Amateur Wedding Photographers

<p>In assume everyone here is well aware of the situation but I'm just drawing attention to a recent article in the NYT</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/fashion/weddings/for-wedding-photography-competition-from-amateurs.html</p>

<p>"...<em>.With unemployment still high, a lot of people, women in particular, are taking their fancy digital cameras and booking jobs shooting weddings, leading some long-established wedding photographers to brand them as “mamarazzis” or “digital debbies.”....Quality has become secondary, he said, noting that the arrival of smartphones is partly to blame. “All people need is for the photo to be ‘good enough'"</em>...</p>

<p>Well, if it's in the New York Times, I guess it must be true!</p>

<p>Bob, I'm not quite sure what you mean by your last statement; but</p>

<p>There is an undeniable shift in consumer behavior that is providing equal opportunities to all who photograph weddings regardless of alleged skill sets of the photographer, and the successful wedding photographer is one who can understand and capitalize on this shift, so what are the reasons for this shift?</p>

<p>I can highly recommend, if you have 45 minutes, a Google Talk by Nilofer Merchant who explains what she coins as the SocialEra. Her content is insightful and well developed; the principles she describes also has relevance whether you're running p.net or just a wedding photographer trying to make a living. <br /> <a href="

<p>Competition hasn't gotten fierce; consumers are simply accepting the same picture quality they can get from a smartphone as the standard. They don't expect (and are ignorant of) anything more. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink - show a bride some smartphone pictures beside some DSLR images and put the price tags in front of them. Hmmm... I can get these for $200 or these for $2000...</p>

<p>Patrick, I think it's a mistake to attribute stupidity to a non customer if they fail to choose your product or service. People make decisions for their own reasons and corporations worldwide are on the same wagon as wedding photographers trying to decode consumer preference. </p>

<p>I was an amateur wedding photographer<br>

Of course I did not charge and gave the B&G or MOTB<br>

the film and prints.<br>

But judging the results after a few years. it didn't matter.<br>

Likely the bride flushed the ring smashed the gifts and burned the photos of her ex.<br>

Onr bride bit the groom so hard he had to go to the ER.<br>

Bit the wedding party? I really enjoyed that. I still have the champagne glass.</p>

<p>I've got a divided opinion on this - on the one hand, I think it is great that so many people are now taking pics with whatever they have - cell phones or whatever - at one point 10-15 years ago, I thought picture taking by the masses was all but doomed. <br>

But I also have to +1 with Patrick S that consumers of event photography are accepting lower standards, not expecting (or are ignorant) of anything more. It isn't much fun to compete when you have $5,000 of equipment in your hand and everyone in the front row has a free cell phone in their hand... and the buyer sees no difference.<br>

Things have changed - and new paradigms are evolving. Expertise seems to have a shrinking market in so many areas...</p>

<p>So what is the magic that wedding professionals bring?</p>

<p>There was a time when we were shooting with manual focus, slow film and rudimentary flash, with no way to see what we were getting except in the eye of experience and training and gave consistent results under serious pressure. And it was not just the shooting. We had access to the custom labs or did the work ourselves. We got paid top dollar simply because we could do what very few people could do. Very few.</p>

<p>Now listen to <strong>US</strong> on this forum. We professionals natter on about the latest digital camera waxing poetic about how it is so simple even a caveman can do it. So I go buy a D5100, some lenses and a decent flash. If I just read up on it and perhaps invest in a little practice, I can make some pretty darned nice photos. I can shoot in very low light. My camera and flash practically rule out the possibility that I will have an improperly exposed shot. And what if I am a couple of stops off....there's a slider for that. A little soft? Sharpen. Out of place? Crop like crazy. And what does each frame cost me with my spray and pray approach? Nothing. But most importantly. Most of these craigslist GWC's can take tolerably good pictures. They can read the books. They can watch the videos we put online for them to see for free. They simply aren't that bad.</p>

<p>This is not about lower expectations from the B & G. It is about relative amateurs being able to reproduce the shots that were our bread and butter for decades. We no longer have the secret knowledge that separated us from the amateurs. Anyone who participates in this site for any period of time learns that many of the amateurs here can make pictures every bit as good as professionals. Let one of these great photographers lose his/her job and they are ready to go. But even the "mamarazzis" this article is speaking about can buy a game. Modern digital cameras and Photoshop Elements are a great replacement for a great many of the skills we professionals used to get big bucks for.</p>

<p>If we really had to tell the truth, we are using all of the new bells and whistles too. We are taking shortcuts that we could never afford to take when 400 ASA was the best we could hope for and that was fraught with danger. We are shooting fast and furious when once we had to carefully pace our shots and reloads. We are fixing mistakes in CS6 that we never dared to make before. And we are pocketing the money that we used to pay professional labs. And some of us are letting these "digital Debbies" carry our equipment and second shoot with us on the very cheap if not for free.</p>

<p>I totally get that there are amazingly talented wedding photographers out there. I see their work and am endlessly amazed at their talent. And these folks are working and making money. The folks who are having a hard time making it are those of us who were just good journeymen professionals. No magic formula. Either " the bronze package, the silver package or the gold package". The GWCs are kicking our butts because the fact is that they are doing pretty much what we do for a lot less money. So to be one of the good guys and make the big bucks we have to bring our A-Games. While the GWC is at Costco buying his job we need to be getting WAY better. We can't rest on our laurels and turn in average work. These days average work for a wedding simply costs $400.00 and and B & G takes the disk to Costco and prints the ones they want.</p>

<p>One more comment in this silly rant of mine. I have been shooting all day and am cranky. We are not respecting what these Digital Debbies are charging. $400.00 for a wedding. But if that DD goes to work at Walmart full time at $8.00 per hour she is going to earn $320.00 a week before taxes. And work like a dog for it. She can make what she makes at Walmart full time by doing three weddings a month. And not spend most of it on taxes and daycare while she is at work. You want someone to blame for that? Blame the "job creators" who pay such an obscenely low wage with no benefits. Good for Debbie for being smart enough to get out of the rat-race. After all. She is a small business woman.</p>

<p>Debbie is not taking cell phone pictures. Mostly she is taking pretty well exposed and well composed images. She offers them to a B & G who are working for ever diminishing middle class wages and who simply can't afford to pay one of us hotshots $2500.00 or more for showing up.</p>

<p>So to the pros who are angry about the competition, I would say suck it up. Get out there and sell. Show the B & G why they ought to pay you top dollar for your work. If you are a masterful photographer and perhaps more importantly a masterful salesperson you have nothing to fear from Debbie. But if you want to stick up a website, sell formula packages and have a ho-hum attitude then you shouldn't complain about Debbie. At least she cares enough to get out there and kick your butt.</p>

<p>I don't know how many times I have told an aspiring photographer this and perhaps a few really get it. "Some people have one year of experience. Some people have 20 years of experience. Most people have one year of experience 20 times". And in photography these days that just won't cut it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"One more comment in this silly rant of mine."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A couple of points -<br>

- there was more than '<strong><em>one</em></strong> more comment' after that sentence . . .<br>

- I for one don't think yours was a 'silly rant'.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

If you have something they want that's of very high quality, unique and they have the means, they will buy it.

<blockquote>

<p><em>"If you have something they want that's of very high quality, unique and they have the means, they will buy it."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dave, I think that will only define the class of product or service that's salable, but not necessarily the product or service <em>YOU</em> have to offer. </p>

<p>A more traditional view of this is by way of "service differentiation" - why choosing me is a better idea than choosing another - but even that isn't going to cut it these days when consumers are demanding more, and more importantly, demanding the intangible. </p>

<p>It goes without saying that clients will demand some minimal standard in the results that any photographer must deliver, but beyond that, I think the shift in wedding photography in the minds of modern B&G is how they perceive the final product which is becoming in the same way as the photographer; they see their pictures as <strong>Content</strong> in which they are participants in the process, and the process must be a collaborative effort. </p>

<p>It is this shared purpose that many of the so-called “mamarazzis” understand and capitalize on; they have an intrinsic feel for what the client wants because they've been there just recently as brides.</p>

<p>You don't have to be a hipster B&G these days to have seen Thriller or Gangnam Style weddings all over YouTube, or avant-garde non traditional compositions that come naturally to many young photographers posted everywhere on Facebook, but to be included in the process means a participating photographer needs to understand the evolving wedding culture and what the B/G really wants even if they're unable to verbalize it, and deliver it at a price they're willing to pay. </p>

<p>We see commercials regarding milk, plastic, realtors and various other general products and services. Are there any for photography, or more specifically, higher talent photography? By the time a potential client becomes a potential client, so many have had little or no exposure to notions about how different types of imagery have value. Complaints about people's choices of photography after the fact are plenty. Discussion of pro-active solutions are few.</p>

<p>In other industries they limit the availability of equipment, parts, and supplies to protect the exclusivity of their business. But I suppose the time for that is long gone.</p>

<p>I think this is one reason that I think we can expect the 'average' professional wedding photog to disappear. There is no doubt in my mind that exceptional artists will continue to be in demand, and be profitable. The generalized value statement of photography (in general) often has very little to do with a bride's choice in her wedding photog. I think there is likely to always be brides of two mindsets, ones who value the photography, and those who feel 'required' to have a photog. Those who feel 'required' are <em>always</em> looking for a cost effective choice, and they often choose the CLer, the student, the 'mamarazzi'. The quality of your imagery is not nearly as important as what the cost is. You expect fake flowers, and to see the 'how to have a great wedding for $1000' book in their arms.</p>

<p>Those who value it, OTOH, pay for premium quality. They expect more, and are usually willing to pay for it. I have found that I far prefer to shoot for more demanding brides (aka bridezillas), simply because they are usually more demanding in general, and hold everybody to a higher standard (which usually means that there are no fake flowers for example ;-) ). They often are willing to spend more time working<em> with</em> you to help ensure they get what they envision. To me it's a win win, because they work as hard as I do, and I can work with that to produce stunning imagery.</p>

<p>As I said though, there is not much room anymore for the 'average' photog in this market, given the advancement of technology. What they <em>could</em> demand simply by virtue of having the equipment, is no longer what they can demand. In other words, to make it nowadays (and going forward), you are going to have to bring <em>more</em> than your cameras and lenses and flashes. I don't see this as a bad thing, though those who want a 9-5, or want to only have to provide 'standard' wedding photography, probably do. </p>

<p>Some of those "mamarazzi"'s are actually quite talented. The last time I was at a wedding show it was interesting to see the diversity of both "professional" wedding photographers and hte "mamarazzi" photographers. Sometimes, based on quality of their oprotfolios alone, it was difficult to tell the difference.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=423056">Michael Chang</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 24, 2013; 09:53 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Patrick, I think it's a mistake to attribute stupidity to a non customer if they fail to choose your product or service. People make decisions for their own reasons and corporations worldwide are on the same wagon as wedding photographers trying to decode consumer preference.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Huh? When did I call anyone stupid??? Ignorance isn't the same as stupidity.</p>

>>>In other industries they limit the availability of equipment, parts, and supplies to protect the exclusivity of their business. But I suppose the time for that is long gone.<<<

 

We're not talking about making nukes and a few other things here. But for expense, one can obtain most tangible things and the rest is affordable anyway. There''s no licensing to become a photographer and value is the perception of the potential customer. Easier access to equipment is a factor but is minor compared to what customers are willing to pay for. Film cameras were never all that expensive. There was plenty of "equipment, parts and supplies" back in the 'good ole' days'. Anyone can buy painting stuff for example but the market wants certain things. We can't blame stuff on equipment. Its perception. IOW, What people want.

 

A better argument about copyright realities of today can be made even there, many people still are satisfied with the results of non-traditional photographers so the argument only goes so far.

<p>Understood, John. Then maybe there never was anything "exclusive" about the pros of yesterday except for the talent that they individually offered. Nothing has changed. People who want quality will buy the services of a talented photogpraher; if not... they won't.<br>

I was thinking more in terms of piano repair, where technicians receive certifications based on skill and that certification was once required to even buy parts from the suppliers. Now there are "rogue piano part dealers" who will sell to anyone. The bottom-line, though, remains if one wants their piano repaired correctly then a certified technician is likely the best option.</p>

<p>This type of posts come up very often but this one hits the head of the nail. The technology advancement is what made this phenomenon possible. With very little training, a person can take very good pictures with a good DSLR. And with just a bit more training in LR, you can make a lot of mistakes go away.</p>

<p>The scary thing is cameras are getting cheaper while getting better. A person can spend $3K on two bodies and some lens and start making $500-$1000 a day. The barrier of entry was broken with the introduction of the 5D2. </p>

<p>The days when brides assumed that they need a professional photographer are gone. Now the pro must sell themselves with highest quality web sites, stunning demonstration books, prints and doodads and come with strong, excellent references. Even with the very best product and presentation, many will not see the benefit, but those that do see it will include many willing to pay. The key is that we're not starting the game with the presumption that a pro will be needed.</p>

<p>Then maybe there never was anything "exclusive" about the pros of yesterday except for the talent that they individually offered. Nothing has changed. People who want quality will buy the services of a talented photogpraher; if not... they won't.</p>

<p>Oh there was and is something great about a great wedding photographer. And as several folks have said, there will be a market for the very best for a long time to come. I don't think that pro's who make $5-10K (or sometimes much more) per wedding are necessarily under siege. When dad is popping $50-100K for the wedding the bride is going to hire "the" society photographer if she can get him or her. The wedding planner simply says, "oh honey, you just must try to get Rick....he is such a dear and positively EVERYONE is trying to get him...I'll see what I can do..." For the rest of the market here is what is happening....</p>

<p>If we go back 20 years and look at the process of choosing a wedding photographer the first place someone looked was with their friends. We made our money from referrals. If it was an "expensive" wedding there might be a planner or other professional who referred us to the B & G. At the most a B & G might interview three or four photographers and what they saw was a hard-copy portfolio. (There was no internet.) So the B & G chose the port they liked and the photographer they trusted and bought a package. So as a practical matter wedding photographers were selling by local networking. Word of mouth. As for talent they were competing with perhaps a couple of other folks. Since we shot film we had to be pretty good technicians because there were no do-overs or rescues in post. Further, the choice of our film and equipment limited the shots we could take and tended to contribute to a sameness in most pro's work.</p>

<p>Now the B & G can shop a pro's talent against dozens of local folks and in the higher end market hundreds of regional choices. The internet makes us show our stuff. Simple as that. So if we want to compete with Digital Debbie (DD) and command more money we have to seriously outperform her. Spend a little time searching local wedding photographers and there are some pretty talented folks for $500.00 per day. Today it is skill and face to face sales skills that are going to make the difference. We simply have to get out and sell. We have to have perfect bedside manner, impeccable credentials and a first rate portfolio. And then we have to sit down in MR and MRS Folks living room and convince them that we are an affordable, worry free choice. </p>

<p>So Rick is on to some great points, but perhaps we also need to consider overall value... As Rick and others point out, it is much cheaper to learn the basics and create good images. I always tell people photography is part technical and part artistic. If your technical skills aren't so good it is overlooked if the image is really great artistically. Now there are filters, actions etc that can mask the lack of technical and artistic ability - look at the explosion of Instagram, Kubota Tools, etc... Now having said that part, the average cost of a venue is roughly $15K, the dress $1,500, the rings $5K etc so by time the bride is done she is into the wedding for roughly $20K. In today's economy that is a lot of money. Families aren't able to justify the cost of photography perfection when the wedding itself equals almost an entire years descretionairy income... We photographers are exactly the same and only have ourselves to blame. Sites like this encourage and are largely geared toward the "mamarazzi's". While some photogs here make a great living most appear to be at the lower level of skill set as evidenced by the numerous "what lens should I use" questions. We photographers may buy a 5D MKIII or D4 but use aftermarket memory cards, lenses etc or buy our light modifiers on Ebay look into DIY beauty dishes and brag about it... you get the picture, we're basically hypocrites. I think the solution is to master our communication skills and find a message that resonates with potential clients. Perhaps an experiment is in order. Buy a cheap digital ps camera and pass it around to guests at your next wedding. Put the images in an album or slideshow and then ask the client if they trust perhaps the most important and expensive event in their life to someone who isn't an expert at both the technical and creative aspects of photography. Just remember though, there are valid reasons why the cost of photography is trending lower. We're not paying for developing and retouching, we're getting free education from sites like this or creativelive and simply the larger the photography pool the lower the price. Kind of like the Walmart syndrome. You can still survive, but you make have to work harder or smarter. The more creative business man you are the fewer projects you have to shoot. If you can't figure out how to stand above the crowd, you have the option to lower your price and shoot more weddings to make the same money...</p>

<p>10 most overpaid jobs in the US. Wedding photogs rank no. 10.<br>

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-10-most-overpaid-jobs-in-the-us</p>

<p>Wow, that marketwatch report is horribly flawed! - <i>[it says:]</i></p>

<blockquote>

<h3><em>10) ‘Wedding photographers</em></h3>

<p><em>Photographers earn a national average of $1,900 for a wedding, though many charge $2,500 to $5,000 for a one-day shoot, client meeting and processing time that runs up to 20 hours or more, and the cost of materials.</p>

 

<p>The overpaid ones are the many who admit they only do weddings for the income, while quietly complaining about the hassle of dealing with hysterical brides and drunken reception guests. They mope through the job with the attitude: "I'm just doing this for the money until Time or National Geographic calls."</p>

<p>Much of their work is mediocre as a result. How often have you really been wowed flipping the pages of a wedding album handed you by recent newlyweds? Photographers who long for the day they can say "I don't do weddings" should leave the work to the dedicated ones who do.’</em></blockquote></p>

 

<p>I'd really like to know who these "compensation experts" are and where they get their faulty logic.</p>

<p>So:</p>

 

<p>1. The overpaid ones admit they only do it for money....hmm, sounds anecdotal at best--where is the evidence?</p>

<p>2. The overpaid photogs' work is mediocre, based on...more anecdotal evidence? The false comparison that because you've never seen a beautiful work in your friend's albums does NOT mean that your friend "overpaid" a photographer. It could very well mean they DIDNT pay a lot for a great photographer!</p>

<p>3. The assumption that it is so easy to be an overpaid wedding photographer, and that they are just taking all the business away from the dedicated ones..again sounds more anecdotal whining than anything, but really? If you suck, you are not going to be overpaid. (Most) People arent mindless sheep who will pay $10k even though the photog's portfolio looks like poo.<br /><br />That article is very offensive, uneducated, and poorly written. Sure, there are always cases for innocent clients getting duped by a smooth-talking pro, but that is rarely the case for the vast majority of weddings. There are many reasons to pay a wedding photographer a lot of money, and it has nothing to do with 'overpaying' because there are certain things you "dont want screwed up." </p>

<p>The three pro's I had the pleasure to second shoot for shared common traits. They were exceptional with people. They were sales people. They were good and consistent photographers. They networked with other vendors. Referrals were common. They could commit 10 hours a day and give 120% and do more than weddings.</p>

<p>There will always be a market for cheap photography. The brides giving me $500 were never gonna purchase the pro for $2500. The bride booking the pro for $2500 wasn't looking at me for $500. IMHO, coming from the experience of doing close to 100 weddings, it just didn't work that way. </p>

<p>Those feeling heat from Digital Debbie... well maybe there is a flaw in your business/sales model.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So Rick is on to some great points</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br />His are the best and most honest posts in this thread.</p>