joe_morris2

Here we go again. No we won't go away. I have never advertised on Graigslist but have charged in the past $500 when I was starting and I did a got job. I could have charged $3000 but that would not have made me a better photographer. Weddings should cost whatever the couple can afford and a lot can not afford $3000. A lot of photographers seem to think they have a god given right to be paid the mega bucks which is why they moan about the Craigslist Specials, That's what business is about and times they are a changing. Getting back to your original question, let it go, put it down to experience and move on.

<p>I we shoot couple of thousand photos and I end up with 1000 edited photos then I give them to the B&G. Why not, it's there wedding.</p>

<p>You are best listening to the advice from only those who actually take wedding photos. Starting up and getting in the game is worth $180 for the experience.</p>

<p>With ettl. 90% of the time camera and speedlight, on or off camera, are on ettl at weddings. A lot of technology has gone into the manufacture of cameras so why not use it. There is still a place for manual but knowing how to use ettl does just fine with me. Manual is not the holy grail do what you find best </p>

<p>Whenever someone posts a question you always get someone quote ( or similar )<br> '$180 /7.5 hours = $24.00 per hour, but that simple equation doesn't take into acount:<br> -time spent traveling back and forth -transportation costs (fuel, etc.) - time spent downloading, processing, editing and delivery. -time spent dealing with the second shooter.' etc etc.<br> Some people don't count these things for lots of various reasons including the love of taking photos.<br> So don't be so pedantic and just answer her question.</p>

<p>As previous comments have stated, always get payment before wedding. Just let it go and put it down to experience. I am a bit perplexed in you stating 30 edits would take 5 to ten hours and only 150 photos delivered. What do you do to the photos to take that long. If properly exposed etc should not take that long. Similar scenario to yours we would have delivered 600 + edited photos. </p>

<p>The comment from Marc Williams is so true.<br> 'A clear difference from the myriad guests with cameras and cell phones who post stuff on social media before the wedding is even over.'<br> This is why 'off camera speedlights' has become the talked about subject just now. Differentiates your photos from the Uncle Toms of the world who very often have the latest state of the art camera.</p>

<p>I don't ever send 'sneak peeks', they are invariably some of your best ones so it can sometimes increase expectations for when you deliver the rest.<br> Fortunately never had your problems, yet, but if you are confident in your images then don't do any more for them.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Is this question a joke.</p>

<p>I produce the album page using various programs to the exact size of the album, single or double page spread, save as jpeg and then add it to the page like a photo that takes up the whole page with whatever company you are using for the album. This way you can make up your own templates and not tied down with Graphistudio etc. I am currently using Lumapix and a little bit of Photoshop. Produced close to 100 albums using this method and you use what ever company has good offers on to produce the album </p>

<p>Does not have the money because of the high monthly payments on the BMW.</p>

<p>'I booked this photographer after extensive research in my area'. I think your research was not deep enough. The fact she had a large number of bookings would have been a red flag because she probably was not doing them all herself and would not have had the time to devote to each one to do the job properly.<br> I, as well as most wedding photographers, do my own editing and I deliver up to 600+ edited photos with 10 days so I think you got a bum deal. </p>

<p>Why a 70-200, a 24-70 would have been much better.</p>

<p>I stick by what I said in my previous article, any decent digital photographer can reproduce the look of film, end of story.<br> That's why so many photographers are going out of business because they are doing what they want, i.e. shot film and other gimmicks, and not want the brides want. The number of couples who ask for film you can probably count on one hand.<br> Times are changing and too many people are not.<br> I did not state 'that a photographer's style and working methods are always dictated by their customers'. They pick a photographer for his style and methods but he still has to produce what the bride wants.<br> Why would I shoot film and digital together, I don't ride a horse and buggy and then compere it to my car. I have a beautiful digital camera that has fantastic abilities why would I be hog tied and shoot film. </p>

<p> I smiled when I read 'Part of my "gimmick is I shoot film' from Daniel Stewart. Any decent photographer can reproduce the look of film from a digital file.<br> As a previous poster stated you produce what the bride wants not want you like doing. I can imagine what a bride will say when she gets only a handful of photos from a film shooter when her friend got 500. That's the world we live in now.<br> Sure shoot film for yourself but not for a wedding. Be interesting to hear from Daniel in a couple of years as to what his gimmick has achieved. Best of luck with that.</p>