Future of the wedding phtoography industry

<p>What is your opinion of the future of the wedding photography industry ?<br>

Will it get better or worse in terms of financial success ? Will technology <br>

dumb it down even more to the point that our unregulated and unlicensed <br>

profession will be relegated to working for less than sustainable wages ? <br>

Will digital remain king, or will video take over ? <br>

</p>

I think digital/video cameras for sure are here to stay. The only difference is it's just starting. These camera's will of course become better and better. Most likely in just a few years most clients will want stills and video from just one person and it's pertinent to be artistic. This may be the only way to continue financial freedom and success.

 

We know already that a lot of couples would rather save their money and go on a nice honeymoon or put down some money on a house. We also have to look at how the present photographers give away the CD/DVD's. There aren't any re-orders. This is the reason why I don't give away CD's for about a year or more. Often my reorders can double the amount of money from the wedding. I give out proofs. Anyway, this is another reason for major camera companies to give what the public wants and that of course is stills and video. When viewing a video a client will be able to stop the video on the computer and make a quality 8X10 print or larger of this still video.

 

There's always room for creative artistic photographers, even if the photographers use the digital video cameras.

 

Great question! Hopefully I will be close to retirement or have retired.

<p>I think photos will trump video even in the future. There will always be the need for photographer and part of the skills of shooting wedding will never be replaced by technology no matter how much it improves. And it takes more than just a good camera to make good pictures so photographers will still exist. </p>

<p>IMHO, the wedding photo industry nowadays is by and large a photoshop industry. Most shooters can only deferentiate themselves from one and other by the PS actions they created. </p>

<p>I see the same in terms of Photoshop usage. One has to be adept at Photoshop as even the low end bride wants to look perfect, wants to be chased by a dinosaur and other cheesy stuff like that.<br>

Higher end brides don't go for that, but who really works in the realm. The rest of us have to provide what the clients want.<br>

PINTEREST !!!!!!!!!!!! ARRRRGGGHHHHHH........will someone pleeeeease take down that site. <br>

" I have all of these photos that I want to do on my wedding day"............."what, you won't do them"........."ok, sorry I'll go elsewhere"..................<br>

So who has had to deal with this ? Come on now, raise your hands, we all know you've had to deal with the Pinterest craze.........whether it's for engagements, weddings or portraits. <br>

Copying someone's else's work.........simple..........pay me not to be a unique creative artist. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Will digital remain king, or will video take over ?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Video <strong><em>is</em></strong> a digital medium: I understand what you meant but . . .</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I think photos will trump video even in the future."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Making the photographs from still frames using a 5DMkIII with a good lens on board, <strong><em>from the 5D's video capture</em> </strong>(as one example) can make a very nice wedding photo album or video image montage.<br>

Using an EOS 1-DC, it is even better. <br>

Or using one of the baby EOS C Series cameras, such as the EOS C100 or EOS C300, is better still.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>We (my Company) has seriously played with and fleshed out this protocol.<br>

I think that it should not be dismissed, that <em><strong>convergence</strong></em>, will be the next step in the evolution: firstly with some brave practitioners at the mid to top end of the market and then there will be flow on to the part-timers.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So how do you deal with the fact that to look good in video, moving subjects should be shot at a relatively slow shutter speed, which will introduce blur in the individual frames? So no motion stopping with fast shutter speed. Also no flash can be used. For the video to be viewable there cannot be abrupt changes in angle of view or camera position. Sound must be meticulously recorded (and cleaned if physiological sounds or noise interferes with the clarity of recorded sound) if everyone speaking is to be understood clearly. A still photographer can move relatively freely, can change angle of view between any two frames, can use shutter speed to freeze or to show movement, can use flash to freeze movement and/or to add light on the move, can control lighting contrast even in the harshest of conditions, can talk to the bride and groom to give instructions without destroying the sound track and has significantly less work to edit the images to reach a reasonable end result than the person who is shooting video. And who is going to pay for all that video editing? The photo+videography could easily be more expensive than the entire wedding when all is said and done due to the fantastic amount of work it involves. And one person does all this, operating all the camera and sound recording equipment for both stills and video (as well as lighting equipment)? That is all very funny.</p>

<p>Three of the five of the OP's questions were:</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>What is your opinion of the future of the wedding photography industry ?</strong></li>

<li><strong>Will technology dumb it down even more to the point that our unregulated and unlicensed </strong><br /><strong>profession will be relegated to working for less than sustainable wages ? </strong></li>

<li><strong>Will digital (stills photography) remain king, or will video take over ?</strong></li>

</ul>

<p>These questions were asked under the broader banner of "Future of the wedding [<em>photography</em>] industry"</p>

<p>It's my opinion that convergence of the mediums is a real possibility and: it is already being practiced - and that is my response to those questions that the OP asked. <br>

I don't think that my responses are at all '<em>very funny</em>': but rather that they are quite a rational answer, based upon my experiences, both within and without of Photography.</p>

<p>WW</p>

WW and I agree. As far as fast shutter speeds go when it's dark, well they now have video lights for your still/video digital cameras, such as in the dark reception rooms.

 

One of the next steps with the camera's listed above will be the wireless MIKE adapters which can be placed on the groom's tux and recorded clearly to the camera. (During the ceremony)You will also be able to do interviews at the receptions without picking up noise from the DJ's and bands.

 

Actually I've heard this is already out and fits the later model cameras. I haven't bought one so I can't say how good they are, the cost, or if they are even available. Well we all know this is coming and we are stuck with this fast moving technology.

 

I was playing with the new Apple 5. This crazy phone can convert scenes to a slow motion video and it's razor sharp!

 

As I said above, I hope to retire fairly soon!

<p>There has been video at weddings for years. That is nothing new. It isn't going away. Given that it's harder to get a long video on social networking sites, wedding photos have a while to go. As William says, it's all merging and there may not be that big a distinction in the future as stills will be culled from video footage.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Given that it's harder to get a long video on social networking sites, wedding photos have a while to go.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Do people even want to watch long wedding videos? </p>

<p>How would one using a video camera rolling footage, shoot formals, romantics and posed photos ? Will external LED's be the light source when needed ? That harsh ugly lighting ? As for pulling still frames from the video footage, man that would be such a chore to have to scroll through all of that footage and then decide "gee, there's 25 identical images, which one do I use".......the workload would be even greater than digital is today. <br>

And we all know how costly time behind the computer is. It takes away our time that cculd be spent networking and building a business. Why back in the day....................digital, cell phone, what's that ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"How would one using a video camera rolling footage, shoot formals, romantics and posed photos ? . . . and - etc."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These are not necessarily the questions that are most pertinent to the questions contained in and the main topic of, your Original Post.<br />It occurs to me that you could be asking these follow-up questions predicated on, but not limited to: your desires; your aspirations; your previous business; your personal experiences and the more traditional industry scaffolds and structures.</p>

<p>For example: how many 24" x 36" Framed Wedding Canvases are sold TODAY, per each Wedding compared to 10, 20 and 30 years ago?</p>

<p>The point being - as well as technology changing, so does the market place and also the Customers' requirements.</p>

<p>You've asked, (paraphrasing) "What is in the future for the Wedding Photography Industry?"<br />I think it is ill advised to structure the answer to that question, limiting the possibilities to those governed by the concepts that your follow-up questions, imply.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>PINTEREST !!!!!!!!!!!! ARRRRGGGHHHHHH........will someone pleeeeease take down that site. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have a few pinterest bride and I told them I'll try but it's hard to mash all these different and disparagint styles together. At the end, I just ended up doing my own things and a few times I actually managed to learn something from the pins they send me. They never complained why their pictures didn't look exactly like the pins.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>For example: how many 24" x 36" Framed Wedding Canvases are sold TODAY, per each Wedding compared to 10, 20 and 30 years ago?</p>

</blockquote>

 

How many want any kind of prints?

<blockquote>

<p>"How many want any kind of prints?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, of course, that was my point, entirely. <br>

Then, logically, the follow on question from the fact that the trend is that fewer and fewer of the Customers want fewer and fewer prints is: what do they do with the files that they buy; and (perhaps more importantly) by what methods does the final audience view those digital files. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I think that we can look to many other industries and get an idea of what is in store for the future of wedding photography. While technical skill and knowledge have played a major role in who has succeeded in this business in the past, we can likely all agree that technology has leveled the playing field to some degree. What is happening to the industry is all part of a natural economic progression and if history and economic text books can teach us anything it is that, with the barriers to entry (i.e.: cost, skill/training, access to consumers etc.) removed and the risk associated with entering the business essentially removed, we will see a fundamental shift in the skills needed to be a wedding photographer.</p>

<p>The fact that skill has less of an impact on the final product than ever before will/has changed the industry in to a pure service industry. There will be fewer and fewer photographers that will succeed on photographic skill alone. When product becomes essentially homogenous it will be those who find other ways to differentiate themselves from their competitors that will have the most success. This has already started to happen with "shoot and share" photographers who have traded in the model of proofs and print orders, because many clients will pay good money to avoid feeling pressured into spend more money after their wedding. This is advantageous for many new photographers as they can create a more stable cash flow that is less dependent on how they executed each individual wedding or how likely a client is to purchase prints. Sure if they shot 10 weddings they would lose money on some, but they could make money on others, but in business stable cash flow can be very advantageous. What I see as one of the major side effects of this shift is that it resonated with the consumers and created a clientele that wants a pay for service model opposed to a pay for product model. The photographers I see having major growth in their businesses and incomes are the ones who have embraced this new way of doing business.</p>

<p>If you can accept the premise that the industry is now a pure service industry we can look at the way car companies have changed the way they talk about their cars or the way financial companies try and differentiate themselves from one another. In both cases the companies speak mostly to the way their product can make you feel or the enhanced experience you will have by choosing their product. They do this because when it comes down to product comparison they are not very different. That leads me to marketing. Marketing in this business will change from demonstrating superior skill to selling the overall experience of wedding photography. The photographers that can reach their potential customers and show them that, your wedding day will be better with me as your photographer than anyone else, will be the ones who really shine in the future of this business.</p>

<p>Selling the experience of wedding photography is the future of this business. Of course, now one has to execute the experience they are selling. More photographers than ever are asking to get to know the couple they are photographing on a more personal and intimate level, and for good reason. They are doing this to provide a better experience. The key will be getting customers to look at their pictures and remember how fun/romantic the photo shoot was. When I look at the Facebook and blog posts of couples who have gotten married over the past few years, I would say that 95% of them are more than pleased with their wedding photos. However only about 35% (give or take) of them talk about how enjoyable it was to take the photos. The resulting photos of this 35% were no better or worse than any of the other people that were happy with their photos. What I was able to learn was that the couples who truly felt like the photographer was a part of their wedding day and made the photo shoot as special as the ceremony or the reception were more actively promoting their photographer to their network and many of them are trying to schedule "anniversary photo shoots".</p>

<p>To summarize my long winded post, the future of photography remains a viable and profitable business for those that are willing adapt to a new business model. </p>

<p>William you're a funny guy...:)</p>

<p>. . . I certainly don't mean to be.<br />Especially not on this topic, because, it is a very serious topic.<br />This topic cuts to the heart of the existence of many people's businesses, including mine.<br />But I do take your comment as a compliment. Thank you for that.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>William you're a funny guy...:)<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p> I have no idea what he is talking about. </p>

<p>Britton, is "selling the experience" only for higher end wedding photographers ? What about the low budget photographer who offers quality work at budget prices ? Will he too be required to change over to that business model ? Will the "high volume" low budget wedding photographer still be viable ? What if one shot two weddings a weekend at 1000 a piece....that's 8K a month....not bad in my book. Will he still have to offer the "experience" ? Or will the budget photographer always have a place to make money from ? </p>

I filmed a wedding this summer (as a favor). It took me over two months to make the final 10 minute highlights video. A lot of work.

Not many views. Lesson learned - wicked fast turn around times are already the expected norm. I think their photographer quoted

around 6-8 wks so that was also more than I expected.

 

 

I think Brides will eventually expect to see a HD highlights video the next day while sitting with family, friends and wedding party

before everyone heads home. For the SDE to become financially possible the life touch model will probably apply to videos. Hire

competent crew, dump footage to servers and others will SDE.

 

 

Back to photography, I suspect rapid turn arounds will also win business. I would think the photographer who can shoot a wedding and

using built in camera wifi, select in camera jpegs every few minutes and dump direct to Facebook will win great accolades and

referrals. That buys them time to ps a hiigh quality gallery later on.

 

 

I do think a rolling video camera (eg 1DC) with non-video shutter speeds (say 1/320) could be used to grab some great micro

expression - which would be a differentiator - but that camera roll won't provide any useful video.

 

 

Maybe the convergence will mean a small team (say 3) can bid an entire package of quality stills, immediate social network up loads

and a quality video for a price between the typical stills and video package. I think a quality video needs two camera operators

minimum. And neither of those two can really capture wedding worthy stills - while also doing video. Ideally one of those operators is in an assistant role so the majority of the profit would split between 2 individuals vs three.

 

 

What is interesting to see in weddings nowadays is that the wedding photographer brings all that equipment, lighting, posing and directing experience, etc. She shoots a thousand photos. Six weeks later you will see their photos. Meanwhile, the next day 20 people have posted photos of that same wedding, some very high quality, some shot while standing right next to the photog while they directed and posed people. a day later it is fresh. Six weeks later, the bride, her mom and her sister look once.

 

I could see a tipping point one day (say 10 years) where the preferred wedding product is a gorgeous HD 15 minute wedding highlights video vs stills.

<p>William, my comment "That is all very funny" was not directed at you but Bob's comment "<em>Most likely in just a few years most clients will want stills and video from just one person and it's pertinent to be artistic. This may be the only way to continue financial freedom and success.</em>"</p>

<p>I've spoken about this with a professional videographer who is doing documentary and educational videos and he doesn't see it realistic for one person to be responsible for video, sound recording, stills and lighting for both. In my opinion, technology is irrelevant really here - the problem is the attention of the photographer is divided among too many things. The risks are too great. The technology is not the key here but the human element. It doesn't matter what the clients "will want" if it is simply not doable, wanting it won't make it happen.</p>

<p>Many photographers on this forum use lighting assistants and second shooters to just cover the stills part of the coverage. Similarly video is sometimes shot by crews. The need for these people is not about technology but about separate functions that require at least some artistic judgment or intelligence and are to be carried out simultaneously at multiple physical positions. It is also about being able to guarantee the results even in case of equipment failure.</p>

<p>John - I think that budget photographers will have to offer some sort of "experience" going forward. The interesting thing is that in many cases it is the budget photographer that is forcing the change for the higher end photogs (likely part of the reason for the dislike of budget photogs). The budget photographers of late have typically been early adopters of Facebook and social media marketing and have started adopting the "shoot and share" model primarily because they do not have a print lab or a studio and setting all of that up would take time and money (risk capital). They are choosing to adopt a less risky model and the market is responding. There will always be people on a budget and there will always be people willing to serve that market. The budget photographers will be asked provide an overall experience like high end photographers because of client's demands and expectations, but like the rest of the business world, the clients will likely get what they pay for. That is not intended to be a knock on budget photographers but is a simple truth that overtime, very few people with any business sense would continue to provide superior service for significantly less pay. my guess is that budget photographers will lack skill in some area of the business. one may take poor photos while another has a slow turn around time or you could have soomeone who takes incredible photos and has good turn around time but provides a sub par experience to the customers. It is likely that you could break every level of photographer (budget, mid, premium) in to similar groups. In the end, the simple fact is that the client’s demands will dictate the direction of the industry (not to say that photographers cannot try to influence them), and due to the inequality of wedding budgets there will always be people who can operate successful businesses at the budget, mid, and premium levels.</p>

<p>Currently, some weddings are done by 1 or 2 person team. I don't see it feasible for a 1 person shooter to do video and photo at the same time. If it is a 2 person or more team, then it's likely the team will be split into 1 videotog and 1 photog which is essentially what's happening now. </p>

<p>Personally, I don't see the convergence happening anytime soon. Maybe the bride can book videotog and photog from the same outfit but that doesn't change our operation too much.</p>

<p>I witnessed a wedding where ONE person was doing both video and photography. He had the video cam on a tripod rolling while he walked around with his still camera. So there was no variety of video angles and of course all the footage during the ceremony was in one place........middle of the aisle.</p>

<p>Now I did see one videographer who had set up three low end video cameras on tripods rolling during the ceremony while he walked around with his cam. I asked him how it all worked. He stated that the footage from the still units were what the client would be getting. HIS footage would be something "additional" they could purchase if they wanted to. Sounded fishy to me. Not giving your best footage to the client. </p>