The $500 Wedding?

[annealmasy]

Well, you can't make a living at that rate, but it could certainly be decent additional income if

you work another full-time job and just offer a shoot-and-burn package.

[gopi_rajaseharan]

I shot my first wedding for free. But it was only to get started and allow myself to look at a wedding from a different perspective. For my second wedding I charged $700. I am not sure how much I want to charge for my third wedding (haven't finalized one yet) since there is a varied amount of opinion out there. I guess that I will just use my instinct until I get to a "referral based" status.

[lou korell]

There are several reasons for the latest phenomena in low charges.

One is the perception of "digital convenience", which assumes the camera, not the photographer, takes the pictures. The other is that not everyone can afford a Mercedes. People are going to get married whether or not they can afford it. They will find the cheapest ways to get the event done and that's all they care about. Not everyone wants the big lavish fairytale wedding. Yes brides are emotional, but they also are dealing with something which may be beyond their control, money.

People who are willing to spend $500 on a wedding photographer do not generally have the same expectations that a person who will spend $10,000 does. Yes, there are a few who do and they are called undeducated customers by most of us here. It is necessary to set expectations when starting out as well as when you have some experience.

A lot of folks are happy to give the responsibility to a student for $500, knowing they won't have the greatest around but feeling like they will have something to represent their event in pictures. This is a big gamble for them but if they are willing to accept the consequences, they have a right to do so.

I think most of the people who are in the wedding business would agree that if you see people wanting to spend only $500 on a photographer for their wedding, they probably aren't in your target market.

 

Lou

[gluteal cleft]

<p><i>"There are only 1 or 2 photographers advertising, and one of them is offering services starting at $495. At that price, how could anyone possibly make a profit? Or even break even?"</i></p>

 

<p>Show up, shoot for an hour, go home, spend 1 hour in post, order $40 worth of proofs, and call it a day. They may not have business insurance or backup equipment, and after their expenses, they may keep $200 (or more) for three or four hours of work. That's not so bad to some people.</p>

[DEGREEFOTO]

Hi Alex

 

"Arthur, you are right on the money. I was shooting 35mm weddings in the 80s and was not happy with the risk the bride and groom were at with me not knowing 100 percent what was in the camera or on film when I left the hall. I switched to landscapes and underwater."

 

Yes Alex....my reason for the question I posted...because I felt the some way even though at the time I had enough knowledge behind me. Without sounding like I am having a go at digital...I feel that a lot of new starters are just hobbyist that want some pizza money as you say over there, but further to this...

 

"I am the first to state that the best road for a beginner comprises learning photographic theory at college, being apprenticed, and assisting at a number of weddings prior to shooting one`s first Wedding under a solo contract."

 

I agree with WW comments and in my case did just that. I remember some time ago whilst in Australia attending a APP meeting...the great concern that was aired by the pros as to the harm...in regards to the image that the profession was going through because of the unexperienced, unqualified 'backyarders' as they called them back them....due to the large amount of disgruntled B&G that wanted to kill someone when they saw the poor results. Granted they got what they paid for...the $500 basic pack...with 200 5x7s. The Pro's went to the extent that they put fall page adds in the trade mags to educate the public at large not to 'paint all the wedding photographer with the some paintbrush' as such.

 

I do about 25 wedding a year these days and all are from referrals as I tend to do more commercial work....but sadly I must say that I tend to get a lot of couple wanting help after the harm is done to fix their photographs...sorry if I am being politcally un correct....but I believe that there should be some kind of minimum requirement that a starter should have and that the B&G should ask for apart from a pro looking dig camera.

 

Artur

[steve_levine]

To clarify things ,I called them and didn't lie. I told him I was another photographer, and asked what the $495 included. He delivers (approximately) a 300 print album of 4x6 prints, and sells the digital files on CD, including all day coverage to the client for $495!

 

 

 

IMHO, It is far better to hire yourself out to some low budget hack, and cut your teeth on their reputation. This way you can go on your own with a skill set, an unsullied reputation and the freedom to price into the middle of, not the bottom of, the market place.

 

What if McDonalds tried to triple their prices? Once you become known as $500 Steve, it is hard to move upwards from there. When a referral calls and they hear the new tripled price, you are all done. You now have to re-invent yourself to the next level. Which asks the question "why did I sell my skills for so cheap in the first place"?

[William Michael]

A side note:

 

Artur Wrote:

 

>I remember some time ago whilst in Australia attending a APP meeting...the great concern that was aired by the pros as to the harm...in regards to the image that the profession was going through because of the unexperienced, unqualified 'backyarders' as they called them back them....<

 

I bet I was at that meeting too.

 

I almost used the term `backyarders`, but did not assume others might know the term intimately.

 

The backyarders still come and go.

 

Yes Mr Levine, it is SO SO difficult for the low priced discounters to ever raise their price, here in our market place too.

 

But that is a free market place for you; I am happy where our business is placed.

 

Regards,

 

WW

[william_pride]

Why would someone spend $50K on a Jaguar? Because they can, I suppose. Does the Jaguar dealer cry foul when a Toyota is sold?

[cjbryant]

I can see how people can live off of $500 weddings. If you look at what most of them offer, they pretty much just offer the CD/DVD of the images and leave it at that. Thats roughly $4 per wedding. If they offer proofs as well, that will eat up some of their profit, maybe $100 or so.

 

Now lets look at equipment...

 

They can get by with Digital Rebels ($700 or so each) or similar prosumer SLR's. As many know, its not the camera that makes the pictures. Thats $1200.

 

Lenses: Renting lenses is an option, but a very pricey one. If they were to get 3rd party lenses they could save a few hundred dollars. Lets say they get a 28-70 and a 70-200 (both 2.8) and a backup.. $2500

 

Computers: They most likely will skimp on the computer part of the business. In fact, I use an emachine (owned by Gateway) that I have upgraded and saved about $400 by doing so. We will say $600 or so for the computer. $500-600 for software... $1200 total

 

CF cards: Sales occur all the time and you can pretty much buy them for nothing now if you find the right sale. I recently bought 2gb cards from Best Buy for $35 each.. 6 2gb cards $210

 

Equipment costs: $5110

 

Now if they do 40+ weddings a year at $500, they will have at least $20,000 in sales. It wouldnt be too hard to get 40 weddings at that price in a fairly populated area. Now what many of these places do is hire other photographers to do weddings for them... Now here comes the tricky part...

 

If the owner hires them as an employee, he must pay income taxes, Social Security taxes, etc for that employee. Now if the owner hires him as a subcontractor, the photographer would be responsible for the taxes, not the owner. However, I believe that the subcontractor can only work for the same person 5 times per year, otherwise they are considered an employee.

 

So if the owner does 40 weddings a year, hires subcontractors to do 40 weddings a year (at $250 per wedding) the owner would pocket roughly $30000 per year. Not too bad, but certainly not enough to live on alone. Thats why many of them have other full time or part time jobs to supplement the photography income.

 

 

So it can be done..

[conraderb]

my #1 principle: wedding photographers are not morally entitled to make any set amount of money or profit or revenue.

 

if we were farmers or factory workers, perhaps, but wedding photography is a luxury service industry, and anyone someone can't cut it, I'm sorry, but you can't blame your competition.

 

>At that price, how could anyone possibly make a profit? Or even break >even?

 

Maybe they shoot winters, too. Maybe they don't want to make a profit - maybe they want experience.

 

>This isn't enough to pay for a pair of camera outfits and a lap top?

 

well, $500 is certainly enough to pay for two Olympus OM-1 cameras, a 50mm 1.8, a 135 2.8 and a 28mm/35mm 2.8, and two vivitar 283/285 flashes.

 

one wedding and their gear is paid for - plus they have pretty good glass!

 

no computer needed.

 

throw in another $30 for 3 rolls of portra film and $50 to process and print the three rolls, and they are in busienss!

 

>What about insurance

 

they skip it.

 

>travel costs

 

they book local jobs.

 

>equipment depreciation

 

taxes and paperwork? they don't worry about that.

 

>printing costs

 

if they shoot 3 rolls at a wedding, no problem.

 

>But luckily I used a realistic business model. Suffice to >say, >pricing one's self at sub $500 will get you no where fast, and >you >will be broke when you arrive.

 

Steve - you use YOUR business model. When I was starting out, I charged $500 for a wedding too.

 

At $500 a wedding, I'm sure they will book 20 weddings in a year. after that year, they realize:

 

1) hey, I suck at weddings and I ruined the memories for 20 couples. I am out of business.

 

2) hey, I love it, but my pictures suck. My clients won't pay more than $500 because I shoot everything at f11, 1/125th at a second with direct flash. too bad Steve Levine still rakes in the dough b/c his pictures are so much better, I can't even compare.

 

3) hey, I am great at weddings, and my work is just like Steve Levine, so I'm going to charge what I'm worth. (They become your competition, which is a natural part of the economic cycle.)

 

But really, why are you complaining? I don't know how much you charge, but I'm guessing that the $500 a wedding clients can't afford you anyway.

 

> The best advice is to not learn on the job at discount prices. This > will only pigeon hole you into an inescapable low end corner.

 

I agree that people should not be learning on the job! But I disagree disagree about the pricing suggestion unless you are in small city/rural area. I started shooting for $400 a day with the setup I named above. I shot 15 weddings this way, all with good results, until I realized that my skills were much better. I quit working for a company as a subcontractor and started booking my own gigs, and people were happy to pay me $1000 once they saw my work. this was in washington DC where a good photographer can charge a lot more than $1000. Now most of my bookings are $2500-$3000 and no one has a problem with that. In fact, I booked one couple at $1000, her brother at $1500, and her 2nd brother at $2500. no problems there.

 

>Find a mentor that knows how to do the job, and make a living, and >learn from them.

 

I agree with that!

 

To $500 photographers out there - I was once one of you, and $500 weddings still boil in my blood, so go for it! (as long as you, goodness gracious, know what you are doing technically and bring two cameras to the wedding!).

 

If you can do what I do for $500, and you can make a living out of it, go for it b/c that means I am doing something wrong.

[nancy s.]

If you plan to shoot weddings full time for $500 I hope you do a lot of them.

 

 

Health insurance costs are huge. The last quote I saw was for $9,000 a year and it had a pretty good out of pocket and deductible.

[robbie_caswell]

With this approach, I don't believe that one is necessarily painting themselves into a corner and forever being locked into $500 a wedding.

 

Talent always rises to the top.

 

I booked three at close to that price in less than a month. They weren't local, and it was unlikely I would have booked anything else in that time. Also, they are beautiful brides at scenic locales and will add nicely to the portfolio material.

 

I expect business to really pick up in the fall, and look to an August bridal fair as my "official" launch.

[david_eicher]

>>To clarify things ,I called them and didn't lie. I told him I was another photographer, and asked what the $495 included. He delivers (approximately) a 300 print album of 4x6 prints, and sells the digital files on CD, including all day coverage to the client for $495!<<

 

So many of you are thinking of this as a full time job for every photographer. One of the best in the business back in the 80's told me you will NEVER become rich doing Wedding photographer, you can make a GOOD living, but NEVER be rich. He then stated, it will be the part-time shooter and full time employee with benefits, that will become rich. I followed this statement for my 28 years of shooting weddings in Orlando and worked full time at the local newspaper. At 48, I semi-retired and moved from the 'stress capital of the USA' to a small town. Here I still shoot some $500 weddings, actually $550 is my minimum but remember to add in the additional orders and they turn into $750 to $1000 weddings.

Big whoops, so the guy offers $495 wedding, even if he prints the images out at Wallyworld, he is still netting $390 after album and CD. If he's got a full time job with bene's, he's feeling fine. Doing more than 1 a day, and he's really feeling fine.

Reap what you sow, digital has brought this too the Wedding market in far greater numbers than film ever did.

[kiva]

I know there are many thousands of people who paid $500 for a used car.

 

The car died within a year after costing them money on repair in addition to the original cost and the insurance followed by the cost of having it towed away. Ug.

 

How much are a couples wedding photos worth ... is this the question that needs to be asked?

 

Many couples just can't "see" the value of the photography and that's ok yet I find myself wanting to urge the bridal couple to consider the impact good wedding photography can have For a Family in years to come. You don't have to buy the BMW of photographers but one could buy proven quality in their wedding photography.

 

The photographs become a wonderful foundation for the relationship and for the children and future generations. Some relationships end but the sense of roots and family is never-ending and it's important to humans in general.

 

How long did that used car last and where is it today?

 

Note:

The truth is that I started out very affordable but I spent four years practicing and gathering the right equipment and shooting the first wedding as an unpaid second shooter. Life is Good. The market will be what the market will be and that's the way I like it so I encourage the new photographers but also inform them of the importance of preparation for the mission at hand: a wedding is not to be taken lightly and one should take the responsibility to be ready with the correct equipment and to do continuing education (like reading this forum and it's fine members who patiently educate as well as continue to learn as new information comes out).

[mark_harrington1]

There appear to be two schools of thought regarding wedding photography pricing. First is the consumate professional who must and does have the best equipment, experience and skills to get high paying jobs. The second, the emmerging photographer who MAY have the basic equipment and skills to do the job, but definately needs to acquire more equipment, experience and possibly even style so that they can charge more.

 

To respond to comments like Artur's that ask would you charge $500 if you shot film? My answer is perhaps, (especially because digital has a much lower cost than film). Did Artur shoot his first wedding for $4,500?

 

If I am trying to become a doctor, lawyer or other professional I would invest over $100,000 in my education and work sixty hour weeks for little more than $30,000 per year (14.63/hr) while I acquire more skills and the other tools to then charge more. Over time I will hopefully recoup my cost and move on to significantly higher income.

 

With regards to putting up with "Bridezilla's" I would notice that is a result of a failure on the part of the photographer to clearly define the scope of work, or to give an unrealistic impression of what the bride will get for the money. How many photographers show their very best images, ones that have been significantly retouched and masterfully printed to clients who can't or are not willing to pay for such services?

 

I guess the real upshot of $500 weddings is that they are the minimum wage job equivallent. It's easy for established wedding pro's to say you need to charge more, but not so easy for those who are still learning the craft.

 

There are not many (if any) internships for photographers, and if there were wouldn't the interns do most of the work for very little or even no pay - just like doctors? So can't we agree that doing $500 weddings is like a doctor serving an internship or going to college - albeit the school of hard knocks!

 

There will always be a need for low cost wedding photographers willing to trade time for prints (does TFP sound familiar) just like emerging portrait/fashion photographers and models willing to trade time for prints.

 

I have thousands of dollars of equipment and routinely give away my work so that I can enjoy my hobby - Photography.

[DEGREEFOTO]

Good point Mark Harrington.....but after getting the proper training...my first solo under contract wedding was charged at $AUD2800.00

 

I now don't go under 3200 euros per wedding...but yes you do have a valid point. In regards to getting rich from this trade...well I knew one Australian photographer who moved over to the states as the market got too small for him in Oz just to keep up with his life style...yes he does have a Ferrari and now works out of Chicago...and most of his trainees have moved on to bigger and better pay packets...

 

Artur

[justscattin]

My goal is not to get rich, but to be able to pay my bills and make a little more to put into savings. I do this FIRST of all because I love being a photographer. If I didn't love it, there is no amount of money on the face of the earth that would make it worth my while to shoot a wedding.

But I do love it, and I charge according to my skill and experiance.

Most photographers don't mentor because the mentored become the compeition. can't blame them for that!

Michelle

[blakley]

From a purely economic viewpoint the package doesn't seem that bad for the photographer. You don't need great equipment to get a photo you can print with good quality at 4x6 - a consumer DSLR and a cheap lens will do fine. If you don't already have the equipment, you can pick it up for probably $500 including flash - maybe a bit more if you toss in extra batteries and memory cards.

 

Running costs are extremely low. Print your 4x6s at snapfish, and you can get them for 10 cents apiece. A CD is another dollar. If you can get an album for $19, that's about $50 for the whole lot. Even if you figure gas, electricity for computer time to correct the prints, a few bucks for advertising, and a more expensive album, you can probably still keep expenses to $85. This leaves you with $410 net from a $495 wedding. If you spend 8 hours shooting the wedding, that's $51.50 per hour, which is ten times the federal minimum wage.

 

It's not a living (since you can't work more than about one day every two weeks), but as a small supplement to a regular job, you could do a lot worse, and the day rate is a lot better than McDonald's.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Sure the person can be making alot of money! :) <BR><BR>They might be using a friends or parents car; living at home; having free meals.<BR><BR> They might buy all their film or digital camera gear out of state to skirt the local sales taxes. <BR><BR>They might also be total self supporting and be from another country have have a better gut sense of living thrifty than a typical fat American. <BR><BR>They might be doing all their digital printing at home with no clues as to actual costs. <BR><BR>They might use the 500 price to attact folks and the typical wedding might be 2 to 3x more,<BR><BR>You are as only smart as you dumbest competitor if your business is a commodity. <BR><BR>If you they are going under you might be pulled into the vortex too. :).<BR><BR>In college and living in a dorm my cost structure was radically cheap; I walked everywhere and had no car even, no insurance.<BR><BR>Another chap with a cost structure 1/10 of your own has a radically lower break-even point. He/She might have a used camera and computer; be a guru with lighting and people and really do better work too. Folks with a bloaded high operating cost are going to laugh a prices that others often are making a good buck at. <BR><BR>Unless you really know the other chaps costs it really not easy to guess at his profitabilty.

[patrick_viebey___orlando__]

It's sorta funny to me. This is one of 3 things:

1: Someone who didn't really do all the numbers, and will expense himself out of business.

2: Someone who did the numbers, has other sources of income, and hey, an extra $500 for 'free' doesn't hurt. They are likely not well equipped, experienced, etc.

3: A business that is playing pricing games. Yeah, for $500 we'll be there for 1 hour, and give you 20 4x6 prints, but if you want our platinum plan, blah blah.

 

My bet first it's 3, then 2. 1 is a possibility (look at the number of businesses that die in 2 months).

 

Either way, it sorts itself out. If it's 1, then they go away. If it's 2, they'll attract customers who would hire "Uncle Bob" otherwise. If it's 3, well, that's capitalism...caveat emptor!

 

pat

[kelly_flanigan1]

Patrick ; there are also wedding photographers who are younger and dont do ANY PRINTING. There is none of this "old mans" expenses to figure for printing. They just sell the CD with all rights to the bride and groom; and go one to another wedding job. <BR><BR>Your lower cost shooter might be nibble; not messing with albums and printing and reprinting either. <BR><BR>Or they might be bonding with a local printer to do the printing and get a cut of the action. <BR><BR>Older more established folks can often be clinging to a different older business model that a new shooter doesnt do.<BR><BR>In printing I have seen this trend increase where the job is sold lock, stock and barrel with the only delivered goods is several CD's.

[steve_hovland]

There's a cafe in Paris that has Picasso's on the wall.

 

When Picasso was starting out, he traded paintings for meals.

 

What does a Picasso cost now?

[david_eicher]

>>1: Someone who didn't really do all the numbers, and will expense himself out of business. 2: Someone who did the numbers, has other sources of income, and hey, an extra $500 for 'free' doesn't hurt. They are likely not well equipped, experienced, etc. 3: A business that is playing pricing games. Yeah, for $500 we'll be there for 1 hour, and give you 20 4x6 prints, but if you want our platinum plan, blah blah.<<

 

Hello Patrick, I see you are from my old home town. You name is not recognizable to me, maybe not mine to you either. How long have you been shooting there?

Shot in Orlando for 25 years, part-time and yes, I had $500 weddings AND higher packages, so I would have to say I was #3, although I offered much more time and prints than your scenario, plus there were additional orders. Certaining not #2 being I came to each wedding with 3 to evently 4 medium format cameras, 3 flash units and 2 battery packs. Hardly what I would call underequipped. Back then, I was probably looked down on by some of the Studio Photographers because I shot for less and worked out of my home. That was probably the worst problem those Photographers had to face back before digital. With the advent of digital, more Uncle Bobs have come to the fore front and along with fair to good equipment, again are undercutting prices and providing a product to the people who are looking for cheaper coverage. Life has gotten expensive and anywhere they can cut expenses, they will. Unfortunately, even Wedding Photography is facing this problem. There is alot of folks out there and by my last look at the Orlando phonebook a huge amount of Photographers. I think Orlando had two phone books for Bellsouth coverage when I left, have they managed to go to three yet?? LOL

[patrick_viebey___orlando__]

Kelly/David:

 

Hi!

 

I'm actually one of those folks who only shoot digital (D2X/D1X). Yes, you can reduce your operational expenses that way a LOT (especially since I don't 'do' books or prints for my customers). But, still, you have fixed expenses (like finding/closing customers, insurance, mileage, meals, etc) that eat stuff up. And good equipment isn't cheap...

 

I'm also one of those 'weekend' photogs some folks rail on, but for me, $500 is below what I consider a reasonable income for my time, all factors considered.

 

I've been doing photography for over 25 years, when the only 'automatic' function was exposure (getting a Canon A1 with a LED display was high tech). Did a bunch of events/weddings, enjoyed the experience, and had folks try to convince me to go fulltime, but basically I already had a pretty good career, and basically shooting film for something as critical as a wedding made me not enjoy it, because I always had this nagging worry about that 'latent' image. I also hated not being able to really visulize the output, so I mostly shot Kodachrome (I didn't want to do my own printing). Folks who still shoot film will decry this, but it's what I felt. Digital allows me to verify I have an image, so my comfort level is much higher, and of course I still have the skills needed before 'auto everything' became popular...

 

I also have 30+ years experience in the computer industry, so the intersection of computers and cameras is a natural for me.

 

I had a bunch of other 'life experiences' that kept me from photography, but decided to get back into it. Doing wedding/events and stuff is a way for me to generate extra income (and help justify some of my expenses). I for sure don't need it today for a living, but at $500, by the time you really boil down the 'hidden' costs (beyond that 6 hour day shooting the wedding), I just consider my time (and skills) worth more than that.

 

I'm pretty sure this 'floor' of 'semi-pros' has always existed. IMHO, digital has dropped the 'floor' because of the reduction in 'fixed' expenses (film/printing). And, 'auto everything' has reduced the risk to the inexperienced...or so they think... I'm continually amazed by the folks who book a wedding and then ask "what do I do next..." for something so important to their customers.

 

 

 

BTW: I've been in Orlando area for about 18 years, moved here from San Antonio.

 

pat

[jay_hern]

I plan on doing the 500 dollar wedding this year. For those of you who are telling me to go to school or assist someone.. Yes, that is the perfect way to get in the field. But it doesn't mean it is the easiest or most plausible.

 

I assisted last summer with a photographer who turned out to be a high priced thug who not only treated me like a lower then minimum wage thug, but also as a slave. I worked for him, carried all his lenses and even tried shooting my own pictures and netted 75 dollars for 6-8 hours. I was happy to do it for the experience (despite the fact that he was not willing to teach, I had to figure out everything for myself). He eventually jipped me of the 75 dollars for the last wedding and since then I have no been able to find someone else who would let me assist or 2nd shoot. I have one person who has shot 300 weddings who might help me out, but I think I have to just go on my own here.

 

I am fairly good.. People have told me that they love my pictures, and I have done research and practiced for about a year. I spend my days researching and building my business plan and nights working part time at UPS. Unfortunately, for me to get halfway through the photography program at the local college I would need to go to school for 3 years and give up my 2nd job. And the cost of this would be tons of debt for something that won't help me much (because after reading as many books and practicing as much as I have, I have learned alot.)

 

So assisting/2nd shooting is out of the question and school is out of the question. So that leaves me with the dreaded 500 dollar weddings. You guys are very discouraging of this, but some people have to start out at 500 dollar weddings. Do I plan on staying at this price? No.

 

I don't have 6,000 dollars for equipment. Right now I am looking at starting out with a d80 and my d50 backup (I know, uh oh.,.. different camera backup).. a tamron 17-50 2.8 (probably use an 18-70 for a year as a backup or if I can afford it another 17-50 hopefully) and a used 80-200 2.8 Nikkor. I have flashes, extra batteries, 12g in SD cards and I am getting a better tripod. I am also getting a sekonic light meter, and will end up putting out about 2.5-3 grand in expenses for my first year. Now how many of you are going to tell me here that my 500 dollar business model is faulty and my gear is under par and that I shouldn't even bother. How many of you are going to tell me that I am under prepared and that I should spend half of my life becoming fantastic so I can then break into the market 300 dollars higher at my minimum package?

 

I learn from experience.

 

My intention for shooting these 500 dollars isn't to turn a profit. In fact after my first year even if I book a fair amount of weddings, I plan on being in debt. But my plan is to be out of that debt within 3 years and turning some sort of profit. This is why I am starting out like this, doing weddings (and senior portraits).. Because it allows me to keep my part time jobs (with benefits woohoo) and still do this until I can turn a profit and create a product that will sell itself.

 

I charge 500 dollars because I have no choice. I am going in to learn and to make a good product, and despite being grossly unprepared as you say I plan on going in and over the expectations of the b/g, because that is how I work. For those of you who want to tell me that I am ruining the market or that I am destined for failure, you may be right.. but boy do I hope that you are wrong.

 

By the way, I hope I didn't sound too cocky in this post, because in reality I am afraid.. scared to death even of starting my own photography business.. but at the same time I am so excited that I can hardly contain myself.