paid a certain amount, no
worries about making the business work.
(Obviously, as a college kid I was not doing the high-end weddings on
my own. That would have been more money, but requires a bit more
experience. Weddings are hard.)
> 5. Do you find it a rewarding profession? In other words, do you feel
> you could have done something else instead of doing weddings?
If your interest is in photography, and you're looking for a way to make
it your profession, run away. Really. Wedding photography is not about
photography, it's about people. Sure, you need to know the equipment like
you know how to breathe, but when you're out there, it's all about dealing
with people; that's the skill that's going to make the difference for you.
The richer the people having the wedding are, the more this becomes true.
Doing a wedding is often an exercise in navigating a political minefield,
with your success dependent greatly upon whom you make friends with in
the morning. (The mother of the bride is usually key.)
And weddings are hard. You've been to weddings, and it doesn't look like
that big a deal, but it's a situation where you have to get certain things,
you only get one chance to do it, not getting it is a complete disaster,
and everyone seems to be working against you. Getting through that isn't
about being a good photographer.
Also, it sucks having to dress up for a wedding every weekend.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
punishs...@nospam.com
uraniumc...@yahoo.com says...
> I've always wanted to go into divorce photography....
Now that's a plan! Have your office right next door to a tattoo removal
place.
Scott W
snip
> Then I sold my camera to pay the rent because I just learnt the
first lesson
> of business. - It's not about getting work, it's about money and getting
> paid.
>
> The only thing that has changed is the wannabes who think just because they
> have a DSLR and some other wannabe printed them a diploma, they can undercut
> real Professionals prices. It's not until they get the first letter of
> demand on their cards, they realize if you don't charge enough to make a
> (seemingly) obscene profit, you won't make enough to replace you camera at
> 50,000 clicks of using it like a machine gun in the stupid belief you'll get
> at least some good pictures if you shoot a couple of thousand!
>
> Most of my brides reserve all their spending money for one portrait and a
> hand made album. They rely on the proofs for the rest of their memories. I
> haven't seen too many "bright young Photographers" who have grasped the
> concept that the first reason for being in business is to make money, much
> less be willing to plan and have the ability to create that one portrait
> which sells for twice the price of the whole wedding.
Scott
The Dave©
> I've always wanted to go into divorce photography....
I always thought "The Divorce Game" would have been the perfect
follow-up to "The Newleywed Game". Could've maybe even had some of the
same contestants... especially after a good fight when he gave the
wrong answer and she whacked him with the cardboard.
--
"I ain't evil, I'm just good lookin'..."
Basic Wedge
their sole source of income. This, I believe, was written by someone who has
actually seen just how completely impossible it's becoming to earn a living
whilst holding a camera. BigPix, whoever you are, thanks for the words of
wisdom.
Rob
---------------------------
"BigPix" wrote ...
> You can't be serious, Dallas.
> Do you really expect anyone to tell you this sort of information about
> their business?
>
> For every 100 people with cameras who call themselves "Wedding
> Photographers" there are about 8 who actually are...
Skip M
news:1133823614.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I've always wanted to go into divorce photography....
>
>
In all the years I've been around the newsgroups, that is the first funny
thing I've ever seen you say...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Skip M
"BigPix" <only_...@the.group> wrote in message
news:4K2lf.12085$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
> "DD" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1dfe3b418...@news.mweb.co.za...
>> I'm interested in hearing from people around the world on their thoughts
>> regarding choosing wedding photography as a vocation. If you could take
>> a moment to answer these questions, I would be most appreciative of your
>> input.
>>
> You can't be serious, Dallas.
> Do you really expect anyone to tell you this sort of information about
> their business?
>
> For every 100 people with cameras who call themselves "Wedding
> Photographers" there are about 8 who actually are. Of those 8, maybe 2,
> actually make their living doing it without needing to have their spouse
> go to work to support them or have their "real" business fund the pretend
> one.
That would be why I haven't quit my day job. My wife's cousin did it the
other way, quit his job as a photo assistant for several photogs, started
his own business, and, after nearly 10 years at it, finally is making it not
just pay for itself, but he's getting ahead. Way ahead.
OTOH, our wedding business funds itself, but what it doesn't have to do is
fund the mortgage, car, Christmas, etc.
uw wayne
benefits are better...much better!
William Graham
This can be a very lucrative business....but they call themselves Private
Investigators.......
Skip M
news:1133829994.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You can make more $$$ shooting boudoir....+ sometimes the fringe
> benefits are better...much better!
>
And you can't really make more money at boudoir, just stay busier.
Rich
wrote:
Consider yourself lucky you didn't get indicted for fraud.
-Rich
uw wayne
nice material on shadow...Thanks for sharing, uw_w.
Skip M
> Skip, it was my attempt at a little humor. I was only kidding. Very
> nice material on shadow...Thanks for sharing, uw_w.
>
<G>
I just had a prolonged discussion with someone, person to person, on that
very subject, but in a serious vein, so my humor was a little impaired at
that point.
And thanks for the kind words!
DD
only_...@the.group says...
<snip>
Douglas, if you don't want to answer the questions (which I might add
are pretty innocuous), ignore them.
Simple really.
Chrlz
>Why don't you see about getting a concession in a shopping centre
>to take kids pics? It's a lot easier.
(applause) - nice post, BigPix..
Frankly, if you are asking those questions, DD, you're not even close
to ready, nor have you done any homework..
And before you ask, yes, I did weddings a for a few years, working for
a metropolitan studio with a very good name, using Bronica MF equipment
in the days well before digital. It was interesting and I learnt a lot
(and had a 3 month apprenticeship while I did that learning under
supervision), but after about a year, it became hard to inject fresh
ideas and be excited by the results. The clients still loved my stuff
(it was fresh to *them*), but I lost interest and found it was eating
into what had been an enjoyable hobby. I stopped before it killed my
photography, and it took a couple of years to get re-motivated.
You need to be an organiser - in fact you will end up running a lot of
the wedding becasue no-one else wants to, and they will quickly realise
you know what you are doing! You need to be flexible and patient, yet
quick to react, you need absolute faith in, and knowledge of, your
equipment (of which you must have two of everything if you are
serious), you need to understand the protocols of churches, religions
and cultures and be able to discuss options in detail with couples and
their families, ministers and celebrants, you need backup areas/plans
for bad weather, you need to be able to diplomatically deal with the
inevitable morons (eg who will set up video lights in the church
without even asking permission, etc) and you need to know your market.
I see little evidence of most of those...
But there is also the 'downmarket'. Plenty of folk couldn't tell the
difference between good wedding photography and their... They will be
satisfied with almost anything - although if your prices are too high,
they will get Uncle Arthur to do it because he has a professional
looking camera and a flashgun..
DD
ch...@go.com says...
In case it wasn't clear in the original post, I am merely interested in
hearing from people who do this for a living. I have absolutely no
desire to become a wedding photographer, but I am intrigued by the
amount of money that seems to be changing hands for this service.
I looked at a few US Wedding photographers sites and the average price
for a wedding seems to run at about $2,500 per date. Assuming the
photographer books a minimum of 4 shoots of this nature per month, that
rounds out at $10k gross. Take off about 25% for costs (being generous
here given the output that seems to be offered) the "average" wedding
photographer should be grossing in the region of $7,500 per month. Is
that not an above average income for working only a few days per month?
This thread is not intended to be about whether you are good enough or
whether you can deal with people. I am interested in the financial
aspects of running a wedding photography business ONLY.
Andy
DD <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote:
I'm a pro Tog in the Uk I shoot 40-60 weddings a year as well as studio
work, press work, and general commercial work..
Weddings are my mainstay business
I use a Canon 1Dsmk2 with a Kodak DCS 14c as backup
lenses
EL 17-35 2.8
EL 28-70 2.8
EL 70-210 2.8
85mm f1.2
550ex Flashgun and Hensel Porty Kit
(also Metz hammerhead sometimes)
4gb ridata x80 CFcards
I carry a 20"LCD I-mac portable computer and a canon projector with me
My wife is my assistant and carries a 350d with a sigma 28-70 f2.8 and a
2gb microdrive. but mainly she carries a reflector...<lol>
My insurance is just over 1000 ukp per year, equipment overheads are
about 2000 ukp per year and my advertising budget is 3500ukp per year.
Hope that helps...
Andy
Al Denelsbeck
news:MPG.1dff9ee12...@news.mweb.co.za:
<snippage>
>
> In case it wasn't clear in the original post, I am merely interested in
> hearing from people who do this for a living. I have absolutely no
> desire to become a wedding photographer, but I am intrigued by the
> amount of money that seems to be changing hands for this service.
>
> I looked at a few US Wedding photographers sites and the average price
> for a wedding seems to run at about $2,500 per date. Assuming the
> photographer books a minimum of 4 shoots of this nature per month, that
> rounds out at $10k gross. Take off about 25% for costs (being generous
> here given the output that seems to be offered) the "average" wedding
> photographer should be grossing in the region of $7,500 per month. Is
> that not an above average income for working only a few days per month?
>
> This thread is not intended to be about whether you are good enough or
> whether you can deal with people. I am interested in the financial
> aspects of running a wedding photography business ONLY.
Several factors that you're missing with the above figures (and this
is from someone who did it as a sideline income and isn't motivated to go
"pro")...
First off, 25% for costs is way low. Digital or not, you're going to
get the prints done at a lab, and a trustworthy one at that, because two
screwups and you're behind schedule, and unhappy clients have this problem
with paying (not to mention lawsuits). So the pro lab costs alone push a
typical print package into the $200 to $500 range, depending on package.
Sure, digital takes film and processing out of that - $7.00 a roll,
typically. Ain't much of a drop.
Consider the costs of the album, too - never less than $30 for a
cheesy one, and you can spend $200 on a good one.
Paying an assistant? How much?
*Now* calculate advertising. Nice Yellow Page (telephone directory)
ad runs +/- $200 month, and that's just a start. You should be running ads
in the wedding directories as well, and handouts for the places that will
garner you business (wedding dress shops, floral shops, caterers, DJs, the
nice places to hold the weddings), and so on. Advertising is likely to be
the most expensive part. Half of your business may come from word-of-mouth,
but this varies depending on the metro area, and the more 'networking'
that's available, typically, the more competition from other photographers.
Equipment purchase and upkeep. Sometimes you can get by on this
cheaply, sometimes not.
Business costs - licenses, insurance, admin.
Couple days a week? Unless you plan to meet with the client three
times: sales meeting, planning meeting, and proof review (after the
wedding). Not to mention the sales meetings that never produce a client.
Add in the time you spend running back and forth to the lab, keeping
records, wedding shows, etc. Many people have a tendency to look at it as
if their time is "free", but when you're doing this on top of another job,
and realize you have to answer the phone *every time*, juggle meetings,
arrange schedules, and sit down and balance the accounts, all of a sudden
you're resenting the fact that you have no time to yourself and dammit, at
least want to be paid for it...
Now. How long is your busy season? In the states it varies depending
on temperate zone, but on average you're looking at May through September
for a decent amount of bookings, and maybe one or two a month for the other
months if you're good. Maybe not. Reverse that of course for the southern
hemisphere.
Then there's that other part, and here's where most small businesses
blow it (and I'm not just referring to weddings here): capital. Most of
your expenses are "up front": advertising, materials, equipment,
processing. Getting paid after the wedding tends to run anywhere from 4
weeks afterwards, bare minimum, to over a year for the slow ones. Can you
support a year of just Yellow Page ads ($2400) with no income? Is your
portfolio ready to go, in a nice album, so you have something to show your
first potential client? A nice variety so you can answer the question, "Do
you do photojournalistic style?" ;-)
I'm not saying this to be discouraging, but it ain't easy money, and
has to be approached as a serious business. Some costs can be spaced out or
scrimped on, some can't. For instance, the advertising always has to be
there, whether you're working or not, and even when you're selling $800
packages.
And I'm skipping the whole "salesman" bit, which is an entirely
different, but very necessary, aspect... ;-)
Good luck!
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
no_name
>>...(good stuff snipped)...
>>Why don't you see about getting a concession in a shopping centre
>>to take kids pics? It's a lot easier.
>
>
> (applause) - nice post, BigPix..
>
> Frankly, if you are asking those questions, DD, you're not even close
> to ready, nor have you done any homework..
OTOH, those questions ARE the homework. At least the beginnings.
no_name
Bill 4 - 7 times costs. Include the cost of your own time at some given
rate.
I figure my time at $60/hour, but I'm just starting out, and that's what
the company I used to work for charged for my time when I was a computer
tech.
Bandicoot
>
Now look, you've made me spill my tea...
ROTFL...
Peter
Bandicoot
news:11p9glr...@corp.supernews.com...
[SNIP]
>
> I can afford to do the photography I want because I'm not a
> professional photographer.
REALLY good point. I am a professioanl photographer, I don't touch
weddings, and no, I (still) can't afford to do half of what I would _enjoy_
doing, photographically.
> Wedding photography is not about photography, it's about people.
> Sure, you need to know the equipment like you know how to
> breathe, but when you're out there, it's all about dealing with
> people; that's the skill that's going to make the difference for you.
Second REALLY good point. I have a second cousin who does weddings. He is
a skilled photographer who makes the technical aspects of the job
'disappear' so they don't get in the way - but the reason he is so good
isn't that: it's because he can make everyone he meets both like him, and do
what he tells them. That's a rare skill.
Peter
Charles Self
And you have the fiscal aspects totally screwed up. You do not just gross
$7500 a month for a few days work and call it income. Or $10,000, whichever
figure you choose. You have an investment of thousands in equipment. You
have invested many hours in learning. You have office and studio and
location expenses that are appreciable if you're getting an artist's price
for weddings.
For a good photographer, I'd expect a $2500 wedding to cost him about $1000
by the time albums are delivered. And for the remaining $1500, he can figure
in equipment amortization and similar expenses for office and studio and
advertising that add another $500 to the total. That leaves him making an
immense before tax profit for "a few days' work" of a grand or so. His few
days' work start with designing ads, business cards and similar little
whatnots that are part of today's business world. Oh, yeah. And paying for
them. Then he has several phone calls to field while setting up a wedding to
shoot, starting with call #1, running through contract signing time and
engagement photos (if any), and going from there to the wedding a few hours
early, where he unpacks and prowls around to make sure he has all the sites
still in his mind from his attendance at rehearsal.
Then he spends two to four or six hours shooting photos to the best of his
ability, and goes back to the shop to spend whatever time is needed making
those photos as close to perfect as possible...maybe two more days, on top
of at least two days work.
So we're looking at something like a before tax profit of a grand, for 4-1/2
days a week of hard, creative (one hopes) work.
Not bad. 52K a year, from which you get to buy all your bennies, pay Unka
Sammy taxes (and both sides of Social Security, which amounts to 15.3% of
the after expenses total). Walk around bucks MAY be as high as $750.
Not bad for a few days' easy work, eh? And, of course, there's no pressure,
no interference, and it's a wonderful life. Nuts. I'd rather shoot rattlers
around my ankles than do weddings. Come to think of it, I've done both, and
the rattlers were easier to control. Just drop the temperature in the room.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
around with the divorcee!
The Dave©
> > Wedding photography is not about photography, it's about people.
> > Sure, you need to know the equipment like you know how to
> > breathe, but when you're out there, it's all about dealing with
> > people; that's the skill that's going to make the difference for
> > you.
>
> Second REALLY good point. I have a second cousin who does weddings.
> He is a skilled photographer who makes the technical aspects of the
> job 'disappear' so they don't get in the way - but the reason he is
> so good isn't that: it's because he can make everyone he meets both
> like him, and do what he tells them. That's a rare skill.
That's the main reason I could never do weddings. I just don't have
the patience for dealing with people like that, and I know it would
show in the results.
BigPix
"DD" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dff9ee12...@news.mweb.co.za...
> In article <1133861805.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> In case it wasn't clear in the original post, I am merely interested in
> hearing from people who do this for a living. I have absolutely no
> desire to become a wedding photographer, but I am intrigued by the
> amount of money that seems to be changing hands for this service.
>
> I looked at a few US Wedding photographers sites and the average price
> for a wedding seems to run at about $2,500 per date. Assuming the
> photographer books a minimum of 4 shoots of this nature per month, that
> rounds out at $10k gross. Take off about 25% for costs (being generous
> here given the output that seems to be offered) the "average" wedding
> photographer should be grossing in the region of $7,500 per month. Is
> that not an above average income for working only a few days per month?
>
> This thread is not intended to be about whether you are good enough or
> whether you can deal with people. I am interested in the financial
> aspects of running a wedding photography business ONLY.
> --
> DD
> www.dallasdahms.com
> Central Scrutinizer
Way off target here Dallas...
You won't get the answers you are seeking. Try asking your doctor to justify
his income, you'll have more chance of success. The grass is always greener
on the other side of the fence, mate. Particularly if you live in the desert
:-) Come on down to the tropics and see how bad it gets with all this green
grass.
Behind my 324i BMW, the studio full of expensive cameras and the manicured
gardens I maintain (at a cost of many hundreds of dollars a week) for bridal
and portrait photography - all to impress people into spending money - there
is a huge mortgage, burdening me with over a grand of debt payment every
week for the next 20 years.
I pay for it all mostly from the profits I get from other business ventures.
If I had to support this sort of lifestyle out of Wedding photography alone,
I couldn't do it yet to the casual observer, I'm doing well out of it. Same
mistake you are making, Dallas. Read my first post to this thread... Nothing
could be truer yet you choose not to accept it. Your loss mate.
Poverty is relative. When I'm doing it hard, you could be living high on the
hoof. When Goldie Horn is broke, I could pay out my mortgage with a single
month's rent she pays. Why do you want to know so much about other people's
business if you have no interest other than curiosity? Here are a few words
of advise Dallas:
"Ours is but to do and die, not to question the reason why".
William Graham
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:113388071...@damia.uk.clara.net...
but the reason he is so good
> isn't that: it's because he can make everyone he meets both like him, and
> do
> what he tells them. That's a rare skill.
>
I hate people like that, and I make it a point to never do what they
want.....:^)
BigPix
"Charles Self" <charl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:_Oilf.128119$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Not bad for a few days' easy work, eh? And, of course, there's no
> pressure, no interference, and it's a wonderful life. Nuts. I'd rather
> shoot rattlers around my ankles than do weddings. Come to think of it,
> I've done both, and the rattlers were easier to control. Just drop the
> temperature in the room.
>
How do I get into the rattler shooting business Charles? Sounds like it
might be profitable (for a change)?
Charles Self
news:EJadnZ-cUdx0nwve...@comcast.com...
You're like me: jealous of them. I can readily get people to do what I want,
but they sure won't like me afterwards.
Charles Self
are non-existent.
Floyd Davidson
>>> Not bad for a few days' easy work, eh? And, of course, there's no
>>> pressure, no interference, and it's a wonderful life. Nuts. I'd rather
>>> shoot rattlers around my ankles than do weddings. Come to think of it,
>>> I've done both, and the rattlers were easier to control. Just drop the
>>> temperature in the room.
>>>
>> How do I get into the rattler shooting business Charles? Sounds like it
>> might be profitable (for a change)?
>
>Sell and write an article on venomous snakes. The pay sucks, and the bennies
>are non-existent.
It's one of those businesses where, if you are successful, you
just manage to stay alive... ;-)
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Floyd Davidson
>>> but the reason he is so good
>>> isn't that: it's because he can make everyone he meets both like him, and
>>> do
>>> what he tells them. That's a rare skill.
>>>
>> I hate people like that, and I make it a point to never do what they
>> want.....:^)
>
>You're like me: jealous of them. I can readily get people to do what I want,
>but they sure won't like me afterwards.
Leadership is the art of getting people to do what you want them
to, and thinking it was their idea to start with.
(The main step is giving others credit for coming up with your
idea all on their own! The crew gets credit for every specific
thing they do, the leader gets credit only for having an
effective crew. This mechanism is *most* important when
individuals do have ideas...)
Skip M
You'd be right if it were only a few days a month that we work. But it
takes several days to postprocess and edit a thousand or so images
(presuming an 8 hour wedding, two photographers) and then there are albums
to design, prints to order, etc. It's about 30-40 hrs per week, exclusive
of the wedding. Still not bad, but more hours than most people think. And
then there's promotional work, meeting with prospective clients, bridal
shows (we just did one last Sunday), gear to maintain, and so on.
We have about 20 weddings booked for the next year, already. And they
average about $2000 per. After Jan. we will probably book the rest of the
year, the holidays are a prime time for proposals.
Skip M
news:113388071...@damia.uk.clara.net...
>
> is
> a skilled photographer who makes the technical aspects of the job
> 'disappear' so they don't get in the way - but the reason he is so good
> isn't that: it's because he can make everyone he meets both like him, and
> do
> what he tells them. That's a rare skill.
>
That's my wife's job! ;-)
imo...@tpg.com.au
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Funny. I tried viewing your site at work. Look at what the smart
content filter brought back.
Access denied by SmartFilter content category
The requested URL belongs to the following categoriesNudityPornography.
Proconsul
Funny, indeed - I tried the site and found nothing pornographic on
it.....mostly wedding pictures....
PC
Skip M
<imo...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:1133916833.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
website. I had some images published in "How to Photograph the Nude," which
of course, I note in my Bio, and there are some nudes on the site, since
that is what I've shown in galleries. I do so love the knee jerk connection
between "nude" and "pornography" in these United States...
Jeremy Nixon
> I looked at a few US Wedding photographers sites and the average price
> for a wedding seems to run at about $2,500 per date. Assuming the
> photographer books a minimum of 4 shoots of this nature per month, that
> rounds out at $10k gross. Take off about 25% for costs (being generous
> here given the output that seems to be offered) the "average" wedding
> photographer should be grossing in the region of $7,500 per month. Is
> that not an above average income for working only a few days per month?
Your estimate of expenses is woefully low, and your estimate of time
spent working is laughably low.
Charge $2500 for a wedding, and do it well, and you're barely scraping by.
> This thread is not intended to be about whether you are good enough or
> whether you can deal with people. I am interested in the financial
> aspects of running a wedding photography business ONLY.
You might as well be interested in the financial aspects of being a plumber,
if you're going to compare what they charge to what a person makes in a
normal salary. That has very little to do with running a business.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
uw wayne
about as obscene as the sculptures in Greece and Rome. By the time
the"arts police" get finished we will have every sculpture or print
look like a tour inside the Vatican...Photoshop a fig leaf on
everything. This certainly ain't the age of enlightenment.
Skip M
news:1133922248....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
abridgement of my right to free speech. I admit that businesses have a
right to limit access to the internet from company owned computers, but that
limitation should be to all non business related sites, not just ones that
the management deems "unacceptable."
no_name
Google SmartFilter & find out how it selects sites for its databases.
Then go back and really look around the Shadow Catcher site.
Click on the link for "Fine Art", you'll find the WORD "nudes", which is
apparently sufficient to get them black-listed as a porn site.
no_name
FWIW the censorware lists also block pictures of those Greek & Roman
sculptures. The Vatican's art collection too.
Jim Redelfs
wrote:
> Actually, I've been considering pitching this to the ACLU
Aw, Skip. :(
Finally, after all this time you finally posted something I disagree with. I
wouldn't touch the ACLU with a 10-ft pole. In fact, I consider it a rather
urgent priority that the organization be DE-funded.
> it is a clear abridgement of my right to free speech.
I respectfully disagree.
That the provider of computer on-line services blocks access to your website
isn't even a MURKY, much less CLEAR, infringement of your right to free speech.
> I admit that businesses have a right to limit access to the internet from
> company owned computers, but that limitation should be to all non business
> related sites, not just ones that the management deems "unacceptable."
Again, I disagree.
It has become sound business practice to restrict or deny access to particular
sites and domains OUTSIDE the business's intRAnet. Among other things, this
helps keep non-business consumption of bandwidth (resources) in check.
A good friend is IT geek at a local, VERY prominent university. Back when
Napster was going strong, the U kept adding T1 connections ($$$$$etc) only to
see the bandwidth promptly consumed by ever more dormitory downloaders. Some
time later, the school installed a software "throttle" that, quite literally,
throttled-back the bandwidth to a configurable list of sites and domains. DLs
from Napster slowed to a VERY leisurely pace. You'll notice they did not DENY
access. Rather, they just assigned a higher priority on bandwidth used to
access university sites.
That access to your fine site was blocked by some software package certainly
isn't surprising, particularly if the word "nude" is on the first/banner page.
Back in the BBS days, I had to make special accommodations on my board to
allow access to my daughter's boyfriend. His surname is Mitchell. You'll
notice it has "hell" in the word. Yep. It tripped-up the mostly brain-dead
"objectionable language" interception process for new sign-ups.
I wrote a simple email to my wife at her work. It was to advise that I had
transferred funds between our checking accounts. The Subject was "Money
Transferred". The message was temporarily intercepted by their anti-spam
routines. I can only assume it was due to the word "money" in the Subject.
(As in Make Money Fast, I guess.)
In days past, one could encode their HTML so that email addresses on web pages
were coded in hex. This apparently camouflaged the email address so web
crawlers didn't catch it for spam purposes. I suppose the same thing could be
done for words such as "nude" (etc). Whether doing that TODAY would elude the
type of software that blocked your site for the OP is unknown.
How do you like your 5D? (Topical, right? <grin>)
:)
JR
Skip M
"Jim Redelfs" <jim.r...@redelfs.com> wrote in message
news:jim.redelfs-641E...@news.central.cox.net...
> In article <Deslf.115$6N2.113@fed1read06>, "Skip M"
> <shadow...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I've been considering pitching this to the ACLU
>
> Aw, Skip. :(
>
> Finally, after all this time you finally posted something I disagree with.
> I
> wouldn't touch the ACLU with a 10-ft pole. In fact, I consider it a
> rather
> urgent priority that the organization be DE-funded.
Nah, this country is in desperate need of a devil's advocate, if nothing
else...
>
>> it is a clear abridgement of my right to free speech.
>
> I respectfully disagree.
>
> That the provider of computer on-line services blocks access to your
> website
> isn't even a MURKY, much less CLEAR, infringement of your right to free
> speech.
Well, actually, I was really thinking of some government systems that had
blocked access to our site, rather than a business one, but, in a way, it's
the same.
>
>> I admit that businesses have a right to limit access to the internet
>> from
>> company owned computers, but that limitation should be to all non
>> business
>> related sites, not just ones that the management deems "unacceptable."
>
> Again, I disagree.
>
> It has become sound business practice to restrict or deny access to
> particular
> sites and domains OUTSIDE the business's intRAnet. Among other things,
> this
> helps keep non-business consumption of bandwidth (resources) in check.
That's what I meant, it should relate to websites that don't pertain to the
business, not just ones that say "nude" somewhere on it.
Absolutely love it! I'm rediscovering lenses that I'd pretty much quit
shooting with on my 20D, like my 100mm f2. And the image quality is just
short of stunning!
Skip M
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"no_name" <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
news:kAslf.1856$7b4.7...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
DD
ne...@wadingin.net says...
> Several factors that you're missing with the above figures (and this
> is from someone who did it as a sideline income and isn't motivated to go
> "pro")...
>
> First off, 25% for costs is way low. Digital or not, you're going to
> get the prints done at a lab, and a trustworthy one at that, because two
> screwups and you're behind schedule, and unhappy clients have this problem
> with paying (not to mention lawsuits). So the pro lab costs alone push a
> typical print package into the $200 to $500 range, depending on package.
> Sure, digital takes film and processing out of that - $7.00 a roll,
> typically. Ain't much of a drop.
Eh? How much are you paying for a print and how many prints does the
average US wedding photographer supply to the bride & groom? Based on
our local figures, if you are supplying <say> 120 5x7's and 10 8x12's
with an album <Henzo> you shouldn't be paying more than $150. Surely?
Proconsul
No need - my point was simply to point out that the site is benign,
regardless of what SmartFilter says.....
It's SmartFilter that folks should be taking issue with.....
PC
DD
charl...@worldnet.att.net says...
> And you have the fiscal aspects totally screwed up. You do not just gross
> $7500 a month for a few days work and call it income. Or $10,000, whichever
> figure you choose. You have an investment of thousands in equipment. You
> have invested many hours in learning. You have office and studio and
> location expenses that are appreciable if you're getting an artist's price
> for weddings.
Show me a business, any business, where there are no initial capital
investments or overheads? You don't need an office or a studio to be a
wedding photographer. You need a computer and a desk at home. Most
people have those already.
I don't mean any disrespect to wedding photographers who look at things
the way you have just described here, but $52k p.a. sounds like a good
deal to me.
DD
only_...@the.group says...
> Way off target here Dallas...
> You won't get the answers you are seeking. Try asking your doctor to justify
> his income, you'll have more chance of success. The grass is always greener
> on the other side of the fence, mate. Particularly if you live in the desert
> :-) Come on down to the tropics and see how bad it gets with all this green
> grass.
Er, I think we're near enough to the tropics here.
> Behind my 324i BMW, the studio full of expensive cameras and the manicured
> gardens I maintain (at a cost of many hundreds of dollars a week) for bridal
> and portrait photography - all to impress people into spending money - there
> is a huge mortgage, burdening me with over a grand of debt payment every
> week for the next 20 years.
Aw gee, Doug. Poor you. I guess you must be the only person in the world
who has expenses.
> I pay for it all mostly from the profits I get from other business ventures.
> If I had to support this sort of lifestyle out of Wedding photography alone,
> I couldn't do it yet to the casual observer, I'm doing well out of it. Same
> mistake you are making, Dallas. Read my first post to this thread... Nothing
> could be truer yet you choose not to accept it. Your loss mate.
I'm a businessman. I look at stuff with one thing in mind: how much
profit would a business like that yield? Would it be worth investing
one's time and money into it?
I look at wedding photographers and I wonder why, if the business is so
tough and the rewards so sparse, there are so many people who keep on
doing it.
> Poverty is relative. When I'm doing it hard, you could be living high on the
> hoof. When Goldie Horn is broke, I could pay out my mortgage with a single
> month's rent she pays. Why do you want to know so much about other people's
> business if you have no interest other than curiosity? Here are a few words
> of advise Dallas:
>
> "Ours is but to do and die, not to question the reason why".
Correction: "Yours is but to do or die, mine is to question why." Always
has been, probably always will be. The sooner you realise that we are
not all cut from the same cloth, the easier it becomes to get along.
DD
That's pretty good money, don't you think?
Personally I wouldn't take 1000 photos at any event, but I suppose there
are two sides to every coin.
DD
says...
> DD <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote:
>
> > I looked at a few US Wedding photographers sites and the average price
> > for a wedding seems to run at about $2,500 per date. Assuming the
> > photographer books a minimum of 4 shoots of this nature per month, that
> > rounds out at $10k gross. Take off about 25% for costs (being generous
> > here given the output that seems to be offered) the "average" wedding
> > photographer should be grossing in the region of $7,500 per month. Is
> > that not an above average income for working only a few days per month?
>
> Your estimate of expenses is woefully low, and your estimate of time
> spent working is laughably low.
>
> Charge $2500 for a wedding, and do it well, and you're barely scraping by.
Well, can somebody show me the income statement and balance sheet of the
average wedding photographer so as to justify what you are saying here?
Scraping by my ass...
> > This thread is not intended to be about whether you are good enough or
> > whether you can deal with people. I am interested in the financial
> > aspects of running a wedding photography business ONLY.
>
> You might as well be interested in the financial aspects of being a plumber,
> if you're going to compare what they charge to what a person makes in a
> normal salary. That has very little to do with running a business.
What's your point, Jeremy?
Scott W
> In article <11pcf8h...@corp.supernews.com>, jer...@exit109.com
> says...
> > DD <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I looked at a few US Wedding photographers sites and the average price
> > > for a wedding seems to run at about $2,500 per date. Assuming the
> > > photographer books a minimum of 4 shoots of this nature per month, that
> > > rounds out at $10k gross. Take off about 25% for costs (being generous
> > > here given the output that seems to be offered) the "average" wedding
> > > photographer should be grossing in the region of $7,500 per month. Is
> > > that not an above average income for working only a few days per month?
> >
> > Your estimate of expenses is woefully low, and your estimate of time
> > spent working is laughably low.
> >
> > Charge $2500 for a wedding, and do it well, and you're barely scraping by.
>
> Well, can somebody show me the income statement and balance sheet of the
> average wedding photographer so as to justify what you are saying here?
>
> Scraping by my ass...
I am with you one this one, at $2500 / week you should be doing a lot
more then scraping by.
Scott
DD
bip...@hotmail.com says...
> > Well, can somebody show me the income statement and balance sheet of the
> > average wedding photographer so as to justify what you are saying here?
> >
> > Scraping by my ass...
>
> I am with you one this one, at $2500 / week you should be doing a lot
> more then scraping by.
I'm beginning to think its a form of subterfuge employed by wedding
photographers to dissuede more people from entering this lucrative
market!
Jeremy Nixon
>> Charge $2500 for a wedding, and do it well, and you're barely scraping by.
>
> Well, can somebody show me the income statement and balance sheet of the
> average wedding photographer so as to justify what you are saying here?
>
> Scraping by my ass...
Yeah, a lot of business fail because of such assumptions.
>> You might as well be interested in the financial aspects of being a plumber,
>> if you're going to compare what they charge to what a person makes in a
>> normal salary. That has very little to do with running a business.
>
> What's your point, Jeremy?
That "charging $2500" is not the same thing as "making $2500".
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
BigPix
> average US wedding photographer supply to the bride & groom? Based on
> our local figures, if you are supplying <say> 120 5x7's and 10 8x12's
> with an album <Henzo> you shouldn't be paying more than $150. Surely?
>
> --
> DD
> www.dallasdahms.com
> Central Scrutinizer
Get out of Wal-Mart and try a Professional Specialist lab which specialises
in Wedding work. The idea an album costs what you include is ludicrous in
the extreme.
Steve Wolfe
> specialises in Wedding work. The idea an album costs what you include is
> ludicrous in the extreme.
I don't think they specialize in wedding work per se, but I use White
House Custom Color, and they're a far cry from Walmart - I *will* get
exactly what I send them, without question, and the prints are outstanding.
I've never been unhappy with a single print, and neither has a customer, and
for the prints he quoted (120 5x7, 10 8x12), the total bill would come out
to... $62. Including shipping. If I were to mess up the order and submit
them as ordinary prints, and not proofs (which are the same quality, they
just give you the bulk pricing on proofs), it would still only come out to
$148. Sure, it takes three or four days to get them back, but I'm alright
with that.
If I go to the local "specialist" shop, then yes, it would run a few
hundred dollars more. The funny part about that is that the specialist shop
uses the same printers and same paper as White House (really!), the price
doesn't include anything but the prints, and they still take about two days
to get them back to me. I would just be giving some guy a couple of hundred
bucks extra for no benefit to myself. If that's how you like to do
business, that's fine, but it's not really my style.
steve
BigPix
Well you are part way right in that Dallas. The problem with business in
general today, is that more people are willing to jump in at the deep end
without consideration for the consequences. My studio is in a shire on the
outskirts of a significant city. Currently that shire supports 5 (lets say
reputable for want of a better word) Wedding photographers and about 40
wannabes. There are 50,000 houses in this shire.
I get about 7 requests a year to fix or reshoot a Wedding one of these
wannabes has stuffed up. That is significant when the average studio shoots
25 to 30 weddings a year. None of the wannabes accept responsibility for
their actions and all use a mini-lab to print their pictures and all of them
to a 'T', charge less than $500 AUD and provide more and more quantity and
less and less quality each year. The latest offering from my favourite
wannabe to hate is 600 pictures, posted to the Internet within 24 hours of
the shoot at a resolution I've been able to make 8" x 10" prints from for
$400 cash. Hell man, I spend 3 days working on pictures just to get a
hundred I'm satisfied with. I might spend 2 day on one picture alone if it's
to be a canvas portrait.
If these people who I look on like weeds - pull one out and two more pop up
in their place - didn't exist, I could reduce my expenses and make more
money. And like you say, this is what business is about. I won't bother with
justification of my own income, if you think 57k a year is good money for a
self employed business person, then you have no idea of a profitable
business and how to acquire wealth. This is a borderline income when one
single camera with a fixed lifespan costs $5000, not to mention the cost of
the second and third one or the lenses and other gear needed to ply your
trade with any degree of professionalism.
It is true that a single person operating a K1000 pentax (or whatever a
Leica equivalent is) and a reflection board covered in cooking foil which an
assistant having half an eye for lighting could hold, might indeed shoot a
wedding and get the films developed at Kmart or any discount lab and turn a
profit by charging $400. Ask yourself first, how many fathers borrowing
$20k for their daughter's wedding are actually interested in the uncertainty
of such a thing?
If a business is going to succeed, it has to have a target client base. If
you see your client base as those looking to pay $400 or thereabouts for
photographing their daughter's wedding, go for it mate, there must be some
around. I can sell you a hundred rolls of close dated Konica film for 50¢ a
roll to get you started too. Or maybe you think you can do it with the film
you get back every time you put one in for processing?
I payed out $23k AUD last year in advertising and event promotion alone. I
also paid out a further $18k for replacement and purchase of equipment. I'll
probably do the same next year. My rent for a 50 square metre shop I use as
a reception studio was another $8300 AUD and the electricity bill to keep it
air-conditioned was $1500 AUD. My bill last month for wedding albums (5 of
them) including photos was just a beer under $5k. although it is closer to
$2k in an average month.
My target client is a middle to upper income family with a fully owned house
who has or is about to borrow upwards of $20k for their daughter's wedding.
These clients will turn their back on you if you even suggest you can do
something cheap or cheaper. They are paying out big bucks to celebrate a
once in a lifetime occasion and they sure as hell don't want some fool
shaking a silver board around to get the light right, interfering with their
day.
But you have alerted me to something I wasn't quite aware of until you
started plucking figures out of your head. That is the method of assessment
you are using to judge people on their income. It is flawed in the extreme
and I am surprised more people haven't pulled you up on it. Maybe where you
live there is no wealth?
Steve Wolfe
>> more then scraping by.
>
> I'm beginning to think its a form of subterfuge employed by wedding
> photographers to dissuede more people from entering this lucrative
> market!
Here's a true story: I personally know a photographer who specializes in
photographing construction sites. He gets to fly around in a helicopter,
and take pictures - and won't even get out of bed for less than four
figures. This guy is rolling in the money, really. Just his watch
collection alone cost in the mid-six-figure range. His 10-year old wears a
Rolex. He's definitely not scraping by.
He's had so many people ask him to shoot weddings (which he doesn't like
to do), that he hired a grad student to go shoot weddings for him. He gets
a booking, he sends the grad student, prints proofs, and hands the entire
package - negatives and all - to the customer. And his prices are
definately on the "reasonable" end of the scale. He does very little work
on that side of the business, yet he's told me that he clears $70,000 a year
for himself out of it. That's AFTER paying the grad student.
Yes, there's money to be made as a wedding photographer. The trick is
that you have to be both a good photographer and a good businessman, and
sadly, most wedding photographers come up short on one or the other.
As a side note, the guy with the watch collection showed me a watch that
cost him something like $50,000. It has a transmitter in it, and if he
pulls out the antenna, it will start transmitting - and no matter where he
is in the world, someone will come to rescue him. I think that the
*minimum* bill for a "rescue" is $10,000. My first thought was that he had
some James Bond fetish or something, so I asked him "Do you really need
that?" He said that he'd been in three seperate helicopter crashes, two of
which were in the Amazon. I said "Alright, I guess you do."
steve
DD
only_...@the.group says...
>
> "DD" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e009b4fd...@news.mweb.co.za...
> > In article <Xns97245E7CB6EF0sa...@66.26.32.8>,
> > ne...@wadingin.net says...
> >
> >
> > Eh? How much are you paying for a print and how many prints does the
> > average US wedding photographer supply to the bride & groom? Based on
> > our local figures, if you are supplying <say> 120 5x7's and 10 8x12's
> > with an album <Henzo> you shouldn't be paying more than $150. Surely?
> Get out of Wal-Mart and try a Professional Specialist lab which specialises
> in Wedding work. The idea an album costs what you include is ludicrous in
> the extreme.
Wal-mart? I don't think so, Tim.
I use a variety of labs, a couple of which operate under the banner of
being "pro" labs, and their prices are generally cheaper than what the
average Joe pays at the supermarket.
BTW, how does a lab specialise in "Wedding work"? Do they turn away
anyone who is not printing photos that were taken at a wedding???
Tony Parkinson
> "BigPix" <only_...@the.group> wrote ...
> >
> > How do I get into the rattler shooting business Charles? Sounds like it
> > might be profitable (for a change)?
>
> Sell and write an article on venomous snakes. The pay sucks, and the
bennies
> are non-existent.
>
Toothless rattlers then ?
DD
only_...@the.group says...
> Well you are part way right in that Dallas. The problem with business in
> general today, is that more people are willing to jump in at the deep end
> without consideration for the consequences. My studio is in a shire on the
> outskirts of a significant city. Currently that shire supports 5 (lets say
> reputable for want of a better word) Wedding photographers and about 40
> wannabes. There are 50,000 houses in this shire.
Again, I am not interested in becoming a pro wedding photographer. I am
simply interested in it from a business perspective.
> It is true that a single person operating a K1000 pentax (or whatever a
> Leica equivalent is) and a reflection board covered in cooking foil which an
> assistant having half an eye for lighting could hold, might indeed shoot a
> wedding and get the films developed at Kmart or any discount lab and turn a
> profit by charging $400. Ask yourself first, how many fathers borrowing
> $20k for their daughter's wedding are actually interested in the uncertainty
> of such a thing?
This is why I asked about how competitive you might find the industry.
Of course there are going to be back-yard operators cutting prices.
That's true for just about any business and part of the business
planning stage. Ever done a SWOT analysis?
> I payed out $23k AUD last year in advertising and event promotion alone. I
> also paid out a further $18k for replacement and purchase of equipment. I'll
> probably do the same next year. My rent for a 50 square metre shop I use as
> a reception studio was another $8300 AUD and the electricity bill to keep it
> air-conditioned was $1500 AUD. My bill last month for wedding albums (5 of
> them) including photos was just a beer under $5k. although it is closer to
> $2k in an average month.
So how many weddings do you have to do to break even? What's your PPF
(production possibility frontier)?
> My target client is a middle to upper income family with a fully owned house
> who has or is about to borrow upwards of $20k for their daughter's wedding.
> These clients will turn their back on you if you even suggest you can do
> something cheap or cheaper. They are paying out big bucks to celebrate a
> once in a lifetime occasion and they sure as hell don't want some fool
> shaking a silver board around to get the light right, interfering with their
> day.
>
> But you have alerted me to something I wasn't quite aware of until you
> started plucking figures out of your head. That is the method of assessment
> you are using to judge people on their income. It is flawed in the extreme
> and I am surprised more people haven't pulled you up on it. Maybe where you
> live there is no wealth?
I'm not plucking figures out of anywhere, Doug. I know how much cameras
& lenses cost and how long they last if you're good to them. I know how
much prints and albums cost and I know exactly what sort of man-hours
are involved in preparing photos for clients if you're going the digital
route.
Wedding photographers don't need a studio that costs AU$10k to ply their
trade. As far as I'm concerned it appears to be a very lucrative
business option for photographers and it also comes with apparently
small barriers to entry. This latter point is what I am trying to
determine.
Assuming a photographer is already at a level of acceptable creative
talent and he/she already has all the equipment that they need, what
obstacles do they have to overcome in order to make a decent living
doing just wedding photography?
As far as your comments about wealth are concerned, what do you want to
know? In the past 12 months in my business I have turned over just under
US$250k at 26% profitability. I do okay, but I could be doing a LOT
better if I spent less bloody time on this forum and more time working!
;-)
DD
says...
So how much DO you make if you are charging $2,500 per event? Nobody
seems to be willing to come out and say exactly what it is.
Jeremy Nixon
> Show me a business, any business, where there are no initial capital
> investments or overheads? You don't need an office or a studio to be a
> wedding photographer. You need a computer and a desk at home. Most
> people have those already.
You can start with that, sure, but if you want to get out of the low end
of the market, you'll need a bit more.
> I don't mean any disrespect to wedding photographers who look at things
> the way you have just described here, but $52k p.a. sounds like a good
> deal to me.
So let's say you manage to get $52k for yourself out of the business
(once you figure out that there's a little more to it than you first
thought). That's like making, what, about $40k in a regular salaried
job? That doesn't sound like the American Dream to me. And, what if
that $52k didn't take into account all your expenses, which is the big
mistake a lot of people make? What if you want to do higher-end gigs
where you need to pay an assistant (at least)? What happens when you
realize you suck at being a salesman and need to hire one, or else you
won't get enough weddings to hit that $52k?
You can make more than that, sure, but only once you realize it's a
business like any other and not just some scam for photographers to get
rich quick. And it's got very little to do with photography, really.
But if $52k/yr sounds good to you, and you think you can pull it off,
well, go for it. People do it, after all; it's more than possible.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
DD
Interesting story. Thanks for sharing, Steve.
Yeah, I think the good photographers who know a bit about business don't
have anything to worry about. This pretty much sums up what the barriers
to success are in pro wedding photography.
Jeremy Nixon
> I'm a businessman. I look at stuff with one thing in mind: how much
> profit would a business like that yield? Would it be worth investing
> one's time and money into it?
In order to get a meaningful answer, you need to understand what it really
takes to make the business work. I don't think that you do.
> I look at wedding photographers and I wonder why, if the business is so
> tough and the rewards so sparse, there are so many people who keep on
> doing it.
Because it's a viable business and you can make a living at it, of course.
You just seem to have a pretty twisted idea of how it works. You don't
just get up in the morning, go to a wedding, shoot some pictures, go to
the reception, shoot some more pictures, and count your money.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
zeitgeist
> I'm interested in hearing from people around the world on their thoughts
> regarding choosing wedding photography as a vocation. If you could take
> a moment to answer these questions, I would be most appreciative of your
> input.
>
> 1. Where do you see yourself on the socio-economic scale regarding your
> income? i.e. well above average, above average, average, below average,
> well below average.
my below average income isn't because of the job, its my own personal
problems and relative economic conditions. For awhile I making about $50k a
year, but in San Fran that was barely making rent. Now in WA I'm making
half that and doing about the same, just now I'm barely making house
payments.
>
> 2. Do you do it full time as your only source of income or purely as a
> part-time supplement to existing income? If you are doing it full time,
> do you only do weddings? If not, what percentage of your income do
> weddings provide?
Its supposed to be part time supplement to my real work as a portrait
photographer.
>
> 3. How many weddings do you do annually?
200 - 300 hundred, (now before you call me a liar, keep in mind that nearly
all my weddings are 'one roll' shoots in a wedding chapel setting.)
>
> 4. How long did it take to establish yourself in the market? What
> marketing techniques did you use? i.e. if advertising, where did you
> advertise?
it doesn't take long to establish, but you tend to pigeon hole yourself into
a market segment which is hard to break out of, if you start with prices too
low then you loose a lot of referrals from a year or two back. If you start
with your prices too high WITHOUT the whole pretty package, the zeitgeist of
a hi ender, then you won't book many and won't establish a market.
>
> 5. Do you find it a rewarding profession? In other words, do you feel
> you could have done something else instead of doing weddings?
I think its the second greatist job in the world.
>
> 6. What do you base your pricing on?
there are many ways to set price, run the numbers to see what your costs
are, what your goals are and spread that out over the number of jobs you can
expect to do and divide, you need to gross this much to make that much.
Some folks just see what others charge and charge a few less, or charge a
few more. I once set prices by approx one buck per square inch of paper.
>
> 7. Do you find it very competitive to remain active in this field?
It's very competitive as very snotnosed camera geek, soccer mom, bored
computer engineer, and photojournalist student can print a business card.
OTOH, make a good impression on a popular client, be the go to guy at a
large church or reception location and the competition is YOU, the one that
was recommended and all those other guys dissappear.
>
> 8. What size market are you working in? i.e. Do you have to travel
> extensively to get commissions or are you in a big enough centre to
> remain locally based?
irrelevent, large markets are more fragmented.
>
> 9. What kind of output do you provide your customers? i.e. do you simply
> provide prints or do you also compile their albums in addition to other
> offerings, such as CD ROMs, video, etc.
I used to insist on providing prints just so they know what the quality of
the images are, not leaving it to some 3rd party. now, whatever the client
wants.
>
> 10. What format equipment have you chosen and why?
>
I went from medium format film to 'full frame' digital after a short stop
with a little canon G2 p&s. After I bought that I just started shooting my
little 'chapel' weddings with it, then a full scale wedding, after a year I
realized I hadn't shot a single roll since getting the dang thing, so I sold
all my mamiya gear and got a full frame Kodak. I think that the full frame
(35mm) will be the 'professional' format to the consumer DX.
But here's the thing, wedding photography has gone to hell in the last
couple years, photojournalistic style took over, but with modern auto
everything cameras, anybody and everybody can be a photographer, and anybody
and everybody did, whether or not talent makes difference, its hard for a
client to tell the difference sometimes, even back in the days of
'traditional' I used to wonder why clients would pay some hack that didn't
know a thing about lighting or posing and would shoot nothing different than
their own family or friends. At least in the old days it did take a few
bits of technical skill to figure out exposure and focus the dang camera.
If you are considering wedding photography as a career, don't jump in at the
cheap end, the burn out rate is high. a wedding is a lot of work outside of
the wedding itself. One girl was just crying that she was spending several
nights a week doing this and that and missing her kids and her hubby was
mad. She was doing the prints herself at some mini lab she worked at after
hours. She 'had' to do it cause it was cheaper than paying a pro lab, she
didn't realize that the cost of those prints WAS several nights a week
working in the mini lab away from the family. It wasn't built into the
price of the job.
So, join a local pro association, take some of their workshops, find a
mentor, someone who is good and not just another shooter, most of the stuff
you will end up doing will be a variation of what you know and learn so you
might as well learn from the best. Take one of those week long workshop
that the PPA and state association put on, the best education you can get.
It used to be that a top gun could shoot a wedding with medium format, doing
the 'full monte' with background and studio lighting, having a couple dozen
retouched portraits mounted into a leather album and charging $3-$5k and
with a dozen or so a year make a living, a nice living. Most of the work
was schmoozing with the client, the lab did the prints and retouching, the
bookmaker put the album together. Now you have not a hundred or so images,
but thousands. Not just a few matte layouts but hundreds, millions with
freeform collaging.
there is a link to these associations and many of the workshops in the
z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com.
You might want to ask your questions there, its the kind of stuff they like
to hash out in a troll free environment.
zeitgeist
> In case it wasn't clear in the original post, I am merely interested in
> hearing from people who do this for a living. I have absolutely no
> desire to become a wedding photographer, but I am intrigued by the
> amount of money that seems to be changing hands for this service.
>
> for a wedding seems to run at about $2,500 per date. Assuming the
> photographer books a minimum of 4 shoots of this nature per month, that
> rounds out at $10k gross. Take off about 25% for costs (being generous
> here given the output that seems to be offered) the "average" wedding
> photographer should be grossing in the region of $7,500 per month. Is
> that not an above average income for working only a few days per month?
>
> aspects of running a wedding photography business ONLY.
In my wedding chapel part of the job, I often go out to weddings just as a
minister to officiate. I've seen hundreds of weddings with photogs, but
only a couple times have I run into photogs I know, photogs that are members
of the local association, or photogs that I recognize as having any clue at
all. I know they are 'professional' despite their compunction to go out of
the way to ruin good shots with every chance they get, they keep giving me
their card, you know to net work.
The truth is, the 'average' wedding photog charges a couple hundred bucks,
to be what many professionals would call a cheapie weekend warrior, the $500
or so shoot and hand over the film/CD guy, would be a big step up for most
of these guys.
keep in mind that for every full scale wedding as seen in magazines, the
bridesmaid walking down the aisle, and limos and caterers, there is a dozen
couples getting married in a judge's chamber with just a friend or mom as
witness, there's another dozen getting married with a dozen family a couple
friends in their home or mom's backyard, a half dozen getting married in the
park a MOH and BstM and 30 or so guests.
Lets look at some of your assumptions. Some photogs can get busy, but
there's a seasonal aspect to full scale social weddings. so you have a busy
season and could be shooting a couple weddings every week end for a couple
months. But a busy mid level photog would burn out with 25 events a year.
A studio with a staff could keep a couple photogs shooting several weddings
a weekend. but with overhead many of these guys found they had more fun and
made more money chucking it all and working out of their home for a few
select clients.
If you think about it, the $500 shoot and hand over the film/CD shooter is
making as much as the full service album everything package studios, and
having more fun as they don't do any of the scut work. (and then the
studios get calls from these brides who can't understand why the photos
don't fit into an album, heck they can't find one and why does a real photog
want to charge almost as much to put an album together as they did to shoot
the whole thing. )
costs of shooting a wedding, film, proofs, prints, book, that's just the
materials cost. Like most self employed, they don't consider the portion of
overhead, the portion of health insurance and retirement, especially if they
have a day job, heck, $500 for a few hours shooting pictures is great to a
$100 a day wage earner.
weddings in the past studies had shown took about 31 hours for a typical 6
hour coverage with proof sorting, album arranging, assembly, neg pulling.
overhead consists of rent, (even if working from home, portion of the rent
should be charged to the business.) equipment, bookkeeping, utilities.
Geez, some studios have a $20k nut to crack every month.
I recall there was some business writer did an article on the 10 most
overpaid jobs and wedding photographer was listed as number one IIRC. I
guess he had one of those instant 'professionals' at his wedding.
This reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
zeitgeist
> > for a wedding seems to run at about $2,500 per date. Assuming the
> > photographer books a minimum of 4 shoots of this nature per month, that
> > rounds out at $10k gross. Take off about 25% for costs (being generous
> > here given the output that seems to be offered) the "average" wedding
> > photographer should be grossing in the region of $7,500 per month. Is
> > that not an above average income for working only a few days per month?
> >
> Bill 4 - 7 times costs. Include the cost of your own time at some given
> rate.
>
> I figure my time at $60/hour, but I'm just starting out, and that's what
> the company I used to work for charged for my time when I was a computer
> tech.
This is why engineers and other techs into photography tend to be more
successful than the average shooter, they are used to working for, and
charging for professional services at pro rates and continue that attitude
in their own business.
but most skilled labor like mechanics and plumbers charge $120 an hour shop
rate.
this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
Charles Self
Correction:
"1.
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
2.
Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Charge of The Light Brigade.
Charles Self
Quite possibly because it's not the same for any two people doing the work,
depending on a host of factors including local costs (the studio rent--oh,
right: you say a wedding photographer doesn't need a studio).
There's another point here,too: I tell IRS what I make because I have to.
Otherwise, it's no one else's business.
Charles Self
news:TNKdnXt0cf_...@comcast.com...
And you live where? I just paid $40 an hour for a mechanic's services on my
car, got an excellent job, and was a bit upset that the price had gone up.
The mechanic may get $18 of that in salary and benefits.
I'm in rural Virginia. The only ones around here, other than doctors,
getting $120 an hour have "esquire" after their names.
BigPix
--
----m0o0m
"DD" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e00bf1b8...@news.mweb.co.za...
>
> BTW, how does a lab specialise in "Wedding work"? Do they turn away
> anyone who is not printing photos that were taken at a wedding???
> --
> DD
> www.dallasdahms.com
> Central Scrutinizer
I suppose I asked for that. My lab specializes in wedding work by virtue
they own an album making business and a huge variety of Wedding
photographers send them files and instructions on sizes and they print them,
make the album and finish it off all in one bundle. They probably would turn
away work that wasn't specifically Weddings because the software they
provide their customers to order with is specifically for Wedding albums.
DD
says...
> So let's say you manage to get $52k for yourself out of the business
> (once you figure out that there's a little more to it than you first
> thought). That's like making, what, about $40k in a regular salaried
> job? That doesn't sound like the American Dream to me.
What is "The American Dream?"
Can it be quantified in terms of dollars? I would think it would be like
all other dreams, to be happy and to enjoy doing what you do.
I've been wrestling with the thought of expanding my business for two
years now. I know I can do it and I can make it more profitable than it
already is, but by doing that I will probably also shorten my expected
lifespan with the additional incurred stresses of having employees, more
overheads, etc. If I carry on doing what I do now, I will continue to be
middle of the road, but at least I know I won't die by speeding down
that road at 300mph in the quest for more dollars. Life is a journey,
not a destination.
I think that if you can deal with the stresses of weddings and you can
make good pictures, have a little bit of business sense, there is no
reason why you can't make a decent living out of it.
DD
says...
I never said or implied that it was like that. If you read the questions
I asked again, I'm sure you will see what I am trying to ascertain.
Skip M
> In article <Xns97245E7CB6EF0sa...@66.26.32.8>,
> ne...@wadingin.net says...
>
>> is from someone who did it as a sideline income and isn't motivated to go
>> "pro")...
>>
>> First off, 25% for costs is way low. Digital or not, you're going to
>> get the prints done at a lab, and a trustworthy one at that, because two
>> screwups and you're behind schedule, and unhappy clients have this
>> problem
>> with paying (not to mention lawsuits). So the pro lab costs alone push a
>> typical print package into the $200 to $500 range, depending on package.
>> Sure, digital takes film and processing out of that - $7.00 a roll,
>> typically. Ain't much of a drop.
>
> Eh? How much are you paying for a print and how many prints does the
> average US wedding photographer supply to the bride & groom? Based on
> our local figures, if you are supplying <say> 120 5x7's and 10 8x12's
> with an album <Henzo> you shouldn't be paying more than $150. Surely?
>
10 8x10s will run me $175, depending on the lab, 5x7s are a little less than
a buck each. An album for same will run about $50, plus extra pages are
$1.25 ea, IIRC, so the total for an album will be about $400, give or take.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Skip M
> In article <hQplf.65$6N2.24@fed1read06>, shadow...@cox.net says...>> news:MPG.1dff9ee12...@news.mweb.co.za...
>> >
>> > In case it wasn't clear in the original post, I am merely interested in
>> > hearing from people who do this for a living. I have absolutely no
>> > desire to become a wedding photographer, but I am intrigued by the
>> > amount of money that seems to be changing hands for this service.
>> >
>> > I looked at a few US Wedding photographers sites and the average price
>> > for a wedding seems to run at about $2,500 per date. Assuming the
>> > photographer books a minimum of 4 shoots of this nature per month, that
>> > rounds out at $10k gross. Take off about 25% for costs (being generous
>> > here given the output that seems to be offered) the "average" wedding
>> > photographer should be grossing in the region of $7,500 per month. Is
>> > that not an above average income for working only a few days per month?
>> >
>>
>> You'd be right if it were only a few days a month that we work. But it
>> takes several days to postprocess and edit a thousand or so images
>> (presuming an 8 hour wedding, two photographers) and then there are
>> albums
>> to design, prints to order, etc. It's about 30-40 hrs per week,
>> exclusive
>> of the wedding. Still not bad, but more hours than most people think.
>> And
>> then there's promotional work, meeting with prospective clients, bridal
>> shows (we just did one last Sunday), gear to maintain, and so on.
>> We have about 20 weddings booked for the next year, already. And they
>> average about $2000 per. After Jan. we will probably book the rest of
>> the
>> year, the holidays are a prime time for proposals.
>
> That's pretty good money, don't you think?
>
> Personally I wouldn't take 1000 photos at any event, but I suppose there
> are two sides to every coin.
> --
> DD
> www.dallasdahms.com
> Central Scrutinizer
Oh, no, I'm not complaining, but, like someone else said, we don't get to
keep that $2000 that we average on a wedding. And I've kept my pesky day
job, so this is additional income, the two of us wouldn't make what is
called a "living" off of the weddings, alone.
And I don't take 1000 images at a wedding, we do, between the two of us. So
there is a certain amount of duplication, which get taken out in the editing
process. A 1000 is just a figure of the top of my head, I'd say typically
we shoot about 100 per hour, total, or 50 each. We tell the client that
we'll deliver a total of about 75 per hour worked. We lost one job because
another photographer, who works alone, promised to deliver 100 per hour.
Not a bride we were unhappy to lose...
DD
I think you are being ripped off with those prices. $175 for only ten
8x10 prints??? That's insane. I pay just under $4 for an 8x12 off a
Frontier. My friend who owns the KM lab is charging me a little less,
but I am not too enthralled with their enlargements (funny coz the
15x10mm prints are as good as the Frontier's). A 15x10mm will cost me
about $0.35c.
The 100 page Henzo album with onionskin page seperators and imitation
leather cover costs me about $60, so there isn't much difference there.
I can buy much more expensive albums (they even have one that comes in
it's own leather attache case), but I'm not inclined to do that.
Interesting to compare prices...
Skip M
news:1133935532.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> DD wrote:
>> In article <11pcf8h...@corp.supernews.com>, jer...@exit109.com
>> says...
>> > DD <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I looked at a few US Wedding photographers sites and the average
>> > > price
>> > > for a wedding seems to run at about $2,500 per date. Assuming the
>> > > photographer books a minimum of 4 shoots of this nature per month,
>> > > that
>> > > rounds out at $10k gross. Take off about 25% for costs (being
>> > > generous
>> > > here given the output that seems to be offered) the "average" wedding
>> > > photographer should be grossing in the region of $7,500 per month. Is
>> > > that not an above average income for working only a few days per
>> > > month?
>> >
>> > spent working is laughably low.
>> >
>> > Charge $2500 for a wedding, and do it well, and you're barely scraping
>> > by.
>>
>> Well, can somebody show me the income statement and balance sheet of the
>> average wedding photographer so as to justify what you are saying here?
>>
>> Scraping by my ass...
>
> more then scraping by.
>
>
Here's our price list:
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/weddingPrice.html
I'd have to say that we're about average for a San Diego wedding
photographer, $2500 is the upper limit of the middle ground, so to speak.
In L.A. weddings are more expensive, so are living expenses, same for New
York. $40k is just scraping by, here.
Remember, you don't shoot 4 weddings a month, 12 months out of the year.
And event photography doesn't pay as well. So, figure $60,000 to $80,000,
gross. But there are expenses, you have to deliver those albums and prints
included in the packages, you have to replace equipment, or in our case buy
it,($11,000 in the month of Oct.) pay for gas, pay self employment taxes,
health insurance, hire the occasional assistant, so your net is going to be
in the neighborhood of $35-50,000, not chicken feed, sure, but you're not
going to move to Malibu on that, either. Which is why I kept my day job,
add that to the money we make from the weddings, and it gets up into the
"comfortable" range. Still not buying a 5,000 sq. ft. mansion, but we live
in SoCal, after all.
DD
> Oh, no, I'm not complaining, but, like someone else said, we don't get to
> keep that $2000 that we average on a wedding. And I've kept my pesky day
> job, so this is additional income, the two of us wouldn't make what is
> called a "living" off of the weddings, alone.
> And I don't take 1000 images at a wedding, we do, between the two of us. So
> there is a certain amount of duplication, which get taken out in the editing
> process. A 1000 is just a figure of the top of my head, I'd say typically
> we shoot about 100 per hour, total, or 50 each. We tell the client that
> we'll deliver a total of about 75 per hour worked. We lost one job because
> another photographer, who works alone, promised to deliver 100 per hour.
> Not a bride we were unhappy to lose...
Do people really want to buy quantity over quality? Amazing... (not that
I'm saying you are producing rubbish - I have seen your work and I think
it is very good).
How many pics do you give the couple when it comes time to deliver?
Do you remember Charo from these groups? She's doing it fulltime now -
had a look at her site www.charophoto.com. Basically it was looking at
her site that sparked me to ask all these questions about the biz
Jeremy Nixon
>> So let's say you manage to get $52k for yourself out of the business
>> (once you figure out that there's a little more to it than you first
>> thought). That's like making, what, about $40k in a regular salaried
>> job? That doesn't sound like the American Dream to me.
>
> What is "The American Dream?"
>
> Can it be quantified in terms of dollars? I would think it would be like
> all other dreams, to be happy and to enjoy doing what you do.
I'm quite sure there is no definitive line between "The American Dream"
and "The American Suck". However, I've done the work we're talking about,
so I know what it involves, and working that hard (in addition to the
stress of it being your own business) for $40k/yr (or $52k/yr) is so far
on the "suck" side that it's not open to question, far as I'm concerned.
If that amount of money is sufficient for you, you'd be better off just
getting a regular job. Less stress, less work, same money.
> I think that if you can deal with the stresses of weddings and you can
> make good pictures, have a little bit of business sense, there is no
> reason why you can't make a decent living out of it.
Of course you can. People do.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Skip M
You're right, it's 5am here, actually 4:55, and my brain isn't working.
That should be $17.50, I pay about $1.75 for 8x10s from the local guys who
do all of our work. I knew I wasn't happy with the figures, when I woke up,
I realized why... ;-)
Jeremy Nixon
> Do people really want to buy quantity over quality? Amazing...
Think about all the people you've known who don't know the difference.
I wonder (having done the wedding thing back in the dark ages of film)
how much "digital" has to do with this attitude. Perhaps it has reduced
the perceived value of a photograph that much in the eyes of the layman.
How many CDs can you fill?
I can't even imagine wanting 2000 pictures of my wedding. Or 100 per hour,
or any number "per hour". Seems like about a dozen would do -- as long as
they're the right dozen. On the other hand, I'm not married, so what do I
know, I guess?
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Skip M
Yep, there are a few who do worry about "how much" they get for their money,
not "what." Like I said, that was one bride we weren't unhappy not to get.
In fact, I can't think of a bride who asked how many images she gets who
actually booked with us, or at least one to whom that was a paramount
question.
In a typical 6 hour wedding, that's the normal time, we'll give them about
400 proofs, most of which are from the reception, the good, old, "candids."
If you want to see what we deliver, go to our site, click on any of the
weddings, and then "View Your Event." That will take you to an entire,
delivered wedding.
Thanks for the kind words, it's nice to hear that. Douglas thinks my work
is merely "average." (His word.)
Skip M
>
> Do you remember Charo from these groups? She's doing it fulltime now -
> had a look at her site www.charophoto.com. Basically it was looking at
> her site that sparked me to ask all these questions about the biz
>
Ok, now I'm depressed. Just when I thought we were pretty good. Her stuff
is GREAT!
DD
> "DD" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e0107ac3...@news.mweb.co.za...
> >
> > Do you remember Charo from these groups? She's doing it fulltime now -
> > had a look at her site www.charophoto.com. Basically it was looking at
> > her site that sparked me to ask all these questions about the biz
> >
>
> Ok, now I'm depressed. Just when I thought we were pretty good. Her stuff
> is GREAT!
She is pretty good, eh? I haven't heard from her in ages - in fact since
she had her baby, but I pop in to her site from time-to-time. She's a
peach.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Skip M wrote:
> "DD" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e0107ac3...@news.mweb.co.za...
> >
> > Do you remember Charo from these groups? She's doing it fulltime now -
> > had a look at her site www.charophoto.com. Basically it was looking at
> > her site that sparked me to ask all these questions about the biz
> >
>
> Ok, now I'm depressed. Just when I thought we were pretty good. Her stuff
> is GREAT!
Ha!
The B&W are pure trash....
Guns/Zen4
15x10mm prints? (in inches, that's 0.6" x 0.4"! Decent size for a postage
stamp.)
--
Reply via the web portal at www.faczen.com or
email usenet at firstaidco dot ca
"Skip M" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote
> You're right, it's 5am here, actually 4:55, and my brain isn't working.
> That should be $17.50, I pay about $1.75 for 8x10s from the local guys who
> do all of our work. I knew I wasn't happy with the figures, when I woke
> up, I realized why... ;-)
> "DD" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote >>
Charles Self
Lessee, 25mm=1", give or take. 15mm x 10mm prints bring one question to
mind: why bother?
BigPix
--
----m0o0m
"DD" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e00f8ab7...@news.mweb.co.za...
Yep, You are getting your idea of *your* Wedding photography business out
loud and clear now. Just shoot the Wedding, get Kmart to process your pics
and buy an album at the stationary counter as you leave the store and go
count you cash just as soon as you finish putting the happy snaps in between
the pages and stick 'em down with double sided tape *ACIDIC* adhesive. Shit
man, why charge them at all? With this technique you ought to be paying
them, it'll be so cheap. DO you intend to use a DSLR for this venture?
BigPix
--
----m0o0m
"Skip M" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:y7Blf.421$6N2.419@fed1read06...
I'm curious here Skip. There is a shift taking place amongst wedding and
portrait photographers in Australia towards computer generated art photos
like the ones Charo makes. I make at least one from every portrait shoot but
most of my wedding clients are less than impressed with them. One of my
wholesale customers : http://www.photobyron.com.au/ does virtually nothing
else. I've just finished printing his calendars and all the images in them
are like this. His next wedding booking is March 2006 and he only does about
8 or 10 weddings a year. His first question to a prospective client is:
"What's you budget". I offer a variety of packages (cheaper ones shot by
students) and have a full year ahead. I can't help but wonder if Charo has
the same imbalance with your style.
Considering the price of my canvas album pages and canvas portraits, His
average fee of $2500 AUD does not produce a lot of profit. His style is
very much like Charo's. I have a guess here and say the market would be
split between the Wow clients and those who really want to see the tears on
the bride's face type detail. Australian weddings are for the most part,
very traditional. The owner of the site I pointed too said of my work: "It's
very elegant" meaning it's not what he would do.
So here we have some examples of work from a couple of Northern Hemisphere
wedding Photographers who obviously have clients who don't mind their
pictures on the Internet - almost none of my clients will sign a release
for publication so you only get a few from me but ByRon must ask a different
question to me because a lot of his weddings are there for all to see. Not a
single picture (yet) from the man who would be king of Wedding Photographers
with Kmart prints. I'm almost beyond bladder control waiting to see them.
:-)
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
focus is what Ron sells?
Pure crap....
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
http://www.photobyron.com.au/recent_files/7x5%20bw%20girl.htm
Crap:
http://www.photobyron.com.au/recent_files/file22pages.htm
Crap:
http://www.photobyron.com.au/recent_files/file72.htm
Supercrap:
http://www.photobyron.com.au/recent_files/file305.htm
Can't hold a camera level? Crap:
http://www.photobyron.com.au/recent_files/img_5586.htm
Can't afford a fill-flash? Crap:
http://www.photobyron.com.au/recent_files/img_5542.htm
http://www.photobyron.com.au/recent_files/img_5547.htm
Burned-out highlights. Crap:
http://www.photobyron.com.au/recent_files/file287%20copy.htm
Bandicoot
news:1133990267.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Crap:
>
> http://www.photobyron.com.au/recent_files/7x5%20bw%20girl.htm
>
> Crap:
>
> http://www.photobyron.com.au/recent_files/file22pages.htm
>
[More of the same SNIPPED]
When you take pictures for a living there's only one sort that's crap: the
sort that the client doesn't buy. If this guy knows his market, and they
want to buy this style of picture, then he is meeting his brief.
If you don't like them, who cares? because if you were getting married you
would simply employ a photographer whose style you did like.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:6yslf.1855$7b4.7...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
[SNIP]
>
> Google SmartFilter & find out how it selects sites for its databases.
>
> Then go back and really look around the Shadow Catcher site.
>
> Click on the link for "Fine Art", you'll find the WORD "nudes",
> which is apparently sufficient to get them black-listed as a porn site.
>
Hmmm, sounds like "DumbFilter" would be more appropriate in this instance...
Peter
Bandicoot
news:1133922248....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> What a shame to have to move those images off the website. Your
> work is about as obscene as the sculptures in Greece and Rome.
> By the time the"arts police" get finished we will have every
> sculpture or print look like a tour inside the Vatican...Photoshop a
> fig leaf on everything. This certainly ain't the age of enlightenment.
>
FWIW, the Vatican's art collection is not censored in this way - it's a
wonderful museum, in fact.
Peter